ABSTRACT
From the earliest writing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT; see Chapter 1, this volume) to the present, linguistic metaphors have been the main type of evidence provided in support of the existence of conceptual metaphors. For instance, the classic work by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) begins with a discussion of the well-known argument is war mapping. Lakoff and Johnson write that ‘this metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions’ (4) among which they list ‘your claims are indefensible . . . He attacked every weak point in my argument . . . His criticisms were right on target’ (ibid.). In 1993, by which time CMT had become the established paradigm in metaphor studies, Lakoff published a book chapter setting out his position on metaphor in thought and language. He cited five types of evidence for the existence of conceptual metaphors. Of the three that he describes as ‘the most robust’ (1993: 205), two are linguistic: ‘Generalizations governing polysemy’ and ‘Generalizations governing novel metaphorical language’ (ibid.). He goes on to cite many lists of linguistic metaphors as evidence for the conceptual metaphors believed to underlie and motivate them. To date, numerous other publications in this tradition have cited lists of linguistic metaphors as evidence for conceptual metaphors. In 2014, for instance, Rojas-Sosa proposed twelve conceptual metaphors for love based on Spanish language data. These included the object of desire is a field, for which the evidence cited is the linguistic metaphors in the expression ‘Un terreno fértil donde dejar huellas’ translated by the author as ‘[I am looking for] a fertile terrain where I can leave footprints’ (2014: 205).
