We saw in the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor that expressions from the vocabulary of war, e.g., attack a position, indefensible, strategy, new line of attack, win, gain ground, etc., form a systematic way of talking about the battling aspects of arguing. It is no accident that these expressions mean what they mean when we use them to talk about arguments. A portion of the conceptual network of battle partially characterizes the concept of an argument, and the language follows suit. Since metaphorical expressions in our language are tied to metaphorical concepts in a systematic way, we can use metaphorical linguistic expressions to study the nature of metaphorical concepts and to gain an understanding of the metaphorical nature of our activities. ('2. The Systematicity of Metaphorical Concepts', p. 7)
The weak homonymy position would deny that we understand the abstract in terms of the concrete or that we understand concepts of one kind in terms of another kind at all. It claims only that we can perceive similarities between various concepts and that such similarities will account for the use of the same words for the concepts. （'18. Some Consequences for Theories of Conceptual Structure,' p. 112）
(London: The university of Chicago press, 1980）