1. modern linguistics as a change of paradigms

What constitutes the LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor is not any particular word
or expression. It is the ontological mapping across conceptual domains, from the
source domain of journeys to the target domain of love. The metaphor is not just
a matter of language, but of thought and reason. The language is secondary. The
mapping is primary, in that it sanctions the use of source domain language and
inference patterns for target domain concepts. The mapping is conventional; that
is, it is a fixed part of our conceptual system, one of our conventional ways of
conceptualising love relationships. (Lakoff 1993:208)
A (conventional) metaphor is therefore a conceptual mapping between twodomains. The mapping is asymmetrical, however: the metaphorical expression profiles a conceptual structure in the target domain, not the sourcedomain.
The mapping between source and target domains involves two sorts of correspond- ences, epistemic and ontological. The ontological correspondences holdbetween elements of one domain and elements of the other domain; epistemic correspond- ences are correspondences between relations holding between elementsin one domain and relations between elements in the other domain (this includes,for instance, encyclopedic knowledge about the domain). The phenomenon of
correspondence will be illustrated using the example of ANGER IS HEAT OF A FLUID (Lakoff 1987:387):

(7) Ontological correspondences

source: HEAT OF FLUID target: ANGER
containerbody
heat of fluidanger
heat scale anger scale
pressure in containerexperienced pressure
agitation of boiling fluidexperienced agitation
limit of container’s resistance limit of person’s ability to suppress anger
explosionloss of control

(8) Epistemic correspondences

When fluid in a container is heatedWhen anger increases beyond a certain
beyond a certain limit, pressure limit, ‘pressure’ increases to point at
increases to point at whichwhich person loses control.
container explodes.

An explosion is damaging toLoss of control is damaging to person

container and dangerous toand dangerous to others.
bystanders.
Explosion can be prevented byAnger can be suppressed by force of will.
applyingsufficient force and
counterpressure.
Controlled release of pressure mayAnger can be released in a controlled
occur, which reduces danger of way, or vented harmlessly, thus reducing
explosion. level.

In general, metaphors are conceptual structures, and are not merely linguistic

in nature, although, of course, they are normally realized linguistically. The cor-
respondences between domains are represented in the conceptual system, and are
fully conventionalized among members of a speech community. An open-ended
range of linguistic expressions can tap into the same conceptual structure in both
conventional and unconventional ways, and be understood immediately: a conceptual metaphor cannot therefore be reduced to a finite set of linguistic expressions.
What Lakoff calls ‘elaborations’ involve more specific versions of a basic metaphorwhose characteristics in the source domain carry over to the target domain. Forinstance, the difference in intensity between boil and simmer in reference to aheated liquid carries over to indicate corresponding differences in degree of angerin to boil with anger and to simmer with anger.
Another consequence of the conceptual nature of metaphor is that certain patterns of reasoning may carry over from the source domain to the target domain.
Lakoff calls these ‘metaphorical entailments’ (it is not clear how metaphorical
entailments differ from epistemic correspondences). For instance, with reference
to the metaphor She demolished his argument,anexample of the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor: if you destroy all your enemy’s weapons, you win the war;
similarly, if you demolish all your opponent’s points in an argument, you win the
argument.
We may summarize Lakoff’s conceptual theory of metaphor as follows:
(i) It is a theory of recurrently conventionalized expressions in everyday lan-
guage in which literal and metaphorical elements are intimately combined
grammatically.
(ii) The conventional metaphorical expressions are not a purely linguistic
phenomenon, but the manifestation of a conceptual mapping between
two semantic domains; hence the mapping is general and productive
(and assumed to be characteristic of the human mind).
(iii) The metaphorical mapping is asymmetrical: the expression is about a
situation in one domain (the target domain) using concepts mapped over
from another domain (the source domain).
(iv) The metaphorical mapping can be used for metaphorical reasoning about
concepts in the target domain.