what do idioms really mean

JOURNALOFMEMORYANDLANGUAGE31,485506(1992) WhatDoidiomsRealtyMean? RAYMONDW.GIBBS,JR. Universifyof California,SantaCruz Thedeadmetaphorviewof idiomaticitysuggests thatidiomswereoncemetaphoricbut havelosttheirmetaphoricityovertimeandnowareequivalenttosimpleliteralphrasessuch thatblowyourstack=togetveryangry,crackthewhip=toexertauthority,and spillthebeans=torevealasecret.Thepurposeofthepresentstudieswastodemon- stratethatidiomsarenotdeadmetaphorsbuthavemorecomplexmeaningsthataremoti- vatedbyconceptualmetaphorslinkingidiomphraseswiththeirfigurativeinterpretations. Sixexperimentsarereportedthatexaminethedifferencebetweenidiomsandtheirliteral paraphrases.Afuststudyexaminedpeoplesintuitionsaboutdifferentknowledgedomains toillustratethatthemeaningsofidiomsareconsistentwiththesource-to-targetdomain mappingsoftheconceptualmetaphorsthatmotivatethesephrasesfigurativemeanings. ThedatafromExperiments2 and3 indicatethatpeopleviewidiomsas havingmorecomplex meaningsthandotheirroughly,equivalentliteralparaphrases.Experiments4through6 showthatidiomsaremostappropriatetouseandeasiesttocomprehendwhentheyare encounteredindiscoursesituationsthatareconsistentwiththeentailmentsof theconcep- tualmetaphorsthatmotivatethesephrasesidiomaticmeanings.Thefindingsfromthese studiessuggestthatidiomsarenotdeadmetaphorswithsimplefigurativeinterpretations. Instead,idiomshavecomplexmeaningsthataremotivatedbyindependentlyexistingcon- ceptualmetaphorsthatarepartlyconstitutiveof everydaythought.D ISZ Academicpress,w. Oneofthemostpersistentideas inboth folkand linguisticaccounts ofidiomsis thatthese phrases aredeadmetaphors. Itiscommonlyassumed thatidiomswere metaphoricalintheirorigins,buthavelost theirmetaphoricityovertime and nowexist as frozen,semantic units oras deadmet- aphors.Althoughmetaphors are lively,cre- ative,and resistant to literalparaphrase,id- ioms aredead,hackneyed expressions that areequivalentinmeaningtosimpleliteral phrases.Tomanyscholars,classifyingan utteranceorphraseas idiomaticis tan- tamounttoatheoreticalexplanationinit- self,since itassumes thatidiomsaredead metaphorsandreallybelongtothewaste- basket offormulasand phrases that are sep- ThisresearchwassupportedbyGrantMH42980 fromtheNationalInstituteofMentalHealthandbya FacultyResearchGrantfromtheUniversityofCali- fornia,SantaCruz.Correspondenceandreprintre- questsmaybesenttoRaymondW.Gibbs,Jr.,Pro- graminExperimentalPsychology,ClarkKerrHall, UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz,CA95064. arate fromthe generativecomponentofthe grammar(Gibbs,1990, inpress). Mostidiomdictionariesgivesimpledeli- nitionsforidioms(Boatner,Gates, &Mak- kai,1975; Cowie,Mackin,& McCaig,1983; Long&Summer,1979).Forinstance, crack thewhipis definedas tobeincon- trol,spillthebeansmeanstomake knownasecret,gotopiecesmeansto becomedistressed,andblowyourstack means tobecomeveryangry.Ofcourse, dictionarydefinitionsdonot necessarily re- flectthe complexityin peoplesmental rep- resentationsforwordsandphrases.Yet manysemantictheoriesassumethatthe meanings ofidiomsare best representedby simpledefinitionsbecauseidiomsare mostlydeadmetaphors(Cruse,1986; Palmer,1981). Mycontention,contraryto thedeadmetaphorview,isthatidioms havecomplexfigurativeinterpretations thatarenotarbitrarilydeterminedbutare motivatedbyindependentlyexistingcon- ceptualmetaphors thatprovidethe founda- 485 0749-596X/92$5.00 CopyrightQ1992byAcademicPress,Inc. AUtightsofreproductioninanyformreserved. 486 RAYMONDW.GIBBS,JR. tionformuchofoureverydaythoughtand reasoning. Therehasrecentlybeenagreatdealof researchincognitivelinguisticsandpsy- cholinguisticsthatquestionsthedeadmet- aphorviewofidiomaticity(Fillmore,Kay, &OConner,1988;Gibbs,1990;Gibbs& Nayak,1991,1989;Gibbs&OBrien,1990; Lakoff,1987;Langacker,1987;Nayak& Gibbs,1990).Thisworkgenerallysuggests thatmanyidiomsarenotsimple,dead metaphors,butactuallyretainagooddeal oftheirmetaphoricity.Forexample,the figurativemeaningsofblowyourstackand flipyourlidarespecificallymotivatedby twoindependentlyexistingconceptual mappingsinlong-termmemory-MINDIS ACONTAINERandANGERIS HEATEDFLUIDINACONTAINER. Theseconceptualmetaphorsallowspeak- erstorefertoideasaboutgettingangry throughparticularinstantiationsofthe mappingfromasourcedomain(e.g., heatedfluid)ontoatargetdomain(e.g., anger).Speakersmakesenseofidi- oms,suchasblowyourstackandflipyour lid,preciselybecausetheirmeaningscanbe motivatedbytheconceptualmappingsthat linktheindividualwordsinidiomstotheir figurativemeanings. Variousexperimentalstudieshaveinves- tigatedthepsycholinguisticconsequences ofthisconceptualviewofidiomaticity. Someresearchshowedthatpeoplestacit knowledgeofdifferentconceptualmeta- phors(e.g.,theMINDISACONTAINER, ANGERISHEATEDFLUIDINACON- TAINER)constraintheirmentalimagesfor idiomaticphrases(Gibbs&OBrien,1990). Otherstudiesdemonstratedthatpeoples metaphoricalunderstandingofemotion concepts,suchasanger,joy,sadness,and fear,facilitatesthecontext-sensitiveuse andunderstandingofidiomsindiscourse (Nayak&Gibbs,1990).Myaiminthe presentstudieswastoshowthatidiomsare notequivalentinmeaningtotheirliteral paraphrases.Numerousstudiesreportthat peopleprocessidiomsmorequicklythan theydocorrespondingliteralphrases (Gibbs,1980,1986;Gibbs&Gonzales, 1985;Gibbs,Nayak,&Cutting,1989;Or- tony,Schallert,Reynolds,&Antos,1978; Swinney&Cutler,1979).However,no workhasspecificallyexaminedhowand whyidiomsactuallydifferinmeaningfrom theirliteralparaphrases. Considerthephrasesblowyourstack, jlipyourlid,andhittheceiling.Whywould speakersuse theseexpressionstomeanto getveryangry?Myhypothesisisthat theseidiomsarenotequivalenttoasimple, literalparaphrasesuchastogetveryan- grybecausetheyhavecomplexsemantic configurationsthataremotivatedbytwo conceptualmetaphors-MINDISACON- TAINERandANGERISHEATED FLUIDINACONTAINER.TheMINDIS ACONTAINERmetaphorispartofthe moregeneralCONDUITmetaphor(Reddy, 1979),andtheANGERISHEATmetaphor comesfromthecommonfolktheorythat thephysiologicaleffectsofangerarein- creasedbodyheat,increasedinternalpres- sure,andagitation(Kovecses,1986;La- koff,1987).Thus,peoplesmetaphorical mappingofknowledgefromasourcedo- main(e.g.,heatedfluidinacontainer)onto atargetdomain(e.g.,theangeremotion) helpsthemconceptualizeinmoreconcrete termswhatisunderstoodaboutthetarget domain.Thismetaphoricalmappingpre- servesthestructuralcharacteristicsorthe cognitivetopologyofthesourcedomain (Lakoff,1990).Forexample,ourunder- standingthattoomuchheatedfluidcan causeasealedcontainertoexplodeis mappedontothetargetdomainofanger suchthatweconceptualizetheexplo- sionofsomeonesangerasbeingper- formedunintentionallyandwithgreatin- tensity.Variousspecificentailmentsresult fromthesegeneralmetaphoricalmappings, entailmentsthatprovidespecificinsight intothecauses,intentionality,manner,and consequencesoftheactivitiesdescribedby IDIOMATICMEANING487 stacksblowing,lidsflipping,andceilings beinghit. Themetaphoricalwaysinwhichwepar- tiallyconceptualizeexperiences,suchas anger,providepartofthemotivationfor whylinguisticexpressionssuchashitthe ceiling,jlipyourlid,orblowyourstack makesenseinhavingthefigurativemean- ingstheydo(Gibbs,1990;Gibbs&Nayak, 1991).Ontheotherhand,literalpara- phrasesof theseidiomssuchas togetvery angrydonotconveythesameinferences aboutthecauses,intentionality,andman- nerinwhichsomeoneexperiencesandex- presseshisorheranger.Mostliteralpara- phrasesofidiomsarenotmotivatedbythe samesetofrichconceptualmetaphorsas areidioms(Gibbs&OBrien,1990).This differencebetweenidiomsandtheirliteral paraphrasesisnotsimplyduetothefact thatidiomsarea typeoffigurativelanguage andthusmorelikelytobemotivatedby conceptualmetaphorsthanareliteralex- pressions.Indeed,manyliteralexpressions makesensetouspreciselybecausethey tooaremotivatedbyconceptualmeta- phors.Forexample,theexpressions:He attackedeveryweakpointinmyargument; Zdemolishedhisargument;andHiscriti- cismswererightontargetappeartomost speakersas beingfairlyliteral.Yeteachex- pressionismotivatedbythesameconcep- tualmetaphorwherebyargumentsareun- derstoodintermsofwars.Myclaimthat literalparaphrasesofidiomsarenotcleady motivatedbyconceptualmetaphoristhere- forenotacommentonliterallanguageper se.Rather,myhypothesisisthatsimplelit- eralparaphrasesofidioms,suchastoget veryangryortorevealthesecretare notbythemselvesmotivatedbysinglecon- ceptualmetaphorsandthereforedonot possessthekindofcomplexinterpretations as doidiomaticphrases.Thepresentexper- imentsaimedtodiscoverwhetherpeople viewedidiomsas havingdifferentmeanings fromtheirliteralparaphrases.Thesestud- iesaresignificantnotonlyforpsycholin- guistictheoriesoffigurativelanguageuse, butalsobecausetheyprovideadditional evidenceonthemetaphoricalfoundationof everydaythought. EXPERIMENT1 Thefirststudyattemptedtoprovidedata showinghowthefigurativemeaningsofid- iomsaremotivatedbyconceptualmeta- phor.Thepreviousworkonmentalimag- eryforidiomsindicatedthatpeoplehave verysimilarintuitionsabouttheactions thataredescribedbyidiomaticexpressions (Gibbs&OBrien,1990).Consideranger idiomssuchasblowyourstack,flipyour lid,andhittheceiling.Participantsinthe earlierstudiesstronglyagreedaboutthe causes,intentionality,andmannerinwhich stacksareblown,lidsareflipped,andceil- ingshitwhentheyformmentalimagesfor theseangeridioms.Thisconsistencyin peoplesintuitionsabouttheirmentalim- agesforidiomswasattributedtothecon- strainingpresenceofspecificconceptual metaphorsthatmotivatedthefigurative meaningsoftheseidioms.Fortheangerid- iomsstudied,theconceptualmetaphorAN- GERISHEATEDFLUIDINACON- TAINERprovidespartofthelinkbetween anidiomanditsfigurativemeaningandalso constrainstheinferencespeoplemake aboutwhattheseidiomsmean. Thepresentexperimentextendedthese earlierstudiestoshowthatpeoplesunder- standingofidiomaticmeaningreflectsthe particularentailmentsoftheirunderlying conceptualmetaphors.Eachconceptual metaphormapsknowledgefromaspecific sourcedomain(e.g.,HEATEDFLUIDIN ACONTAINER)ontoadissimilartarget domain(e.g.,ANGER).Myhypothesis wasthatthemetaphoricalmappingsthat motivateidiomaticmeaningspreservesthe structuralcharacteristicsofthesourcedo- main.Forexample,peoplesunderstanding ofthecauses,intentionality,andmannerof physicalevents,suchasheatingfluidin containers(i.e.,sourcedomains),shouldbe 488RAYMONDW.GIBBS,JR. similartotheirunderstandingsofthe causes,intentionality,andmannerofthe angertowhichidiomssuchasblowyour stack,jlipyourlid,andhittheceilingrefer. ThepurposeofExperiment1 wastosim- plyassesspeoplesunderstandingofthe causes,intentionality,andmannerofthe actionsindifferentsourcedomains(e.g., heatedfluidinacontainer,thebehaviorof brittleobjectsincontainers,andsoon). Theseeventscorrespondedtoparticular sourcedomainsinvariousconceptualmet- aphors(e.g.,ANGERISHEATEDFLUID INACONTAINER,IDEASAREPHYS- ICALENTITIESINCONTAINERS, THEMINDISABRITTLEOBJECT, CONTROLISPOSSESSIONOFSOME OBJECT)thathavebeenseeninprevious researchas motivatingthefigurativemean- ingsofidiomssuchas blowyourstack,spill thebeans,loseyourgrip,andlaydownthe law(Gibbs&OBrien,1990).Participants readbriefscenariosdescribingspecific sourcedomains.Thesescenariosmakeno referencetoanythingaboutidiomsortothe targetdomainstowhichidiomsrefer(e.g., anger,therevelationofsecrets,goingin- sane,etc).Afterreadingeachscenario,for example,aboutfluidinsideasealedcon- tainer,theparticipantsansweredspecific questionsregardingthecause,intentional- ity,andmannerofvariouspossibleevents, suchas whatmightcausethefluidtoescape fromasealedcontainer.Ifidiomsarepar- tiallymotivatedbyconceptualmetaphors, thenpeoplesintuitionsaboutthecausa- tion,intentionality,andmannerofaction forthesemetaphorssourcedomains shouldbeverysimilartowhatpeoplegen- erallyperceiveasbeingthefigurative meaningsoftheseidioms.Theresultsof thisstudy,therefore,providethebasisfor makingspecificpredictionsaboutwhatidi- omsmean,basedonanindependentassess- mentofpeoplesintuitionsabouttheindi- vidualsourcedomainsintheconceptual metaphorsthatmotivatethefigurative meaningsofidioms. Methods Subjects.Thirty-eightundergraduatestu- dentsfromtheUniversityofCalifornia, SantaCruzservedasparticipantsinthis study.Theyreceivedcoursecreditfortheir service.Alltheparticipantswerenative Englishspeakers. Stimulianddesign.Fourdifferentcon- ceptualmetaphorsthatmotivatedthefigu- rativemeaningsofidiomsreferringtoan- ger,insanity,exertingcontrol,andrevela- tionwereemployedas theprimarystimuli. Theseconceptualmetaphorswereprevi- ouslyanalyzedasmotivatingthemeanings ofdifferentidiomsinGibbsandOBrien (19!30)andincludedANGERISHEATED FLUIDINACONTAINER(foranger), theMINDISABRITTLEOBJECT(for insanity),CONTROLISAPOSSESSION (forexertingcontrol),andIDEASARE ENTITIESINACONTAINER(forreve- lation). Ashortscenariowaswrittentodepict thebasicelementsineachofthefour sourcedomains.Forexample,thescenario forthesourcedomainofheatedfluidina containerstatedImaginethatyouare lookingatacontainerthatisshapedlikea cylinder.Thetopofthecontainerissealed. Thecontaineriscompletelyfilledwith somesortoffluid.Followingeachsce- nariowerethreequestionsthatqueriedpar- ticipantsaboutvariouseventsrelevantto thesesourcedomains.Onequestionas- sessedpeoplesintuitionsaboutthecausa- tionofsomeevent(e.g.,Describesome- thingthatwouldcausethefluidtocome spontaneouslyoutofthecontainer).A secondquestionassessedpeoplesintui- tionsabouttheintentional@ofthatevent (e.g., Imaginethatsomethingcausedthe fluidtocomeoutofthecontainer.Doyou thinkthatthefluidcomesoutonpurposeor doesthefluidjustsomehowgetoutbyac- cident?).Afinalquestionassessedpeo- plesintuitionsaboutthemannerinwhich theeventisperformed(e.g.,Imagine IDIOMATICMEANING 489 again thatthefluidcomes outofthesealed container.Doyou thinkthe fluidcomes out inagentlemannerordoesitexplode out?).Table1 presentsthescenarios and thethreeactionquestionsforeachofthe foursource domains. Procedure.Eachparticipantwaspre- sentedwithatestbookletthatcontained the experimentalinstructionsalong withall the stimulimaterials.Theparticipantswere toldthatthepurposeofthestudywasto examinetheirintuitionsaboutsimpleob- jectsand eventsinthe realworld.Thepar- ticipants read the firstscenario and then an- sweredthethreequestionsthatfollowed. Thiswasthendoneforthesecond,third, and,finally,fourthsourcedomains.Nei- thertheexperimentinstructionsortheex- perimentersaid anythingaboutthisstudy relatingtolinguisticsor,morespecifically, tothemeanings ofidioms.Theexperiment tookapproximately15 mintocomplete. ResultsandDiscussion The participantsresponses to each ques- tion wereanalyzed in the followingmanner. First,each persons response toeach ques- tionwas analyzed forits generalcharacter- istics. Forexample,whena participantre- portedthathisorherresponse tothecau- TABLE1 SCENARIOS ANDACTIONQUESTIONS USEDINEXPERIMENT1 Sourcedomain Fluidinc1container-Imaginethatyouarelookingata containerthatisshapedlikeacylinder.Thetopof thecontainerissealed.Thecontaineriscompletelyfilledwithsomesortof fluid. Describesomethingthatwouldmakethefluidexplodeoutofthesealedcontainer.(Causation) Imaginethatthefluidisheatedtoahightemperatureandthatthefluidcomesoutofthecontainer.Do youthinkthatthefluidcomesoutonpurpose(thatisintentionally)duetoitsownwillordoesthefluidjust somehowgetoutunintentionallyorbyaccident?(Intentional&y) Imagineagainthatonceheatedtoaveryhightemperaturethatthefluidcameoutofthesealedcontainer. Doyouthinkthatthefluidcomesoutofthesealedcontainerina gentlemannerordoesitexplodeout? (Manner) Fragileobjectincontniner-Imaginethatyouhaveacontainerandinsideofitisaverybrittle,fragile object. Describehowthefragileobjectsinsidethecontainermightbreakorfallapart.(Causation) Imaginenowthatsomethinghappenstothecontainerandthatthiscausesthefragileobjectinsideto break.Doyouthinktheobjectfallsapartintentionallythroughitsownwillordoesitfallapartbyaccident? (Intentional&y) Imagineagainthatsomethinghappenstothecontainerandthatthefragileobjectbreaksorfallsapart.Do youthinktheobjectfallsapartgracefullyandslowlyordoesitfallapartallatonce?(Manner) Smallobjectsincontainer-Imaginethatyouarelookingatanothercontainer.Thecontaineris fullof many smallpiecesofsomething. Describesomethingthatwouldmakethesmallpiecesofmaterialcomeoutofthecontainer.(Causation) I fthesmallpiecesdidsomehowgetoutofcontainer,doyouthinkthiswouldhappenonpurposethrough thewillofthepiecesorwouldthishappenaccidentally?(Intentional&y) Imagineagainthatsomethinghappenstothecontainerandthatthesmallpiecesofthematerialgetoutof thecontainer.Dothesepiecesgetoutslowlyordotheysomehowgetoutofthecontainerquitequickly, perhapsallatonce?(Manner) Takingcontrolofsomeobject-Considerthesituationwhereyoutakesomeactioninordertotakesome objectoreventunderyourcontrol. Whatmakesyouexertcontrolontheobjectorsituation?(Causation) Istheactionyoudototakesomethingunderyourcontroldoneonpurposethroughyourowndesireor doesit justoccurbyaccident?(Intentional&y) Istheactionyoudototakesomethingunder,yourcontroldonegentlyandslowlyorisitperformedwith someauthorityandforce?(Manner) 490RAYMONDW.GIBBS,JR. sationquestionforthefluidinacontainer scenariowasifyouheatthefluidtoa high temperatureitmightexplodeout,thiswas scoredas referringtoheatorinternalpres- sureas themaincauseofthefluidescaping. Twoindependentjudgesexaminedthere- sponseprotocolsandinitiallyreached96% agreementastohowtheindividualpartici- pantsresponsestoquestionsshouldbe scored.Subsequentdiscussionamongthe judgesproducedcompleteagreement.In thesecondstageoftheanalysis,thediffer- entgeneralcharacteristicsforpeoplesre- sponsestoeachquestionacrosspartici- pantsweretallied.Fromthis,thesingle mostfrequentanswertoeachquestionfor eachsourcedomainwas determined.Table 2 presentstheproportionoftotalresponses acrossalltheparticipantsthatconformed tothemostfrequentlynotedresponsefor eachquestionineachsourcedomain. TheresponseslistedinTable2 generally showthatpeoplewerequiteconsistentin theirintuitionsregardingthecausation,in- tentionality,andmannerofeventsforthe fourdifferentsourcedomainsstudied.On average89%oftheparticipantsresponses wereinagreementcollapsedacrossthe threetypesofquestionsandthefoursource domains.Thisresultreflects,forexample, thefindingthatpeoplecommonlyagree thattheprobablecauseoffluidescaping outofasealedcontainerissomeinternal pressurecausedbytheincreaseintheheat ofthefluidinsidethecontainer;thatthis explosionisunintentionalbecausecontain- ersandfluidhavenointentionalagency; andthattheexplosionoccursinaviolent manner. Ananalysisoftheseintersubjectspro- portionsindicatednosignificantvariability acrossthedifferentquestions.Thepartici- pantswereinhigheragreementintheirre- sponsestothequestionsforthefragileob- jectsina containerdomainthantothesmall objectsdomain,z=2.05,p