A cornerstone of contemporary cognitive linguistics, the theory of conceptual metaphor fundamentally challenges the traditional view of metaphor as a mere rhetorical flourish or poetic device. Proponents, most notably George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, posit that metaphor is not primarily a feature of language but of thought and reason itself. The central tenet of this theory is that human beings systematically understand and experience one conceptual domain—the abstract or less delineated 'target domain'—in terms of another, more concrete 'source domain'. This cognitive mechanism, known as conceptual mapping, allows for the transference of inferential structures from the source to the target. For instance, the pervasive conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR structures our understanding of intellectual disputes, leading to expressions like "he won the argument," "his claims are indefensible," and "I attacked his weak points." The entailments of this mapping are profound; by framing arguments as combative encounters, we constrain our reasoning and perception, often overlooking possibilities for collaborative or constructive dialogue. This cognitive structuring operates largely unconsciously, shaping not only our language but also the very way we conceptualize reality and navigate our social world, demonstrating its function as an indispensable cognitive tool.