MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215275360 · doi:10.21125/iceri.2021.1987

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF JUDICIAL DISCOURSE IN CANADA AND THE USA

2021· article· en· W3215275360 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueICERI proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsVocabularyGrammarPronunciationLinguistic competenceCompetence (human resources)SociologyConversationPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metaphors are believed to make our speech and writing more colourful and expressive and are commonly associated with poetry and fiction. However, in everyday communication these tropes are used as well and have become its integral part. For instance, in a short mundane dialogue two speakers may use idioms to convey the ideas and notions more clearly. Thus, we can maintain that metaphors are not only the tools of poets, novelists, and writers, but a linguistic means which is common to all styles and genres. Moreover, metaphors are considered to be the language elements which reflect the national identity and mentality and in a condensed way preserve the national values and beliefs. They form the system of notions which are unique and specific for each country. Metaphors may also be recognized as cultural heritage of the nation, the most vital part of national world-image. It is known that teaching a foreign language besides pure linguistic aspects implies the transference of cultural peculiarities of the country or region where this language is spoken. The students who want to succeed in intercultural communication should acquire skills in pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar and, in addition, study conceptual metaphors which may assist them in understanding the national character and mentality of the country which language they are studying. Such an approach will form the basis of students’ linguistic competence and make them qualified professionals. The aim of this article is to share the research results which were obtained during the discourse analysis of courtroom communication in Canada and the USA. The analysis consists of quantitative examination, the purpose of which is to reveal the frequency of metaphors and idioms in judicial discourse, and qualitative examination, which implies the study of national concepts and values underlying metaphorical expressions. The article contains a table where the metaphors are categorized according to the main concepts which they convey as well as their literal meaning. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the research results are of high pedagogical importance as they may be included in teaching manuals and textbooks. For instance, this material may be used as reference by both students and professors, who teach legal English as a second language.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it