When we use the metaphor 'Time is money,' which best describes the cognitive operation according to conceptual metaphor theory?
AWe replace the word 'time' with financial language as a stylistic ornament
BWe project the relational structure of the economic domain (spending, wasting, investing, saving) onto the temporal domain, so economic reasoning patterns organize our thinking about time
CWe assert that time and money are literally the same substance
DWe express an analogy: some aspects of time are similar to some aspects of money
Conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff and Johnson) holds that metaphor is a cognitive mechanism: a systematic mapping of relational structure from a source domain (money/economics) to a target domain (time). 'Time is money' imports an entire inferential structure — time can be spent, wasted, invested, saved, budgeted, run out of. These entailments are licensed by the mapping. Option D is closest but misses the systematicity — it is not just similarity but structural projection of an entire relational system.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A critic argues that metaphors in scientific discourse are harmless stylistic flourishes that could always be replaced by literal language without loss of meaning. What does conceptual metaphor theory show is wrong with this view?
AScientific language contains no metaphors — it uses only technical terms with precise definitions
BConceptual metaphors organize the inferential structure of a domain, so removing them would require a different conceptual system, not just different words
CMetaphors are required by the brain for comprehension and cannot be removed even in principle
DScientific metaphors are purely ornamental but they improve memory retention
Conceptual metaphor theory's key claim is that metaphors are structural, not decorative — they shape which inferences are available and which aspects of the target domain are highlighted. 'The atom is a solar system' licenses specific inferences (electrons orbit a massive center, discrete orbital radii). Stripping the metaphor does not reveal a literal equivalent — it removes the inferential structure. Option A is empirically false: science is full of metaphors ('gene expression,' 'force,' 'field,' 'information'). Option C makes too strong a neurological claim.
Question 3 True / False
In conceptual metaphor theory, a single source domain can project its relational structure onto a target domain in a systematic way, licensing a network of related inferences rather than isolated word substitutions.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This systematicity is what distinguishes conceptual metaphors from isolated metaphorical phrases. 'Time is money' licenses not just 'spend time' but an entire set of expressions: waste time, invest time, save time, run out of time, budget time, time is precious. The same economic relational structure maps onto the temporal domain at multiple points. This shows the metaphor is cognitive — organizing thought — not merely linguistic.
Question 4 True / False
Metaphorical meaning is inherently unstable and creative, so it can seldom be studied systematically — each use of a metaphor is an individual act of imagination.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Conceptual metaphor theory shows that most everyday metaphors are conventional and systematic, not creative. Expressions like 'spend time,' 'waste an opportunity,' 'the high point of her career,' 'digging for information' are instances of underlying conceptual mappings that structure ordinary thought. The systematicity of these mappings — many expressions following the same source-to-target projection — is evidence that metaphor is a cognitive structure, not a rhetorical device. Novel creative metaphors exist, but they are departures from a systematic background of conventional conceptual mappings.
Question 5 Short Answer
How does metaphorical mapping differ from mere comparison or analogy, and why does this matter for understanding how metaphor extends meaning?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: A comparison says 'A is like B in some respect,' leaving A and B as independent domains. A conceptual metaphor projects the relational and inferential structure of the source domain onto the target domain, reorganizing how we think about the target. The mapping is asymmetric (we understand time through money, not money through time) and selective — it highlights certain aspects of the target domain and suppresses others. The extension of meaning is not a comparison of pre-existing features but a restructuring of the target domain's conceptual organization.
The philosophical significance is that metaphorical meaning is not a detour around literal meaning but a constitutive mechanism for how conceptual domains are organized. Many domains lack a prior literal structure that the metaphor decorates — the metaphor provides the structure itself.