Cognitive linguistics considers language as a window into human consciousness providing insights into its structuresand reflecting fundamental properties of the human mind. Therefore, it reveals new prospects in studying binary oppositionswithin human consciousness via their language manifestations. This study aims to analyse the interplay of cognitivemechanisms of contradistinction and conceptual metaphors. The paper presents an empirical investigation of the binaryopposition LIGHT-DARK based on the data of the Associative Thesauri. The working hypothesis is that associative networkis motivated by hierarchical conceptual structures existing in the speakers’ minds. Therefore, responses evoked by certainstimuli can be regarded as the reflection of corresponding conceptual structures. The responses obtained via AE confirm atight connection between LIGHT and DARK and human ability of seeing as it was described by Wierzbicka (1996: 288).Furthermore, the obtained responses give possibility to trace the ways, in which LIGHT – ABILITY OF SEEING –REASONING, on the one hand, and DARK – INABILITY TO SEE – ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE/EDUCATION, onthe other hand, are interconnected and all together generate metaphors in systematic way. The analysis of the responsesreveals binary oppositions interacting with the opposition LIGHT – DARK. The consciousness of contemporary bearers oflanguages and cultures preserves deep-rooted relations of the light – dark opposition with the corresponding parts of otherbinary oppositions, namely day – night; sun – moon; white – black, red – black; sky – earth; happiness – unhappiness, life –death, etc. within the evaluative opposition positive – negative. Blended with metaphorical mappings, the LIGHT – DARKopposition creates complex mental images, which can be termed ‘oppositional metaphors’. SourcesEAT - Kiss, G.R., Armstrong, G., Milroy, R. (1972). The Associative Thesaurus of English. Edinburgh.https://w3id.org/associations/eat.nt.gzKR - Kent, Grace Helen & Rosanoff, A. J. 1910. A study of association in insanity. In American journal of insanity67 (1 & 2).MWAN - Jenkins, James J. 1970. “The 1952 Minnesota word association norms”. Leo Postman, Geoffrey Keppel(eds.), Norms of Word Association. Academic Press. 1-39.OED – Online Etymology Dictionary https://www.etymonline.com/UAT – Martinek, Svitlana. 2007. Ukainskyi asociatyvnyi slovnyk [Ukrainian associative thesaurus] (2 vols). LvivUniversity Press.References1. Brent, Berlin & Kay, Paul. 1991. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. University of CaliforniaPress.2. Deese, James. 1965. The structure of associations in language and thought. Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsPress.3. Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C. 2009. “The myth of language universals: language diversity and itsimportance for cognitive science”. Behavioral and brain sciences 32(5): 429–492.4. Hampe, Beate. 2005. “When down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus–minus parameter in image-schema theory”. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1): 81–112.5. Hargrave, Susanne. 1982. “A report on colour term research in five Aboriginal languages”. Work Papers of SIL-AAB (Series B) 8: 201–226.6. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford University Press.7. Hertz, R. 2004. Death and the Right Hand. Routledge.8. Jones, Rhys & Meehan, Betty. 1978. “Anbarra Conept of Colour”. Hiatt, Lester Richard (ed.), AustralianAboriginal Concepts. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 20–39. Kay, Paul & McDaniel, Chad K. 1978. “The Linguistic Significance of the Meanings of Basic Color Terms”.Language 54(3): 610–646.Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1997. Angels and devils in hell: Elements of axiology in semantics. Warsaw: Energeia.Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge towestern thought. New York: Basic Books.Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.Luodonpaa-Manni, Milla, Esa Penttila, & Viimaranta, Johanna. 2017. “Introduction”. Luodonpaa-Manni, Milla& Penttila, Esa & Viimaranta Johanna (eds.), Empirical Approaches to Cognitive Linguistics: Analyzing Real-Life Data. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 1–21Paradis, Carita. 2016. “Corpus methods for the investigation of antonyms across languages”. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Juvonen, Paeivi (eds.), The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts. De Gruyter. 131–156.Shmiher, Taras. 2011. “The cognitive foundations of translation studies analysis: translating the concept ofGRACE from the SERMON ON LAW AND GRACE of Hilarion of Kyiv”. Inozemna philologia 123: 154–160.Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Talmy, Leonard. 2003. “Concept structuring systems”. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Taylor, John R. 2003. “Meaning and context”. Cuyckens, Hubert (ed.), Motivation in Language: Studies inHonor of Gunter Radden. John Benjamins Publishing. 27–48Toporov, Vladimir N. 1987. “Ob odnom arkhaicheskom indoyevropeyskom elemente v drevnerusskoydukhovnoy kul'ture *svet-.” [About one archaic Indo-European element in the ancient Russian spiritual culture* svet-] B. A. Uspenskiy (ed), Yazyki kultury i problemy perevodimosti. Moskva: Nauka. 184–252.Weinreich, Uriel. 1963. “On the Semantic Structure of Language.” Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed), Universals ofHuman Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 114–171.Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press.