Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark. 1987. The metaphorical logic of rape. Journal Article. pp. 73-79
Abstract
There is a classical theory of metaphor that says that metaphor is merely a matter of naming - of attaching words to concepts they ordinarily wouldn't go with. The naming theory contrasts with the view that metaphor is conceptual in nature, a means of understanding one domain of experience in terms of the conceptual structure of another domain. The two views contrast most vividly on the issue of whether metaphor enters into reasoning. On the naming view, metaphors cannot enter into reasoning because they have nothing to do with how we think; they are just names. On the conceptual view, metaphor plays a major role in reasoning - it is one of our principal means for comprehending and reasoning about abstract concepts. In recent years, considerable evidence has been amassed for the conceptual view, based on the role of metaphor in reasoning (see Gentner and Gentner, 1983; Holland and Quinn, 1987). This column has several goals: (a) to add to the growing body of research on metaphorical reasoning; (b) to try to clarify just what is meant by metaphorical reasoning, and to show how metaphors interact with our folk beliefs; (c) to show that metaphorical reasoning that is based on conventional metaphors is mostly an automatic process, performed unconsciously and without noticeable effort; and (d) to show that the study of metaphorical reasoning is anything but an irrelevant ivory tower enterprise. Instead, it is at the heart of many social issues of the greatest importance.(George Lakoff and Mark Johnson)