Are cross-domain mappings psychologically real, but conceptually shallow? What is still left to test for Conceptual Metaphor Theory

This article assesses two objections directed at Conceptual Metaphor Theory: (1) it is circular in that it only provides linguistic evidence for the psychological reality of cross-domain mappings, intended to explain the empirical reality of metaphorical expressions in language; (2) it does not support the conclusion that the massive existence of metaphorical expressions in language reflects the metaphorical structuring of abstract concepts. It is my aim to disentangle these objections. Evidence abounds that makes the first objection obsolete, proving the psychological reality of cross-domain mappings. However, this does not imply that abstract concepts are metaphorically structured: experiments that prove objection (1) wrong cannot be invoked to reject objection (2). Some even tend to justify it.