Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) was developed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson to explain how abstract thought is systematically structured by more concrete domains of experience. In Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that metaphors are not merely rhetorical devices but fundamental cognitive mechanisms that shape perception, reasoning, and action. A conceptual metaphor consists of a stable set of correspondences, or mappings, between a source domain, typically grounded in sensorimotor experience, and a target domain, which is usually more abstract (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Kövecses, 2020). Through these mappings, individuals understand and reason about complex phenomena using familiar experiential structures.

Within this framework, meaning does not arise from isolated linguistic expressions but from underlying conceptual structures that motivate families of metaphorical expressions. For instance, the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY organizes understanding of romantic relationships through elements such as travelers, paths, destinations, and obstacles. Expressions like “we are at a crossroads” or “our relationship is going nowhere” are surface realizations of this deeper conceptual system. Johnson (1987) further emphasized that such metaphorical structures are grounded in embodied experience, arguing that human cognition relies on recurring patterns of bodily interaction with the environment, which he termed image schemas.

Earlier psychological approaches to metaphor comprehension, such as those reviewed by Tourangeau and Sternberg (1982), proposed that metaphors are processed either as anomalies, comparisons, or interactions between domains. While comparison-based accounts explain metaphor comprehension through perceived similarities, interactionist approaches align more closely with CMT by emphasizing dynamic domain mapping and mutual constraint. CMT extends these views by claiming that metaphorical mappings are conventional, systematic, and largely unconscious, thereby providing a comprehensive account of metaphor as a cognitive phenomenon rather than a purely linguistic one.

Although initially grounded in verbal language, subsequent research has demonstrated that conceptual metaphors can also be expressed visually. Forceville (1996) showed that pictorial metaphors rely on the same source–target logic as verbal metaphors, even when no text is present. Visual metaphors may take hybrid, contextual, or juxtaposed forms, but in all cases, interpretation depends on the viewer’s ability to activate culturally shared conceptual mappings.

In marketing and advertising, CMT has proven particularly influential. Visual and verbal metaphors are widely used to communicate abstract brand values, such as quality, innovation, or trust, in a concise and affectively engaging manner. When consumers successfully resolve a metaphor, the resulting cognitive pleasure can transfer to the advertised brand, enhancing attitudes and memorability (van Mulken, le Pair, & Forceville, 2014). However, effective metaphor use requires an optimal balance between novelty and interpretive effort, as overly obscure metaphors may hinder comprehension and generate negative evaluations.

References

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.

Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244.

Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. Routledge.

van Mulken, M., le Pair, R., & Forceville, C. (2014). The impact of perceived complexity, deviation, and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 1–17.