when love is not a journey

8/8/2019 When Love is Not a Journey

1/18

ELSEVIER Journal of Pragm atics 31 (1999) 1541-155 8www.elsevier.nl/locate/pragma

W h e n l o v e i s n o t a j o u rn e y : W h a t m e ta p h o r s m e a nS a m G l u c k s b e r g a ,* , M a t t h e w S . M c G l o n e b

Department of P sychology, Princeton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 08544-1010, USAb Depa rtment of Psychology, Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042, USA

A b s t r a c tLa ko ff (1987, 1993) has a rgued tha t the compreh ens ion of metaphor ica l language i s med i -a ted by m etaphor ic cor respondence s tha t st ruc ture our unders tanding o f abs t rac t concepts . W etake i ssue wi th the assum pt ions of th is a rgum ent and d iscuss the lack of emp ir ica l suppor t forsevera l p red ic t ions tha t fo l low f rom i~ . As an a l te rna tive , we prop ose a 'min im al i s t ' accoun t ofmetaphor in which comprehens ion i s conce ived as a search for an ' a t t r ibu t ive ca tegory ' tha ti s exem pl i f ied by the m etapho r vehic le . 1999 Elsevier Sc ience B.V. Al l r igh ts reserved .

Keywords: Metaphor ; Id iom; Figura t ive language; S imi la r i ty ; Analogy; Categor iza t ion

1 . I n t r o d u c t i o n

H o w d o p e o p l e u n d e r s t a n d o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t io n a l m e t a p h o r s s u c h as S a m i s ap i g , M y j o b i s a j a i l, o r O u r l o v e h a s b e c o m e a f i l i n g c a b i n e t ? T h e t r a d i t i o n a l v i e wi n p s y c h o l o g y , li n g u i s ti c s , a n d th e p h i l o s o p h y o f l a n g u a g e t r e a ts s u c h e x p r e s s i o n s a sf a l s e a n d u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e u n l e s s t h e y a r e r e c a s t e x p l i c i t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y i n t o s i m i l e s .F o r e x a m p l e , t h e a s s e r t i o n S a m is a p i g i s l i t e r a l l y f a l s e , b u t i f i t i s t r a n s f o r m e d i n t ot h e s i m i l e S a m i s l ik e a p i g , t h e n i t i s t r u e ( D a v i d s o n , 1 9 7 8 ) . A f t e r a l l , a n y t w o t h i n g sc a n b e s i m i l a r i n a n y n u m b e r o f w a y s . T h e p r o b l e m t o b e s o l v e d is h o w t o s p e c if yt h e s i m i l a r it i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o c o n c e p t s t h a t m o t i v a t e t h e u s e o f th e s i m i l e . I s S a ml i k e a p i g i n t h a t b o t h a r e v e r t e b r a t e s , o r a r e t h e r e s o m e o t h e r , m o r e i n t e r e s t i n gg r o u n d s f o r t he a s s e r te d r e s e m b l a n c e ?

M o s t r e a d e r s w o u l d a g r e e th ai: b e i n g a v e r t e b r a t e i s n o t l i k e l y to b e t h e i n t e n d e ds i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n S a m a n d a p i g . T h e m e t a p h o r v e h i c l e , p i g , p r o v i d e s p r o p e r t i e s

W e are grateful for the support provided by Grant #SBR-9712601 from the National Science Foun-dation to Princeton University, S. Glucksb erg, Principal Investigator.* Corresponding author. E-m ail: samg@ princeton.edu0378-2166/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science B.V . All rights reserved.P I I : S0378- 21 66 ( 99 ) 00003- X


2/18

1542 S. G lucksberg, M .S. McG lone / Journ al of Pragm atics 31 (1999) 1541-1558t h a t c a n b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m e t a p h o r t o p i c , S a m , b u t n o t j u s t a n y p r o p e r t i e s . F o l -l o w i n g G r i c e ' s ( 1 97 5 ) m a x i m s o n c o o p e r a t i o n i n c o n v er s a t io n , o n l y r e l ev a n t a n di n f o r m a t i v e p r o p e r t ie s s h o u l d b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m e t a p h o r t o p i c. I n t h e c a s e o f S a ma n d p i g s , l i k e l y c a n d i d a t e p r o p e r t i e s w o u l d i n c l u d e f i l t h , s l o v e n l i n e s s , o r g l u t t o n y ,d e p e n d i n g o n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e u t t e r a n c e . I n t h e c a s e o f l o v e a n d f i l i n g c a b i n e t s ,l i k e l y c a n d i d a t e p r o p e r t i e s w o u l d i n c l u d e b u s i n e s s - l i k e , o r g a n i z e d , a n d b y i m p l i c a -t io n , a r e g r e t ta b l e l a c k o f p a s s i o n a n d r o m a n c e .

W h e r e d o c a n d i d a t e p r o p e r t i e s c o m e f r o m ? O n e p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t m e t a p h o r i cc o m p a r i s o n s a r e u n d e r s t o o d v i a a f e a t u r e - m a t c h i n g p r o c e s s , w h e r e i n t h e f e a t u r e s o fb o t h t h e t o p ic a n d v e h i c l e a re e x h a u s t i v e l y c h e c k e d a g a i n st o n e a n o t h e r ( W o l f f a n dG e n t n e r , 1 9 9 2 ) . O n c e m a t c h i n g f e a t u r e s a r e i d e n t i f i e d , t h o s e t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t a n di n f o r m a t i v e c a n t h e n b e s e l e c t e d a s t h e g r o u n d s f o r t h e c o m p a r i s o n . T h i s g e n e r a lm o d e l f a i l s f o r t h e i m p o r t a n t c a s e w h e r e t h e m e t a p h o r t o p i c a n d v e h i c l e c o n c e p t s d on o t h a v e a n y f e a t u r e s o r p r o p e r t i e s i n c o m m o n w h a t s o e v e r . C o n s i d e r , y e t a g a i n , t h ev i l e a c c u s a t i o n t h a t S a m i s a p i g . F o r p e o p l e w h o d o n o t k n o w t h e p a r t i c u l a r S a mr e f e r r e d t o , t h e r e c a n b e n o m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f S a m t h a t i n c l u d e s s u c h p r o p e r -t i e s a s d i r t y , s l o v e n l y o r g l u t t o n o u s . O n a s i m p l e p r o p e r t y - m a t c h i n g m o d e l , t h ea s s e r t i o n t h a t S a m i s a p i g c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d b e c a u s e n o r e l e v a n t p r o p e r t ym a t c h e s c a n b e f o u n d .

A n a l t e r n a t i v e t o p r o p e r t y - m a t c h i n g i s p r o p e r t y a t t r i b u t i o n . F o r m e t a p h o r i c c o m -pa r i sons , t he ve h ic l e t e rm, e .g . p i g , p r o v i d e s c a n d i d a t e p r o p e r t i e s t h a t c a n p l a u s i b l ybe a t t r ibu te d to the top ic , S a m . B u t h o w a r e t h e s e p r o p e r t i es i d e n t i f i e d a n d s e l e c t e d ?C o n s i d e r h o w s i m i l a r i t y a s s e r t io n s i n g e n e r a l m i g h t b e t r ea t e d . I f a s k e d h o w o r a n g e sa n d l e m o n s a r e a l i k e , m o s t p e o p l e w o u l d r e p l y t h a t t h e y a r e b o t h c i t r u s f r u i t s . H o wa r e o r a n g e s a n d g r a p e s a l i k e ? T h e y a r e b o t h f r u i t s . O r a n g e s a n d l a m b c h o p s ? B o t ha r e f o o d s . O r a n g e s a n d l l a m a s ? B o t h a r e o r g a n i c o r a l i v e . I n e a c h c a s e , t h e s i m i l a r -i t y b e t w e e n t h e t w o c o n c e p t s c a n b e i n i t ia l l y d e s c r i b e d i n t e r m s o f m e m b e r s h i p i n ac o m m o n c a t e g o r y . T h e m o r e s p e c i f ic t h e c a te g o r y , th e m o r e s i m i la r th e t w o c o n c e p t sa re to one a no the r .

M e t a p h o r ic c o m p a r i s o n s c a n b e v i e w e d i n e s s en t i al l y t h e s a m e w a y . W h e n s o m e -o n e s a y s t h a t ' m y j o b i s l ik e a j a i l ' , j o b a n d j a i l ar e c a s t in t o a c o m m o n c a t e g o r y ,v i z ., s i t u a t io n s t h a t a r e c o n f i n i n g , d i f f i c u l t t o g e t o u t o f , u n p l e a s a n t , e t c . H o w m i g h ts u c h a c a t e g o r y b e n a m e d ? R o g e r B r o w n ( 1 9 5 8 : 1 4 0) p r o v i d e d a n a n s w e r :" M e t a p h o r d i f f e r s f r o m o t h e r s u p e r o r d i n a t e - s u b o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r y r e l a t i o n s i n t h a tt h e s u p e r o r d i n a t e i s n o t g i v e n a n a m e o f i t s o w n . I n s t e a d , t h e n a m e o f o n e s u b o r d i -n a t e ( i . e . t h e [ m e t a p h o r ] v e h i c l e ) i s e x t e n d e d t o t h e o t h e r " . I n t h e m e t a p h o r M y j o bi s a ja i l , t h e t e r m ' j a i l ' i s u s e d a s t h e n a m e o f t h e s u p e r o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r y t o w h i c ht h e l i te r a l j a i l a n d t h e m e t a p h o r t o p i c , m y j o b , b o t h b e l o n g ( s e e F i g . 1 ). T h u s ,m e t a p h o r i c c o m p a r i s o n s c a n b e e x p r e s s e d a s c a t e g o r y a s s e r t i o n s , a n d v i c e v e r s a : M yj o b i s a j a i l a n d M y j o b i s li ke a j a i l a r e , fo r m o s t i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s , i n t e r c h a n g e -a b l e ( G l u c k s b e r g a n d K e y s a r , 1 9 9 0 ) . N o t e t h a t t h i s i s n o t t r u e f o r l i t e r a l c o m p a r -i s o n s . A l t h o u g h c o p p e r i s l ike t in , o n e c a n n o t s a y t h a t c o p p e r is t in .I n m e t a p h o r s , t h e v e h i c l e t e r m t h u s h a s t w o p o t e n t i a l r e f e r e n t s : t h e l i te r a l r e f e r e n t( e .g . , a c tu a l j a i ls ) , a n d t h e c a t e g o r y o f t h i n g s o r s i t u a t i o n s t h a t th e m e t a p h o r v e h i c l ee x e m p l i f i e s ( e .g . , s i t u a ti o n s t h a t a r e c o n f i n i n g , o p p r e s s i v e , e t c .) . W h e n s u c h a c a t e -


3/18

S. G lucksberg, M .S. McGlone / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558 1543

Fig. 1. Comprehensionof the metaphormy job is a jail as a category-inclusionassertion.

gory is used to characterize a metaphor topic, it functions as an attributive categoryin that it provides the properties to be attributed to the metaphor topic. The categoryof 'jail' in its broadest sense is ,;uch an attributive category.

With extensive use, a metaphor's meaning can become conventional. When thishappens, heretofore non-lexicalized categories, such as disastrous military interven-tions, become lexicalized, as in the expression C a m b o d i a h a s b e c o m e V i e t n a m ' sV i e t n a m . Eventually, originally metaphoric meanings are listed as conventional wordsenses in dictionaries. For example, among the several senses of the word b u t c h e r ,the Random House dictionary of the English language lists 'to bungle or botch; tobutcher a job'. To understand such conventionalized expressions, knowledge of thelexicon would suffice. But wha! additional kinds of knowledge are needed to under-stand novel expressions, such a~ O u r l o v e h a s b e c o m e a f i l i n g c a b i n e t ?

2 . K n o w l e d g e s o u r c e s f o r n o v e l m e t a p h o r sWhat do people have to know about the concepts l o v e a n d f i l i n g c a b i n e t s in order

to understand what a speaker might intend by the assertion O u r l o v e h a s b e c o m e af i l i n g c a b i n e t ? From a minimalist communicative viewpoint, people must be able toinfer the potentially relevant properties of both the metaphor topic (e.g., o u r l o v e )and metaphor vehicle (e.g., f i l i n g c a b i n e t ) . Because the topic and vehicle play dif-ferent roles in metaphor, the kinds of properties relevant for each will differ.Metaphor topics are the given information in metaphorical assertions, whilemetaphor vehicles are the source of new information. Put most simply, the vehicle isused to characterize or describe the topic. Some property or set of properties of themetaphor vehicle is attributed to the metaphor topic.


4/18

1544 S. Glucksberg, M.S. McGIone /Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558

For any given metaphor topic, certain dimensions of property attribution will bepotentially relevant, while others will not. For the topic o u r l o v e , dimensions such asduration (ephemeral vs. eternal), level of emotional arousal (dispassionate vs. pas-sionate), and level of commitment (flighty vs. dedicated) could be relevant (amongmany others). Dimensions such as financial cost, size, or shape would be either irrel-evant or non-applicable to the topic o u r l o v e . To be relevant, a characterization onany particular dimension must be diagnostic in the sense of discriminating the par-ticular metaphor topic from its cohort of plausible alternatives. Hence, a passionatelove is importantly different from a dispassionate love, while an expensive love neednot be importantly different from an inexpensive one. Relevance for metaphor topicsthus might best be described at the level o f dimension of variation rather than at thelevel of specific properties. On this view, metaphor topics provide affordances fordescription along relevant dimensions of property attribution.

A metaphor vehicle, in contrast to a metaphor topic, must provide specific prop-erties along just those dimensions that are relevant to a particular metaphor topic.The metaphor vehicle b u t c h e r , for example, can be used to attribute the generalproperty of 'bungling' to a metaphor topic, but different topics would require differ-ent instantiations of bungling. Surgeons who are butchers cut human tissue in such away as to produce a bloody mess, whereas a pianist who butchers a Chopin nocturnecauses aesthetic rather than physical anguish. Metaphor vehicles that are prototypi-cal or emblematic of the category that they refer to should be among the easiest tounderstand, provided that the metaphor topic is a relevant one. Thus, pianists andsurgeons as well as skilled cabinet makers can butcher their respective jobs. Filingclerks, on the other hand, are not perceived as skilled workers, and thus M y f i l i n gc l e r k i s a bu t cher does not seem apt.

Understanding a metaphor thus requires two kinds of knowledge. First, one mustknow enough about the topic to appreciate which kinds of characterizations are inter-esting and meaningful, and which are not. To understand the surgeons-butchersassertion, for example, one must know that it is important for surgeons to be skillfuland precise. Second, one must know enough about the metaphor vehicle to knowwhat kinds of things it can epitomize. The most apt and comprehensible metaphorvehicles are prototypical members of the attributive category that they exemplify.Thus the literal j a i l is a prototypical member of the category of things or situationsthat are unpleasant, confining, difficult to get out of, etc. Conventional metaphorvehicles such as j a i l can be understood immediately, given a relevant metaphortopic. Understanding a novel metaphor vehicle such as O u r l o v e h a s b e c o m e a f i l in gc a b i n e t may take some time because people must infer an attributive category thatfiling cabinets exemplify (e.g., organized and business-related matters).According to this minimalist view, a metaphor vehicle may have different inter-pretations depending on the metaphor topic and on other contextual constraints. Forexample, the metaphor A l i f e t i me i s a day can be interpreted in at least two ways,depending upon the kind of thing that the vehicle a d a y is taken to symbolize. A daycan symbolize a rather short time span, and so the lifetime-day metaphor can be

This v i e w sha r e s e s se n t i a l p r ope r t i e s w i th B la c k ' s ( 196 2 ; 1993 ) i n t er a c t ion m ode l o f m e ta phor .


5/18

S. G lucksberg, M ,S. McGlone / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558 1545taken to mean that life is short. Alternatively, the vehicle a d a y can symbolize stagesof existence, such that birth is morning, adulthood is high noon, old age is late after-noon, and death, night. This latter interpretation illustrates an altemative to our min-imalist view, the maximally rich view proposed by Lakoff and his colleagues (e.g.,Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff and Turner, 1989). According tothis view, metaphors are understood via systematic mappings between topic andvehicle concept domains. These mappings are presumed to be part of the humanconceptual system. Whenever a metaphor is used, people automatically access therelevant conceptual mappings in order to arrive at the correct interpretation.

What might such systematic mappings look like? Consider the concept of love.Love is said to be conceptualized in terms of deep conceptual metaphors that assim-ilate the abstract concept of love, to more concrete concepts such as containers orjourneys. Thus we can speak of falling in love because one conceptualization of loveis in terms of containers, and we can speak of our love going o f f c o u r s e because lovecan be conceptualized as a journey (Lakoff, 1990; Lakoff and Turner, 1989). Withineach of these metaphoric domains are systematic mappings between the properties ofthe source domain, in this case journeys, and the target domain, in this case love.Fig. 2 provides some examples of mappings between a source and target domain.

Fig. 2. Hypotheticalmappings between the domainsof 'love' and 'journeys'.

This set of mappings makes it possible for people to produce and to understandexpressions that explicitly exploit those mappings. Examples of such expressionsinclude: O u r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a t a c r o s s r o a d s , M y m a r r i a g e i s o n t h e ro c k s , L o v e i s at w o - w a y s t re e t, etc.How do the minimalist and maximalist views differ? First, our minimalist viewdoes not assume that rich conceptual mappings between specific source and targetdomains are explicitly represented as part of our conceptual structure. Lakoff's max-imalist view posits the existence of thousands of such mappings. Second, the mini-


6/18

1546 s. Glucksberg, M.S. M cGIone / Journal o f Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558mal i s t v i ew assumes tha t people ac t ive ly cons t ruc t in t e rpre ta t ions o f u t t e rances ind i scourse , whi l e the maxim al i s t v i ew assum es tha t mos t in te rpre ta t ions a re re tr i evedf rom semant i c memory . Thi rd , the knowledge sources fo r the two v iews d i f fe r sub-stant ia l ly . In the minimal is t v iew, convent ional a t t r ibut ive ca tegories , e .g . , b u t c h e r s ,may be re t r i eved f rom semant i c memory , bu t d i f fe ren t me taphor top ics p roduce d i f -fe ren t and of t en nove l ins t an t i a t ions o f these ca tegor ie s . Fur the rmore , fo r nove lme taphor veh ic le s people can cons t ruc t nove l a t t r ibu t ive ca tegor ie s (c f . Ba rsa lou ,1983 , on con s t ruc t ion of nove l func t iona l ca tegor ie s ) . For exam ple , dur ing the 1992e lec t ion campa ign in the Uni t ed S ta te s , George Bush cou ld a sse r t (w i th u t t e r conf i -dence tha t he would be unders tood) tha t an oppos ing candida te was d o i n g a C l i n t o n .F r o m L a k o f f ' s p o i n t o f v i e w , su c h e x p r e s s i o n s c o u l d o n l y b e u n d e r s t o o d i f t h e r ewere a re l evan t and access ib le concep tua l me taphor in semant i c memory .The f i r s t expe r iment to be repor ted he re p rov ides a p re l imina ry t e s t o f these twopos i t ions . Accord ing to our a t t r ibu t ive ca tegor iza t ion v iew, a me taphor veh ic le , i nthe con tex t o f a spec i f i c me taphor top ic, ac t s a s a cue fo r the speak e r to in fe r o r con-s t ruc t a re l evan t ca tegory to w hich bo th top ic and veh ic le be long , w i th the fo l lowingimpor tan t cons t ra in t s . The me taphor veh ic le must , t o some degree , ep i tomize o rsym bol ize tha t ca tegory . The m e taphor top ic, by v i r tue o f be ing a ss igned to tha t cat -egory, i s character ized a long one or more re levant dimensions. Thus, the speci f ic l i t -e ral , t axonom ic ca teg ory o f the m e taphor v eh ic le can be qu i t e i r re l evan t . F or thelove - f i l ing cab ine t me taphor , a r e l evan t ca tegory fo r the me taphor veh ic le migh t be'o rgan ized and bus iness- l ike th ings '. An i r re l evan t ca tegory might w e l l be f il ing cab-ine t s ' supe rord ina te ca tegory ' con ta ine rs ' .

O n L a k o f f ' s c o n c e p t u a l m e t a p h o r v i e w , a n y m e t a p h o r t h at u s e s f i l i n g c a b i n e t as aveh ic le must employ abs t rac t cor re spondences be tween ' con ta ine rs ' and the concep-tua l dom ain of the top ic . As La ko f f (1993: 22 7-2 28 ) pu t s it: "Th e sy s tem of con-ven t iona l concep tua l me taph or i s mo st ly unconsc ious , au tom at i c, and i s used wi th nonot i ceab le e f fo r t , j us t l ike ou r l ingu i s ti c sys tem and the re s t o f our concep tua l sys-t em" . The on ly cue ava i l ab le fo r se l ec t ing an under ly ing concep tua l me taphor i s themetaphor vehic le i t se l f . Thus, the semant ic ( l i te ra l ) ca tegory of the vehic le concepti s au tomat i ca l ly ac t iva ted in the fo rm of source - to - t a rge t mappings tha t ' t he sys temof convent iona l concep tua l me tapho rs ' p rov ides .W e t e s t ed th i s hypothes i s b y a sk ing co l l ege s tuden t s to p rov ide in te rpre ta t ions o fme taphors tha t , on Lakof f ' s v i ew , should be in te rpre ted in t e rms of convent iona lconcep tua l me taphors . Spec i f i ca l ly , we used me taphor ic express ions tha t , t heore t i -cally, are roo ted in the con ven tion al m etap ho rs LOVE IS A JOURNEY and LOVE IS ACONTAINER. Tw elve und ergrad uates were given three m etapho rs to interpre t andparaphrase : O u r l o v e i s a b u m p y r o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e , O u r l o v e i s a j o u r n e y t o th e b o t-t o m o f t h e s e a , a n d O u r l o v e h a s b e c o m e a f i l i n g c a b i n e t. T h e in terpre ta t ions tha t weobta ined fo r each of these express ions a re p rov ided in Tab le 1 .Consider f i rs t , the interpre ta t ions of O u r l o v e i s a b u m p y r o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e. O f t hetwe lve in te rpre ta t ions , on ly one inc ludes an exp l i c i t r e fe rence to o r ment ion of ajourney- re la t ed concep t , t he in te rpre ta t ion g iven by sub jec t 6 (mood e leva tor ) . A l ltwelve interpre ta t ions, inc luding tha t of subjec t 6 , ment ion e i ther adventure /exci te-ment , or instabi l i ty in the form of a l ternat ing posi t ive and negat ive aspects of o u r


7/18

S. Glucksberg, M.S. McGlone / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558

T a b l e 1Thr e e love m e ta phor s a nd the i r i n t e r p r e t a t ions

1547

A. Our love is a bumpy rollercoaster ride.1 . W e h a v e o u r g o o d d a y s a n d b a d d a y s.2 . A l th ough we m ig h t ha ve h ighs a nd lows in t he r e l a t ionsh ip , we ' r e ha v in g f un wh i l e it l a s ts .3 . Ou r love va r ie s a g r e a t de a l , f r om e x t r e m e s o f j oy a n d ha pp ine s s t o e x t r e m e s o f pa in a nd sad -ness .4 . W e ha ve som e r e a lly tr oub le som e t im e s , bu t t he y a r e c oun te r e d by som e t e rr i f ic t im e s .5 . W e h a v e g o o d ti m e s a n d b a d t im e s t o g e th e r .6 . W e a r e i n a m o od e l e va to r t ha t w on ' t l et u s ou t on a ny floo r .7 . Ou r love i s f u l l o f ups a nd down s .8 . Our love i s e xc i t i ng , a nd no t ve r y s t a b l e .9 . Our love i s f u l l o f f i gh t s a nd ba d tim e s , bu t a c c om pa n ie d w i th f r e que n t h igh , e xh i l a r a t ing t im e s .10 . The r e a r e good t im e s a nd t im e s [ s ic ] in ou r re l a t ionsh ip .11 . Our love ha s i ts ups a nd dow ns bu t i s a lwa ys e xc i t i ng .12 . Our love de t e r m ine s whe th e r li f e a t the m o m e n t i s up o r down .

B. Our love is a voyage to the bottom of the sea.1 . Our r e l a t ionsh ip i s no t go ing to wor k - i t ' s go ing to k i l l u s bo th .2 . Our love p r e se n t s ne w a n d e xc i t i ng oppor tun i t i e s f o r u s to d i s c ove r ou r se lve s a nd e a c h o the r .3 . Our love i s c ons t a n t ly r e ve a l ing the h idde n de l igh t s o f a n unc ha r t e d , unp r e d ic t a b le wor ld .4 . T h r o u g h o u r lo v e , o u r d e e p e s t e m o t i o n a l n a tu r e s h a v e b e e n r ev e a l e d a n d u n d e r s to o d .5 . Our love i s m ys te r ious a nd da nge r ous .6 . W e ' r e d r o w n i n g i n e a c h o t h e r ' s p r o b l e m s .7 . W e sha r e e xpe r i e nc e s toge the r t ha t we ha ve ne ve r ha d be f o re .8 . Ou r love i s e xc i t i ng a nd da nge r ous .9 . Our love i s a se r i e s o f d i s c ove r i e s o f t he unkn own .10 . Our love i s da nge r o us a nd d i s a s t r ous f o r u s bo th .11 . W e don ' t kno w whe r e ou r love i s he a de d .12 . W e don ' t ta lk e nough . W e a r e a lwa ys s i l e n t wh e n we ' r e t oge the r .

C. Our love is a fi ling cabinet.1 . Ou r love i s t oo o r ga n iz e d a nd s t a id ; we ha ve no spon ta ne i ty o r o r ig ina l i ty .2 . Our love is ope n f o r e ve r yo ne to s e e - t he r e a r e no s e c re t s be twe e n us.3 . Our love i s o r de r ly a nd a b le t o be t a ke n ou t o r pu t a wa y a s de s i r e d .4 . O u r l o v e h o l d s m a n y m e m o r i e s .5 . Ou r love c on ta in s a l o t o f e m o t ions .6 . W e m a k e l o v e l ik e a cc o u n t a n t s ; w e ' r e j u s t g o in g th r o u g h th e m o t i o n s .7 . W e sa ve a l l o f ou r e xpe r i e nc e s toge the r i n ou r m e m or y .8 . Ou r love i s ve r y o r ga n iz e d a nd p r ope r .9 . Our love i s ve r y s t r a igh t f o r wa r d a nd o r ga n iz e d - we p l a n how m uc h t im e to spe nd toge the r ,

wha t t o do , e t c .10 . Ou r a c tions a re pe r f unc to r y .11 . Ou r love c on ta in s e ve r y th ing tha t is im por t a n t in ou r l ive s .12. O ur love is bl an d and business- i[ ike.

love. C l e a r l y , j o u r n e y - s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e s a r e n o t e x p l i c i t l y p r e s e n t i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n s , n o r is s u c h m a t e r i a l e v e n i m p l i e d , u n l e s s ' d i s c o v e r i e s o f t h e u n k n o w n ' ( s u b -j e c t 9 ) c o u n t s a s a j o u r n e y - r e l a t e d i n t e r p r e t a t io n . F o r t h i s m e t a p h o r , a t l e a s t , j o u r n e y -l o v e m a p p i n g s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .


8/18

1548 S. G lucksberg, M .S. McGlone /Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558Perhaps such mappings were not used because the metaphor vehicle, b u m p y

r o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e, has a conventional meaning that does not entail any journey-lovemappings. If so, then we might expect novel metaphors that explicitly contain a jour-ney-related reference to automatically recruit relevant journey-love mappings. Con-sider, then, the metaphor O u r l o v e i s a v o y a g e t o th e b o t t o m o f th e s e a . This is not aconventional metaphor because the vehicle v o y a g e t o th e b o t t o m o f th e s e a does nothave a stock, conventional meaning. On Lakoff's conceptual metaphor view, peopleshould automatically access journey-love mappings to understand the metaphor. Ifpeople do rely on journey-love mappings to interpret journey-love metaphors, theyshould certainly do so for this metaphor, because an explicit reference to journeys(i.e., the word v o y a g e ) appears in the metaphor. In addition, if joumey-love map-pings are accessed, then we should expect considerable agreement among people'sinterpretations. To the extent that people share common conceptual mappings, peo-ple's interpretations should be consistent with one another's. On our attributive cat-egory model, the vehicle v o y a g e t o th e b o t t o m o f th e s e a does not exemplify any par-ticular attributive category, and so we expected considerable variability in people'sinterpretations. As expected from the attributive category view, people's interpreta-tions greatly varied, from 'it's going to kill us both' (subject 1) to 'our deepest emo-tional natures have been revealed' (subject 4). The inferential strategy for arriving atthe interpretations that we obtained can be characterized as an attempt to answer thefollowing question: What properties of the concept v o y a g e t o th e b o t t o m o f th e s e amight plausibly be attributed to the concept o u r l o v e ? Among such properties aresome that are relevant to the more general concept of journeys. Included amongthese are the properties mentioned in several of the interpretations we obtained: dis-covery, uncharted ... world, and the notion of where 'our love is headed'. At thesame time, most of the interpretations made no reference to journey-love mappingsof any kind, e.g., subject 12, 'we don't talk enough', presumably drawn from thebelief that the bottom of the sea is a silent place. The variability of interpretations,together with the dearth of journey-related interpretations, provide no support for thehypothesis that people automatically retrieve specific source-target domain map-pings in order to understand a novel metaphor such as the l o v e - b o t t o m o f th e s e aexample.

The third metaphor that we used to assess whether people automatically (andhence invariably) retrieve specific source-target domain mappings was drawn fromthe conceptual metaphor RELATIONSHIPS ARE CONTAINERS. According to Lakoff andJohnson (1980), expressions such as f a l l i n g i n l o v e , W e a r e i n t h i s t o g e t h e r , and S h ef e l l o u t o f lo v e w i t h m e rely on container-relationship mappings where the relation-ship is conceptualized in terms of a container that can hold things such as emotions,and from which things can be removed. If people do rely on container-love map-pings to interpret metaphors that allude to containers, then a metaphor such as O u rl o v e i s a f i l i n g c a b i n e t should be interpreted in container-relevant terms. In addition,for the reasons given above, interpretations should be consistent across people.Alternatively, if people try to infer what sorts of things or situations the concept

f i l i n g c a b i n e t epitomizes, then one would expect some variability from person toperson. Some people might infer container-like states of affairs, others might infer


9/18

s. Glucksberg, M .S. McGlone / Journal of P ragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558 1549t h a t f i l i n g c a b i n e t s c o n n o t e o r g a n i z e d a n d b u s i n e s s - l i k e p r o p e r t i e s . T h e i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n s t h a t w e o b t a i n e d a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n . T h e p a r a p h r a s e s l i s t e d i nT a b l e 1 d o n o t r e f l e c t a s i n g l e , i n v a r i a n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n s t e a d , t h e r e s e e m t o b e a tl e a s t t h r e e c l u s t e r s o f in t e r p r e t a t i o n s : s u b j e c t s 1 , 6 , 1 0 , a n d 1 2 t a k e t h e e x p r e s s i o n a sa n e g a t iv e c o m m e n t o n t h e m o n o t o n y a n d l a c k o f p a s s i o n i n th e r e la t i o n s h ip ; s u b -j e c t s 2 , 3 , a n d 8 t a k e i t a s a r e l a t i v e l y n e u t r a l c o m m e n t o n t h e o r g a n i z e d a s p e c t s o ft h e r e l a t i o n s h i p ; a n d s u b j e c t s 4 , 5 , 7 , a n d 1 1 t a k e i t a s a p o s i t i v e c o m m e n t o n t h ee m o t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s ' c o n t a i n e d ' i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e R E L A T I O N -SHIPS ARE CONTAINERS id ea .

I n t hi s a d m i t te d l y p r e l i m i n a r y s e t o f d a t a w e f i n d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t p e o p l e a u t o -m a t i c a l ly a n d i n v a r i a b l y d r a w u p o n f i x e d s e ts o f d o m a i n - t o - d o m a i n m a p p i n g s i no r d e r t o i n t e r p r e t m e t a p h o r s . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n h o l d s w h e t h e r a m e t a p h o r v e h i c l e i sh i g h l y c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d , e . g . , r o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e , o r i s n o v e l a n d u n f a m i l i a r , e . g . , f i l -ing cab ine t s . W h i l e p e o p l e a r e u n d o u b t e d l y c a p a b l e o f p r o d u c i n g , s t o r in g , a n d r e c -o g n i z i n g a n a l o g i e s b e t w e e n c o n c e p t u a l d o m a i n s , a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n in g ( o f t h e s o r ta s s u m e d b y L a k o f f ) i s a p p a r e n t l y n o t a n e c e s s a r y s t e p i n m e t a p h o r c o m p r e h e n s i o n .A s e v i d e n c e d i n o u r p a r a p h r a s e d a ta , t h e r u l e o f p a r s i m o n y i n i n te r p r e ta t i o n o b v i a te st h e n e e d f o r a c u m b e r s o m e [ a n d p o t e n t i a l ly m i s l e a d in g ) p r o c e s s o f a n a lo g i c a la c c e s s . 2

3 . C o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g ie s a n d i d i o m c o m p r e h e n s i o nI n d r a w i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e r o l e o f c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g i e s i n d i s -c o u r s e , w e d o n o t i n t e n d t o d e n y t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t u s e f u l a n a l o g i e s m a y b e a v a i l -

a b l e i n s e m a n t i c m e m o r y , a n d m a y u n d e r l i e t h e u s e a n d c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f s o m et y p e s o f e x p r e s s io n s . I n p a r ti c u la r , o n e c o m m o n t y p e o f i d i o m m i g h t v e r y w e l l d r awu p o n p r e - s t o r e d in t e r d o m a i n m a p p i n g s , n a m e l y , i d i o m s t h a t se e m t o r e p r e s e n t u n d e r -l y i n g m e t a p h o r i c a l c o n c e p t i o n s o f s u c h a b s t r a c t e n t i t i e s a s a n g e r , f e a r , s a d n e s s , a n dh a p p i n e s s , a m o n g o t h e rs . A n g e r , f o r e x a m p l e , c a n b e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d in a n y o n e o fs e v e r a l s p e c i f ic w a y s ( L a k o f f , 1 9 8 7 ; L a k o f f a n d J o h n s o n , 1 9 8 0 ). O n e c o n c e p t u a lm e t a p h o r f o r a n g e r i s t h a t o f a h e a t e d f l u i d u n d e r p r e s su r e . I d i o m s t h a t s e e m t or e f l e c t t h is c o n c e p t u a l m e t a p h o r i n c l u d e f l i p y o u r l i d , l e t o f f s t e a m , b l o w y o u r t o p ,a n d g e t h o t u n d e r t h e c o l la r . A n a l te r n a ti v e c o n c e p t u a l m e t a p h o r f o r a n g e r i s t ha t o fa n i m a l - l i k e b e h a v i o r , a s r e f l e c t e d in s u c h i d i o m s a s b i t e s o m e o n e ' s h e a d o f f a n dj u m p d o w n s o m e o n e ' s t h r o a t . W h e n p e o p l e e n c o u n t e r an i d i o m s u c h a s b l o w h i s t o pi n a c o n v e r s a t i o n , i s t h e c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g y o f a n g e r a s h e a t e d f l u i d u n d e r p r e s s u r e( a ) a v a i l a b l e a n d ( b ) a c c e s s i b l e ? B y a v a i l a b i l i t y , w e m e a n t h a t a c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e

2 If a speaker were to utte r 'our lo ve is a filing cabinet' with the intention of conv eying despair overher staid, b usiness-like lo v e affair, th en the auto m atic retrieval of the RELATIONSHIPSARE CONTAINERSanalogy co uld potentially mislead the addressee. Lik e subject 5, the addressee mig ht understand thespeaker to m ean tha t the relationship 'contains' her passion. Since conceptual analogies are autom ati-cally and un consciously etrieved (according o Lako ff), the influen ce of d iscourse context cannot repairthis state of affairs. We will return to the p roblem of context in the con clusion section.


10/18

1550 s . Glucksberg , M.S . McG lone / Journal o f Prag mat ics 31 (1999) 15 41-155 8is r e p re s e n t e d i n s e m a n t i c o r lo n g t e r m m e m o r y , a n d c o u l d b e r e t r ie v e d u n d e r s o m e ,b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a l l , c i r c u m s t a n c e s . B y a c c e s s i b i l i t y w e m e a n t h a t a c o n c e p t u a ls t r u c t u r e i s n o t o n l y a v a i l a b l e , b u t c a n b e a c c e s s e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t t o p a r t i c i -p a t e i n e i t h e r p r o d u c t i o n o r c o m p r e h e n s i o n p r o c e s s e s ( f o r a fu l l e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h ea v a i l a b i l i t y - a c c e s s i b i l i t y d is t in c t i o n , s e e H i g g i n s e t a l. , 1 9 7 7 ; S r u l l a n d W y e r ,1979 ) .

B y d e f i n i t io n , t h e a v a i l a b i li t y o f a c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c tu r e i s c o n t e x t - i n d e p e n d e n t : i ti s e i t h e r s t o r e d in m e m o r y o r is n o t. A g a i n b y d e f i n i ti o n , t h e a c c e s s i b i l i ty o f a n y s p e -c i fi c c o n c e p tu a l s t r u ct u re is c o n te x t - d e p e n d e n t. A n y g i v e n i t e m i n m e m o r y m a y b ea c c e s s i b l e i n o n e c o n t e x t , b u t n o t a c c e s s i b l e i n a n o t h e r . F o r e x a m p l e , i f th e r e i s ac o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g y o f a n g e r - a s - fl u i d - u n d e r -p r e s s u r e i n s e m a n t i c m e m o r y , t h e n t h isc o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e is a v a il a b l e . It m a y b e a c c e s s i b l e i n s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s b u t n o ti n o t h e r s . F o r e x a m p l e , i t m a y b e a c c e s s i b l e a n d u s e d w h e n p e o p l e h a v e t h e t i m e t om a k e c o n s i d e r e d , d e l i b e r a t e j u d g m e n t s . I t m a y , h o w e v e r , b e i n a c c e s s i b le , a n d t h e r e -f o r e n o t u se d , i n o n g o i n g s p e e c h c o m p r e h e n s i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n w h e n p e o p l e d o n o th a v e t h e t i m e f o r s u c h j u d g m e n t s .

A c c o r d i n g t o L a k o f f (1 9 9 3) , c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g i e s t h at u n d er li e c o m m o n i d i o m ss u c h a s b l o w o n e ' s t o p a r e n o t o n l y a v a i l a b l e , t h e y a r e a l s o a u t o m a t i c a l l y a n d h e n c ei n v a r i a b l y a c c e s s e d d u r i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n , r e g a r d l e s s o f t a s k o r c o n t e x t . T h i s is as t r o n g p r o c e s s i n g c l a i m , o n e t h a t p l a c e s e x t r e m e l y n a r r o w c o n s t r a i n t s o n h o w p e o p l ei n t e rp r e t l in g u i s ti c e x p r e s s i o n s a c r o s s t h e e n t ir e r a n g e o f p o s s i b l e c o n t e x t s , f r o mc a s u a l s m a l l t a l k t o p a i n s t a k i n g t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s . A r e p e o p l e s o t i g h t l y c o n s t r a i n e dt h a t t h e s u r f a c e f o r m o f a li n g u i st i c e x p r e s s i o n i n v a r i a b l y c o n t r o l s th e h u m a n c o g n i -t iv e p r o c e s s in g s y s t e m ?T h e r e i s s o m e e v i d e n c e t h a t p e o p l e c a n r e c o g n i z e a n a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e ni d i o m s a n d t h e i r d i s c o u r s e c o n t e x t w h e n g i v e n t h e t im e to m a k e r e f l e c t iv e j u d g -m e n t s . N a y a k a n d G i b b s ( 1 9 9 0 ) a s k e d c o l l e g e s t u d e n ts t o j u d g e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s so f i d i o m s i n s p e c i f i c c o n t e x t s . T h e s t u d e n ts w e r e g i v e n s h o r t n a r r a t iv e s s u c h a s t hef o l l o w i n g ( e m p h a s e s a d d e d ) :"Mary w as very tense about this evening's dinner party. The fact that Bob had not come hom e to helpwas m aking her f u m e . She was getting hot ter with every passing minute. Dinner would not be readybefore the guests arrived. As it got closer to five o'clock the pressu re w as real ly bui lding up. Mary ' stolerance was reaching its limits. When Bob strolled in at ten minutes to five whistling and smiling,M ary ... . . . b lew her top" .

. . . bi t his head of f ' .I n th i s s to r y , t h e p r o t a g o n i s t ' s ( M a r y ' s ) a n g e r is d e s c r i b e d i n t e r m s o f i n c r e a s in gp r e s s u re a n d h e a t - ' m a k i n g h e r f u m e ' , ' g e t t i n g h o t te r ' , ' p r e s s u r e w a s r e a l ly b u il d -i n g u p ' , e t c . T h e s t o r y i s t h u s s t y l i s t i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i d i o m s t h a t c o u l d i n s t a n t i -a t e th e c o n c e p t o f a n g e r a s h e a t e d f l u i d u n d e r p r e s s u r e - i n th i s c a se , b l e w h e r t op .T h e f o l l o w i n g s c e n a r i o w a s c o n s t r u c t e d t o b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a n a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c e p -t io n o f a n g e r, t h a t o f a n i m a l - l ik e b e h a v i o r ( e m p h a s e s a d d e d ) :"Mary was getting very g r o u ch y abo ut this evening's dinner party. She p r o w l e d around the house w ait-ing for Bob to com e hom e to help. She was growling under her breath about Bo b's lateness. Her m ood


11/18

S. G lucksberg, M .S. McGIo,~e / Journal of Pragm atics 31 (1999) 1541-1558 1551was becom ing mo re savage with every passing minu te. As it got closer to f ive o'clock, M ary was .fero-ciously angry with B ob. W hen Bob strolled in at 4:30 whistling and sm iling, Mary .... . . blew her top".... bit his head offf'.H e r e , th e d e s c r ip t i o n o f M a r y ' s b e h a v i o r in a n im a l i s ti c t e rm s - ' p r o w l e d ' , ' g r o w l -i n g ' , ' s a v a g e ' , e t c . - i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i d i o m s th a t in s t a n t ia t e a n i m a l - l i k e b e h a v i o r ,s u c h a s b i t h i s h e a d o f f .C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e a n a l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n i d i o m s i s a v a i l -a b l e a n d a c c e s s i b le w h e n p e o p l e h a v e t i m e t o m a k e d e l i b e r a t e j u d g e m e n t s , t h e s tu -d e n t s r a t e d a n a l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s a s m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e t h a n c o m p a r a b l e b u ta n a l o g i c a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s . T h u s , b l e w h e r t o p w a s r a t e d a s m o r e a p p r o p r i a t ea s a c o m p l e t i o n w h e n a n g e r w a s d e s c r i b e d i n h e a t a n d p r e s s u r e t e r m s , a n d b i t h i sh e a d o f f a s m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n a n g e r w a s d e s c r i b e d i n a n i m a l i s t i c t e r m s .

O n t h e b as is o f th i s fi n d in g , N a y a k a n d G i b b s ( 1 9 9 0 ) c o n c l u d e d t h a t r e a d e r s n o to n l y h a v e r e l e v a n t a n a l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e , b u t t h a t r e a d e r s a l s o u s e t h i si n f o r m a t i o n t o f a c i l i t a t e i d i o m c o m p r e h e n s i o n . T h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s sr a t in g s a r e t a k e n t o r e f l e c t th e r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y s u b j e c ts h a d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g th e c o m -p e t in g i d i o m c o m p l e t i o n s . I d i o m s i n s to r y c o n t e x t s t h a t w e r e m a t c h e d f o r a n a l o g i c a li n f o r m a t i o n w e r e c o n s i d e r e d e a s i e r t o i n t e r p r e t t h a n i d i o m s i n c o n t e x t s u s i n g a d i f -f e r e n t c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g y . T h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s r a t i n g s , o n t h i s a c c o u n t , d i r e c t l yr e f l e c t e d e a s e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

T h e r e a r e , h o w e v e r , a t l e a s t t w o c o m p e t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e s e d a t a . F i rs t , th ea p p r o p r i a t e n e s s r a ti n g s m a y n o t b e t h e p r o d u c t o f e a s e o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n a t a ll , b u tr a th e r t h e o u t c o m e o f p o s t - c o m p r e h e n s i o n d e c i s io n a n d j u d g m e n t p r o c es s es . A f t e ra l l , p e o p l e m i g h t r e a d i l y n o t i c e t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p r e s s u r e - w o r d s i n a t e x t a n d t h es e m a n t i c c o n t e n t o f a n i d i o m s u c h a s b l o w o n e ' s t o p i n s i t u a t i o n s d e s i g n e d t o m o t i -v a t e s u c h a n a n a l y s is . I f t h e s u b je c t s i n t h e N a y a k a n d G i b b s ' ( 1 9 9 0 ) e x p e r i m e n t d i dr e c o g n i z e r e la t i o n s b e t w e e n te ~:tu al e l e m e n t s a n d t h e i d i o m c h o i c e s , t h e n t h e i rc h o i c e s m a y h a v e b e e n b a s e d s i m p l y o n a p r e f e r e n c e f o r s t y l i s t i c c o n s i s t e n c y . S e c -o n d , t h e d a t a m a y n o t e v e n i m p l i c a t e d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e s a t a l l . A s K r e u z a n dG r a e s s e r ( 1 9 9 1 ) h a v e p o i n t e d o u t , t h e r a t i n g s d a t a m a y b e e n t i r e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t os i m p l e l e x i c a l p r i m i n g r a t h e r t h a n t o s t y l i s t i c c o n s i s t e n c y p e r s e . W o r d s s u c h a sp r o w l e d , g r o w l e d , a n d s a v a g e a r e s e m a n t i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e w o r d b i t e , as int h e i d i o m b i te o n e ' s h e a d o ff . T h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e i n f e r e n c e s r e a d -e r s d r a w d u r i n g t e x t c o m p r e h e n s i o n c a n b e s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d b y l e x i c a l p r i m i n g( e . g ., M c K o o n a n d R a t c l i ff , 1 9 8 6 ; P o t t s e t a l. , 1 9 8 8 ) . T h u s , e v e n i f t h e r e w e r e n oc o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g y i n s e m a n t i c m e m o r y u n d e r l y i n g th e m e a n i n g o f th e i d io m b i t eo n e ' s h e a d o ff , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e w o r d s i n a t e x t a n d t h e w o r d s i n a ni d i o m c o u l d i n f l u e n c e s u b j e c t s ' a p p r o p r i a te n e s s r a t i n gs .

I n v i e w o f th e s e p r o b l e m s , w e d e c i d e d t o re p l i c a te th e N a y a k a n d G i b b s s t u d y , b u tw i t h a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t r o l s fo r l e x ic a l p r im i n g ( G l u c k s b e r g e t a l. , 1 9 9 3 : e x p e r i m e n t1 ). I n th e i r o r i g i n a l m a t e r i a l s , o n l y t h e c e n t r a l p r o t a g o n i s t i n a s t o r y c o u l d b e t h e r e f -e r e n t o f t a r g e t i d i o m s . W e u s e d t h e s e o r i g i n a l m a t e r i a l s a s p a r t o f a r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h eN a y a k a n d G i b b s s t u d y . H o w e v e r , w e a l s o u s e d t w o o t h e r i t e m t y p e s . T h e f i r s t w a sa n o t h e r - p e r s o n r e f e r e n t v e r s io n o f t h e o r i g in a l s t o r y , in w h i c h t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n -


12/18

1552 S. Glucksberg, M.S. McGIone / Jou rnal of Prag ma tics 31 (1999) 154 1-15 58

c e p t u a l a n a l o g y i n f o r m a t i o n r e f e r r e d t o t h e o r i g in a l p r o t a g o n i s t , b u t t h e t a r g e t i d i o m sr e f e r r e d n o t t o t h a t p r o t a g o n i s t , b u t i n s t e a d t o s o m e o t h e r p e r s o n . T h u s , i f M a r y w e r et o b e d e s c r i b e d a s ' f u m i n g ' i n a p a r t i c u l a r s c e n a r i o , t h e n t h e t a r g e t i d i o m blow one'stop w o u l d r e f e r t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n i n t h a t s c e n a r i o . I f i d i o m a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s j u d g -m e n t s a r e s im p l y a f u n c t io n o f w h i c h k i n d s o f id i o m a t i c a l ly r e l e v a n t c o n c e p t s a rem o s t a c c e s s i b l e i n a g i v e n c o n t e x t , t h e n t h e s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n t o f t h e t a r g e t i d i o ms h o u l d m a k e n o d i f f e re n c e . T h u s i f a n y o n e i n a s t o r y is d e s c r i b e d i n ' f u m i n g - a n g e r 't e r m s , t h e n a n y o n e e l s e i n t h a t c o n t e x t w o u l d t e n d a l s o t o b e d e s c r i b e d i n t h o s et e r m s . T o c o n t r o l f o r l e x i c a l p r i m i n g p e r s e , w e u s e d a t h i r d t y p e o f s c e n a r i o i nw h i c h a s i t u a t i o n o r s t a te o f a f f a ir s , ra t h e r t h a n a n y p e r s o n , i s d e s c r i b e d b y w o r d sr e l e v a n t t o a n i d i o m a t i c c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g y , e . g . , t h e w i n d ' r o a r e d ' . S u c h n o n - p e r -s o n d e s c r i p t i o n s s h o u l d n o t e v o k e a n y s p e c i f i c e m o t i o n c o n c e p t s u c h a s a n g e r , a n ds o s h o u l d n o t e l i c it a n a l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m j u d g m e n t s , u n l e s s t h e l e x i c a l i t e m st h e m s e l v e s p r i m e s u c h j u d g m e n t s . T h e t a r g e t i d i o m s r e f e r r e d i n v a r ia b l y t o a p e r s o ni n t h e s c e n a r i o , e . g . , ' s h e b i t h i s h e a d o f f ' . I f l e x i c a l p r i m i n g w e r e t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v ev a r i ab l e , t h e n s u b j e c ts ' j u d g m e n t s o f i d i o m - s t o r y a p p r o p r ia t e n e s s s h o u l d n o t b ea f f e c t e d b y a n i d i o m ' s r e f e r e n t . E v e n w h e n e v e n t s o r s i tu a t i o n s a r e d e s c r i b e d , s a y , ina n i m a l i s t ic t e r m s , s u b j e c t s s h o u l d j u d g e t h a t a n i m a l - c o n s i s t e n t a n g e r i d i o m s a r em o r e a p p r o p r i a t e th a n i d i o m s b a s e d o n o t h e r m e t a p h o r s f o r a n g e r.

T o s u m m a r i z e t h e l o g i c o f o u r r e p li c a ti o n , i f j u d g m e n t s o f i d i o m a p p r o p r i a t e n e s sa r e b a s e d o n t h e s p e c i f i c e m o t i o n a t t r i b u t e d t o a s p e c i f i c p r o t a g o n i s t i n a g i v e n c o n -t e x t , t h e n a n a l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s s h o u l d b e c h o s e n a s m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e o n l yi n t h e o r i g i n a l - p e r s o n r e f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n . I f p e o p l e b a s e t h e i r c h o i c e s i n s t e a d o n t h eb a s is o f w h i c h e m o t i o n c o n c e p t s a r e m o s t a c c e s s i b l e in m e m o r y i n a g i v e n c o n t e x t ,t h e n t h e re s h o u l d b e n o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e o r i g in a l a n d t h e o t h e r - p e r s o n r e f e r e n tc o n d i t i o n s . E i t h e r o f t h e s e t w o p a t t e rn s o f r e s u l ts w o u l d b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c l a i mt h at p e o p l e c a n u s e c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g ic a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r id i o m i n t e rp r e t a ti o n w h e ns u c h i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i la b l e . H o w e v e r , i f r e a d e r s ' i d i o m p r e f e r e n c e s c a n s i m p l y b ep r i m e d b y t h e w o r d s i n a s t o r y c o n t e x t , t h e n t h e s a m e i d i o m p r e f e r e n c e s s h o u l d b ee x h i b i t e d i n a l l t h r e e t y p e s o f s t o r i e s . P e o p l e s h o u l d , f o r e x a m p l e , c h o o s e a n i m a l -b e h a v i o r i d i o m s t o d e s c r i b e a n a n g r y p e r s o n e v e n w h e n t h e s t o r y u s e s a w o r d s u c ha s ' r o a r ' t o r e f e r n o t t o a n g e r , b u t i n s t e a d t o th e s o u n d o f t h e w i n d . T h i s l a t t er re s u l tw o u l d s u p p o r t K r e u z a n d G r a e s s e r ' s ( 1 9 9 1 ) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t N a y a k a n d G i b b s ' f i n d -i n g s a r e s i m p l y a n a r t i f a c t o f l e x i c a l p r i m i n g .Table 2Percentage of target idiom selections by referent conditionOriginal Person Other Person Non-Person69.4 % 60.2% 50.9%

O u r r e s u l t s w e r e c l e a r . A s t h e d a t a i n T a b l e 2 i n d i c a t e , p e o p l e p r e f e r r e d i d i o m st h a t w e r e a n a l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s t o r y t e x t s . T h u s , w h e n a n y p e r s o n i n a s t o r yi s d e s c r i b e d a s f u m i n g , t h e n a n g e r i d i o m s t h a t a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h e a t e d f l u i d u n d e r


13/18

s. Glucksberg, M.S. M cGlorre / Journal o f Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558 1553p r e s s u r e , s u c h a s b l o w o n e ' s t o p , ; ar e p r e f e r r e d t o i n c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s . T h e p a r t i c u l a rp e r s o n o r p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d d o n o t s e e m t o m a t t e r a l l t h a t m u c h , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h ee f f e c t i v e m e d i a t i n g f a c t o r is th e g e n e r a l k i n d o f i d i o m i n v o l v e d , n o t it s s p e c i f i c r e f -e r e n t . I n c o n t r a s t , w h e n w o r d s s u c h a s f u m i n g a r e u s e d t o d e s c r i b e n o n - p e r s o n e n t i -t ie s , s u c h w o r d s p r e s u m a b l y d o n o t a c t i v a te p e r s o n - r e l e v a n t c o n c e p t s s u c h a s a n g e r .T h i s i n t u rn i m p l i e s t h a t t h e c h o i c e p a t te r n s i n o u r p e r s o n - r e f e r e n t c o n d i t io n s w e r en o t a n a r t i f a c t o f l e x i c a l p r i m i n g p e r s e .

T h e r e s u l ts o f o u r r e p l ic a t i o n s u p p o r t t h e c l a i m t h a t p e o p l e c a n r e c o g n i z e t h e r e l a -t i o n s b e t w e e n a n i d i o m ' s a n a l o g i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s a n d d i s c o u r s e c o n t e x t . T h e q u e s -t i o n r e m a i n s , h o w e v e r , a s t o w h e t h e r t h i s a n a l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e t r i e v e d a u t o -m a t i c a l l y a s a p a r t o f t h e n o r m a l r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n p r o c e s s . I n o r d e r to a n s w e rt h is q u e s t i o n , w e a d a p t e d t h e s t o r ie s u s e d i n t h e i d i o m - c h o i c e e x p e r i m e n t f o r a re a d -i n g - t i m e t a s k ( G l u c k s b e r g e t a l . , 1 9 9 3 : e x p e r i m e n t 2 ) . P e o p l e r e a d t h e s t o r i e s , o n el i n e a t a ti m e , a n d a s t o r y c o u l d e n ad e i t h e r w i t h a n a n a l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t o r a n a n a -l o g i c a l ly i n c o n s i s t e n t i d io m . I f c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g i e s a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y a c c e s s e d d u r -i n g r ea d i n g , w h e n c o n s i d e r e d j u d g m e n t s a b o u t t h e t e x t a r e n o t r e q u i r e d , th e n a n a -l o g i c a l ly c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s s h o u l d b e r e a d f a s t e r th a n i n c o n s i s te n t i d i o m s .

W e u s e d t w o o f th e i d i o m - s t o r y ty p e s , t h o s e in w h i c h t h e i d i o m r e f e r r e d t o a s t o -r y ' s o r i g in a l p r o t a g o n i s t , a n d t h o s e i n w h i c h t h e i d i o m r e f e r r e d t o a n o t h e r p e r so n .B a s e d o n t h e r e s u l t s o f o u r i d i o m c h o i c e e x p e r i m e n t , w e w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t a n a l o g i -c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s w o u l d b e r e a d m o r e q u i c k l y t h a n i n c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s i r r e -s p e c t i v e o f r e fe r e n t c o n d i t io n b e c a u s e s p e c i fi c k i n d s o f a n g e r s h o u l d b e a c t i v a te d i nb o t h c o n d i t i o n s . T h e o r i g i n a l- v s . o t h e r - p e r s o n r e f e r e n t c o m p a r i s o n s e r v es a s am a n i p u l a t io n c h e c k b e c a u s e s w i t c h in g t h e to p i c o r f o c u s o f a s t o ry i n m i d - s t re a ms h o u l d d i s r u p t p e r f o r m a n c e ( G a r r o d a n d S a n f o r d , 1 9 8 8 ) . G a r r o d a n d S a n f o r d f o u n dt h a t r e a d i n g t i m e s w e r e s l o w e d w h e n a s t o r y to p i c s h i f ts i n a t e x t . I f r e a d i n g t i m e s i no u r t a s k a r e n o t a f f e c t e d b y a s w i t c h f r o m o r i g i n a l - t o o t h e r - p e r s o n r e f e r e n t s , t h e nt h i s w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t o u r d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e ( r e a d i n g t i m e ) i s s i m p l y n o t s e n s i t i v ee n o u g h t o d e t e c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n d i f f i c u l t y .Table 3Mean reading times by analogical consislency and referent condition

Con sistent Inconsistent Com binedOriginal Perso n 1902 2073 1988Other Person 2372 2274 2323Com bined 2137 2174

A g a i n o u r r e s u l t s w e r e c l e a r ( s e e T a b l e 3 ) . M e a n r e a d i n g t i m e s w e r e r e l i a b l ys l o w e r i n t h e o t h e r - p e r s o n r e f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n ( 2 3 2 3 m s e c ) t h a n i n t h e o r ig i n a l - re f e r -e n t c o n d i t i o n ( 1 9 8 8 m s e c ) . T h i s f i n d i n g i n d i c a te s t h a t o u r r e a d i n g t i m e m e a s u r e i ss u f f i c i e n t l y s e n s i t i v e t o d e t e c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n d i f f i c u l t y . I n c o n t r a s t t os w i t c h in g s t o r y r e fe r e n t s , a n a l o g ic a l c o n s i s t e n c y h a d n o d i s c e r n i b le e f f e c t o n r e a d i n gt im e s . T h e m e a n r e a d i n g t i m e s f o r a n a l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s te n t a n d a n a l o g i c a l l y i n c o n s is -


14/18

1554 s. Glucksbe rg, M .S. McGIone / Journa l ~)fPragm atics 31 (1999) 1541-15 58t e n t i d i o m c o m p l e t i o n s w e r e 2 1 3 7 m s e c a n d 2 1 7 4 m s e c , r e s p e c t i v e l y . W i t h i n t h eo r i g i n a l- p e r s o n r e f e r e n t c o n d i ti o n , t h e m e a n r e a d i n g t i m e s f o r a n a l o g i c a ll y c o n s i s t e n ta n d i n c o n s i s t en t i d io m s w e r e 1 9 0 2 m s e c a n d 2 0 7 3 m s e c , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e d i f fe r -e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s e tw o c o n d i t i o n s is 1 71 m s e c , r o u g h l y h a l f th e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e3 3 5 m s e c d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m e a n o r i g in a l - a n d o t h e r - p e r s o n r ea d i n g t im e s . T h ee f f e c t o f a n a l o g ic a l c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h in t h e o r i g i n a l -p e r s o n r e f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s d i d n o tapp r oac h s i gn i f i c an ce , t~ ( 31 ) = 1 .38 , p > .16 ; t i ( 15 ) = 1 .01 , p > .26 . T he s e r e s u l t sr e p l i c a t e G i b b s ( 1 9 9 2 ) , w h o r e p o r t e d a s i m i l a r f a i l u r e t o f i n d e f f e c t s o f a n a l o g i c a lc o n s i s t e n c y o n c o m p r e h e n s i o n p e r f o r m a n c e a s m e a s u r e d b y r e a d i n g t i m e s .

T h e a b s e n c e o f a n y m a i n o r i n t e r a c ti o n e f fe c t s i n v o l v in g a n a l o g i c a l c o n s i s t e n c y ,t o g e t h e r w i t h a r o b u s t e f f e c t o f r e f e r e n t v e r s i o n , s u g g e s t s t h a t e v e n w h e n a s p e c i f i cc o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g f o r a n e m o t i o n i s a v a i la b l e i n a s to r y , th a t c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g i s n o ta u t o m a t i c a l l y a c c e s s e d d u r i n g i d i o m c o m p r e h e n s i o n . P e r s o n s i n a s t o r y m a y b ed e s c r i b e d , f o r e x a m p l e , a s b e i n g a n g r y i n t h e h o t a n d f u m i n g s e n s e , y e t t h is d i d n o tf a c i l i t a t e t h e c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f a n a n a l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s u c h a s b l o w o n e ' sto p r e l a t i v e t o a d i f f e r e n t a n d a n a l o g i c a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t i d i o m s u c h a s b i t e o n e ' s h e a doff . A s f a r a s t h e r e a d i n g t i m e s i n d i c a t e , a n g e r i s a n g e r . O u r s u b j e c t s a p p a r e n t l y d i dn o t t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f a n y c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g i c a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t w e e n s t o r y e l e -m e n t s a n d i d i o m a t i c e x p r e s s i o n s w h e n c o m p r e h e n d i n g t h o s e e x p r e s s i o n s . I n s h o r t ,t h e s e d a t a p r o v i d e n o s u p p o r t f o r t h e c l a i m t h a t c o n c e p t u a l a n a l o g i e s a r e a u t o m a t i -c a l l y a c c e s s e d d u r i n g i d i o m c o m p r e h e n s i o n .

4 . C o n c l u s i o n sE a r l i e r in th i s a r ti c l e w e a r g u e d t h a t n o m i n a l m e t a p h o r s m a k e u s e o f a t tr i b u t iv e

c a t e g o r i e s . C o n v e n t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i v e c a t e g o r i e s , s u c h a s b u t c h e r s , c a n b e r e t r i e v e df r o m s e m a n t i c m e m o r y . N o v e l a t t r i b u t i v e c a t e g o r i e s , s u c h a s f i l i n g c a b i n e t s , c a n b ec r e a t e d d e n o v o d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t io n s . T h e c o n t r a s ti n g v i e w o f f e r e d b y L a k o f f a n dh i s c o l l e a g u e s i s t h a t m e t a p h o r c o m p r e h e n s i o n i s m a d e p o s s i b l e b y t h e a v a i l a b i l i t ya n d a u t o m a t i c a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f b o t h g e n e r i c - l e v e l a n d s p e c i f i c - l e v e l i n t e r d o m a i nm a p p i n g s .W i th r e s p e c t t o g e n e r i c - le v e l m a p p i n g s , w e r e m a i n a g n o s t i c , i f s o m e w h a t s k e p ti -c a l . P e o p l e d o t a l k a b o u t s t a t e s i n t h e s a m e w a y t h e y t a l k a b o u t l o c a t i o n s ( e . g . , ' Ih a v e g o t t e n t h r o u g h g r a d u a t e t r a i n i n g ' ) , p u r p o s e s i n t h e s a m e w a y a s d e s t i n a t i o n s( ' W e h a v e m a d e i t to o u r g o a l o f f in i s h i n g t h is p a p e r ' ) , e v e n t s i n t h e s a m e w a y a sa c t i o n s , a n d s o f o r t h . D o t h e s e l i n g u i s t i c s i m i l a r i t i e s r e f l e c t a c o n c e p t u a l s y s t e m i nw h i c h s t a t e s , p u r p o s e s , a n d e v e n t s c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d m e t a p h o r i c a l l y i n t e r m s o fl o c a t i o n s , d e s t i n a ti o n s , a n d a c t io n s ' ? P e r h a p s , b u t a s J a c k e n d o f f a n d A a r o n ( 1 9 9 1 )h a v e p o i n t e d o u t , s u c h a c l a i m r e s ts o n a d e f i n i t i o n o f m e t a p h o r t h a t is s o b r o a d t h a ti t l o s e s i t s t r a d i t i o n a l d e n o t a t i o n . T h e t e r m ' m e t a p h o r ' i s u s u a l l y r e s e r v e d f o r c o m -p a r i s o n s i n v o l v i n g c o n c e p t u a l l y d i s t i n c t e n t i ti e s : e . g . , t h e c o n c e p t s ' l o v e ' a n d ' j o u r -n e y ' c a n b e d i s t in g u i s h e d f r o m o n e a n o t h e r, e v e n t h o u g h t h e y s h a r e s i m i la r it ie s t h a tc o u l d m o t i v a t e e x p r e s s i o n s s u c h a s ' O u r l o v e h a s b e e n a n e x c i ti n g j o u r n e y ' . I n c o n -t r a s t , t h e s o u r c e e n t i t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e s o - c a l l e d g e n e r i c - l e v e l ' m e t a p h o r s ' a r e , a


15/18

S. Gluc ksberg, M .S. McGlor~,e Journal of Pragm atics 31 (1999) 1541-15 58 1555p r i o r i , p r o p e r s u b s e t s o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e t a r g e t e n t i ti e s : p e r f o r m i n g a n a c t i o n is at y p e o f ' e v e n t ' , r e a c h i n g a d e s t i n a ti o n i s a t y p e o f ' p u r p o s e ' , a n d b e i n g i n a lo c a t i o nis a t y p e o f ' s t a te ' . I t is n o t c l e a r w h a t i t w o u l d m e a n t o m e t a p h o r i c a l ly u n d e r s t a n d as u p e r s e t ( e v e n t s ) i n t e r m s o f i t s p r o p e r s u b s e t ( a c t i o n s ) , a n y m o r e t h a n i t w o u l d m a k es e n s e t o s a y ' A l l b i r d s a r e c a n a r i e s ' . W h e t h e r t h e ' e v e n t s ' d o m a i n a n d ' a c t i o n s 'd o m a i n s t a n d i n m e t a p h o r i c a l r e l a t i o n , a s o p p o s e d t o a t h e m a t i c a l l y p a r a l l e l r e l a t i o n ,r e m a i n s a n u n r e s o l v e d q u e s t i o n .

W i t h r e s p ec t t o s pe c i f i c - l e ve l m app i ngs , s uch a s LOVE IS A JOURNEY o r LOVE IS ACO NTA IN ER , w e a g a i n r e m a i n a g n o s t i c a s t o w h e t h e r o r n o t s u c h m a p p i n g s a r e p a r t o ft h e h u m a n c o n c e p t u a l s y s t e m . T h e m o r e s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n t h a t w e a d d r e s s i n t h i sp a p e r i s w h e t h e r t h e c o n c e p t u a l ',a na lo gic al m a p p i n g s d e s c r i b e d b y L a k o f f a n d c o l -l e a g u e s p r o v i d e t h e b a si s f o r m e t a p h o r a n d i d i o m i n t e r p re t a ti o n . W e a r g u e t h a t t h e r ei s n o g o o d r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e s o , a n d v e r y g o o d r e a s o n s t o s u p p o s e n o t . F i r s t , w ef o u n d t h a t t h e re w a s n o n e c e s s a r y r e l a t io n b e t w e e n h y p o t h e t i c a l s p e c i f i c -l e v e l m a p -p i n g s a n d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t p e o p l e g e n e r a t e f o r m e t a p h o r s t h a t , p r i m a f a c i e , a rei n s t a n t ia t i o n s o f s p e c i f i c - l e v e l m a p p i n g s ( e .g . , L o v e i s a b u m p y r o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e o rL o v e i s a v o y a g e t o t h e b o t to m o f th e s e a ) . S e c o n d , a c r i t i c a l p r o b l e m f o r t h e m a p -p i n g h y p o t h e s i s h a s y e t t o b e s o l v e d . H o w a r e p e o p l e t o i d e n t if y th o s e c a s e s i n w h i c ha s p e c i f ic - l e v e l m a p p i n g is r e l e v a n t ? T h e l i te r al , s e m a n t i c a ll y a u t o n o m o u s t a x o -n o m i c c a t e g o r y o f a m e t a p h o r v e h i c l e i s a n i n s u f f ic i e n t ly d e t e r m i n a t e c u e f o r r e tr i e v -i n g a r e l e v a n t m a p p i n g , a s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e v a r i a b i l i t y o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r n o v e lm e t a p h o r s s u c h a s L o v e i s a v o y a g e t o t h e b o t t o m o f th e s e a , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n db y t h e v i rt u a l a b s e n c e o f j o u r n e y - r e l a t e d i n te r p r e ta t io n s f o r a c o n v e n t i o n a l m e t a p h o rs u c h a s L o v e i s a b u m p y r o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e o n t h e o t h e r . E q u a l l y p r o b l e m a t i c a r es u c h e x p r e s s i o n s a s B o y s w i l l b e b o y s . I t i s q u i t e u n c l e a r w h a t s p e c i f i c o r g e n e r a ll e v e l m a p p i n g s m i g h t b e r e l e v a n t f o r m e t a p h o r s o f th i s f o r m , i .e ., A n X i s a n X . A si n s u c h e x p r e s s i o n s a s C a m b o d i a h a s b e c o m e V i e t n a m ' s V i e tn a m , t h e r e f e r e n t s o ft h e r e p e a t e d t e r m a r e d i f f e r e n t . T h e f i r s t u s e o f th e t e r m ' b o y s ' r e f e r s t o a s p e c i fi ce n t i t y ( y o u n g m a l e i n d i v i d u a l s ) , t h e s e c o n d ' b o y s ' t o a c l a s s o f e n t i t ie s th a t th e s p e -c i f ic e n t it y e p i t o m i z e s ( p e o p l e w h o e n g a g e i n re c k l e s s, b r a s h b e h a v i o r ) .

T h e c r i t i c a l p r o b l e m h e r e i s t h a t a n y t h i n g m a y h a v e a n y n u m b e r o f l i t e r a l o rm e t a p h o r i c a l t a x o n o m i c m e m b e r s h i p s , o f w h i c h o n l y s o m e ( o r o n e ) w i l l b e r e l e v a n tw h e n a t h in g i s r e f e r r e d t o . R e c a l l o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f c a t e g o r y - b a s e d , l i te r a l s im i l a r -i t y a t th e p a p e r ' s b e g i n n i n g . W h e n a q u a r t e r is c o m p a r e d t o a d o l la r , it s s t a tu s a s c u r -r e n c y i s l i k e l y t o b e a c c e s s e d . W h e n a q u a r t e r i s c o m p a r e d t o a f r i s b e e , t h i s ' c u r -r e n c y ' s t a t u s i s i r r e l e v a n t ; ' r o u n d o b j e c t ' s t a t u s is r e l e v a n t a n d t h u s h i g h l y a c c e s s i b l ei n th i s c o n t e x t . W i t h r e s p e c t t o m e t a p h o r , t h e p r o b l e m f o r t h e o r is t s is h o w t o s p e c i f yw h i c h c a t e g o r i c a l m e m b e r s h i p s o f t h e t o p i c a n d v e h i c l e a r e a c c e s s e d t o c r e a t e t h e' g r o u n d ' , o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e m e t a p h o r i c g r o u n d c a n n o t u n i q u e l y b e d e t e r m i n e d ,c o n t r a r y t o L a k o f f ' s c l a im , f r o m a s i n gl e t a x o n o m i c c a t e g o r y t h a t is i d e n t if i e d b y t h em e t a p h o r v e h i c l e ( e .g . , r o l l e r c o a s t e r r i d e a n d v o y a g e t o th e b o t t o m o f t h e s e a i n s t an -t i a t e t h e s u p e r o r d i n a t e c a t e g o r y ' j o u r n e y s ' ) . W h y ? B e c a u s e t h e r e a r e n o a p r i o r ig r o u n d s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h :s et o f i n t e r d o m a i n m a p p i n g s a r e r el e v a n t . T h e a l te r -n a t i v e t h a t w e p r o p o s e , a t t r i b u t i v e c a t e g o r i e s , i s a w o r k a b l e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s p r o b l e m .I f a m e t a p h o r v e h i c l e e x e m p l i f i e s a c a t e g o r y t o w h i c h t h e m e t a p h o r t o p i c c a n b e


16/18

1556 S. Glucksberg. M .S. McGlone / Journal o f Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558assigned in an interesting way, then people will take that category as the ground ofthe metaphor. If a metaphor vehicle does not exemplify such a category, then inter-pretations will vary considerably, or may even fail.

Consider an example used by Lakoff (1993), H e a t h e r i s a t im e b o m b . Lakoffclaims that this expression is understood via our understanding of anger as some-thing that can explode: ANGER IS HEATED FLUID UNDER PRESSURE ('under pressure'implies a container). On this view, the meaning of the metaphor is derived from astored correspondence between the degree of anger and the degree of pressure and/orheat. Since a time bomb creates a high degree of heat and pressure when it explodes,the corresponding degree of anger attributed to Heather is high. This mapping ofheat and pressure properties is guaranteed, Lakoff argues, by the principle of 'invari-ance': "metaphorical mappings to the topic preserve the image-schematic structureof the source domain" (Lakoff, 1990: 54). In the case of time bombs, then, theinvariance principle ensures that a time-bomb's status in the category of 'entities thatgive off heat and pressure' will invariably be accessed and mapped to the targetdomain (Heather).

But consider the expression D i a b e t e s i s a t im e b o m b . Here, time bombs' status inthe 'heat and pressure' category is irrelevant, while the notion of 'something badhappening at some unknown time' that time bombs exemplify is relevant and thusaccessed. On our attributive category view, the expression t i m e b o m b does not auto-matically activate the mapping from heated-fluid-under-pressure to anger. Instead,time bombs are taken to exemplify anything that has very bad effects inevitably butat some unknown time in the future. Uncertainty, inevitability, and disastrous out-come seem to be the quintessential properties of time bombs at the most generalattributive category level. How these properties of the attributive category are instan-tiated depends on the metaphor topic and the discourse context. People who are'time bombs' may anger easily and violently, or they may be disastrously errorprone. Diseases that are 'time bombs' take their toll at an unknown time in thefuture. Public policies may be 'time bombs' if their effect on society is unpredictablydisastrous. In each context, the properties o f an attributive category are realized in adifferent way. The fact that different contexts can yield varying metaphorical inter-pretations is a clear violation of the invariance principle. These arguments, togetherwith our data on how people interpret conventional and novel metaphors, lead us toconclude that metaphor comprehension does not require the retrieval of numerousinterdomain mappings from semantic memory. Even in domains where the etymol-ogy of conventional expressions suggests a systematic analogy (e.g., idioms foranger), there is no evidence that people routinely activate such analogies duringcomprehension. In situations that warrant contemplation and analysis, such as thestudy of poetry or creative writing, people may recognize and/or utilize conventionalanalogies of the sort Lakoff has described. Analogical retrieval in these situations isconscious and deliberate, n o t unconscious and automatic. Our idiom choice experi-ment demonstrated that people can utilize a conventional analogy to make deliberatejudgments about the fit between an idiom and its discourse context. Our reading timeexperiment demonstrated that the analogical fit between idiom and context can be ofno consequence in the comprehension process.


17/18

S. Glucksberg, M.S. McGlone / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1541-1558 1557In closing, we would like to remark on the scope and application of theories of

figurative language. The 'attributive category' theory we have described here is pri-marily concerned with discourse-level processing: non-contemplative, speeded,maximally-efficient language processing, in which material that may be 'available'in semantic memory is not routinely or automatically accessed if it is not required forthe task at hand. As such, we do not offer our view as a theory of poetic or literaryinterpretation, although we believe that an art-form level theory should be compati-ble with a theory at the discourse-level.

A discourse-level theory is also different in scope and application from a theory ofthought, which we take Lakoff's 'conceptual metaphor' theory to be. Again, thesetwo types of theories should not be incompatible. One should complement, or atleast be coherent with, the other. Cognitive theories of communication and thoughtare currently in a nascent, somewhat amorphous state. In the flurry of theorizing,what is often obscured is the need for theories that can distinguish between dis-course-level and conceptual-level phenomena. As an example of such phenomena inthe metaphor domain, consider 1he distinction between comprehensibility and apt-ness in the following statements:

'Not all of Einstein's ideas were gold.''Not all of Einstein's ideas were platinum.'

The meaning of both statements is clear: Not all of Einstein's ideas were valuable.The statements arguably involw; the same conceptualization (in terms of preciousmetals) of ideas. In Lakoff 's terms, both expressions may be said to invoke the con-ceptual metaphor IDEAS ARE COMMODITIES (Lakoff, 1987). Although they are easilyand similarly understood, only the first statement seems apt. On the attributive cate-gory view, this difference in aptness is due to a discourse principle such that aptnessis determined by how emblematic the vehicle is of its attributive category. Gold is aprototypical member of this category; platinum, although in fact more costly thangold, is not a typical member of this category, at least not in North American culture.The discourse principle operates separately from the (hypothesized) conceptual prin-ciple, and most importantly, c a n n o t b e d e r i v e d f r o m it.It is not possible to derive the domain of discourse from the domain of thoughtand conceptualization. Nor is it, for that matter, an easy business to derive thedomain of thought and conceptualization from discourse, as investigators of Whorf'slinguistic relativity hypothesis have painfully discovered (Brown, 1958; Glucksberg,1988). In many respects, Lakoff's attempt to characterize the structure of abstractconcepts solely on the basis of linguistic data bears unfortunate similarities toWhorf's endeavor. We do not deny that the domains of discourse and conceptual-ization must interact in some systematic, yet-to-be-understood fashion. However, thedomains are distinct and will require independent theoretical elaboration and devel-opment.


18/18

1558 S. Glucksberg, M.S . Mc Glon e / Journal o f Prag ma t ics 31 (1999) 1 541-1 558

Re f e r en c e sBarsa lou, Law rence W. , 1983. Ad -hoc ca tegor ies . M emo ry and Cogni t ion 11 : 211-227.Black, Max, 19 62. M odels and metaphors. Ithaca, NY : Co rnell Un ivers i ty Press.Black, Max, 1993. M ore about metaphor. In : A . Ortony, ed . , Metaph or and thought , 19-41. S econd edi -t ion: Camb ridge : C amb ridge Un ivers i ty Press .Brow n, Roger , 1958. W ords and th ings. Ne w Yo rk: T he Free Press.Davidson, Don a ld , 1978. W hat metaphors mean. In : S . Sacks , ed . , On m etaphor , 29-45 . Ch icago, IL:The Un ivers i ty of Ch icago Press .Garrod, S im on and Antho ny Sanford , 1988. Them at ic subjec thood and cogn i t ive cons t ra in ts on d is -cours e structure . J ourn al of Pragmatics, 12, 519 -53 4.Gi bbs , R a ymond W . , 1992 . W ha t do i d i oms re a ll y me a n ? Jou rna l o f Me m ory a nd La ngua ge 31 :485-506 .Glucksberg , Sam, 1988. Langu age and thought. In : R . S te rnberg and E.E. Smi th , eds. , The psycho logyof th inking, 100-125. Cam bridge : Cam bridge U nivers i ty Press.Glucksberg , Sam , Mary E. Brown and M at thew S . M cGlon e , 19 93. Con ceptua l ana logies a re not auto-

mat ica l ly accessed dur ing id iom comprehen s ion. M emo ry and Cog ni t ion 21 : 711-719.Glucksberg , Sam and B oaz Keysar , 1990. Und ers tanding metaphorica l comparison s : B eyon d s imi la r ity.P syc ho l og i c a l R e v i e w 97 : 3 -18 .Grice , H.P . 1975 . Log ic and conv ersa t ion . In : P . Cole and J . Mo rgan, eds. , S peech ac ts (Syntax andsemant ics 3) , 41-58. New York: Academic Press .Higgins , E. Tory , Wi l l iam S . Rho les , and Car l R . Jones , 1977. Ca tegory access ib i l i ty and impress ion for-mat ion . Journa l of Exper imenta l Soc ia l Psychology 13: 141-154.J a c ke ndof f , R a y a nd Da v i d Aa ron , 1991 . R e v i e w o f M ore than coo l reason . A f i e ld guide to poet icmetaphor. La ngua ge 67 : 320 -338 .Kreuz , Roge r J . , and Arthur C. Graesse r, 1991. Aspec ts of id iom in te rpreta t ion: Co mm ent on Nayak andGibbs , 1990. Journa l of Exper imen ta l Psych ology: G enera l 120: 90-92 .Lakoff , George , 1987 . W om en, f i re , and dangerous th ings . Chicago, IL: Un ivers i ty of Chicago Press .

Lakoff , George , 1990. The invar iance pr inc ip le : Is abs tract reason based on image-sc hem as? C ogni t iveLinguis t ic s 1 : 39-74.Lakoff , Georg e , 1993. The contem pora ry theory of metaphor . In : A . Ortony, ed . , Metaphor and thought202-25 1. Second edi t ion , Cam bridge : C amb ridge Univers i ty Press.La kof f , Ge orge a nd M a rk Johnson , 1980 . Me t a phors w e l i ve by . C h i ca go , IL : Un i ve r s i ty o f C h i c a goPress.Lakoff , G. and Mark Turner , 1989. More than cool reason: A f ie ld guide to poe t ic metaphor . Chicago,IL: Un ivers i ty of Ch icago Press .M cKo on, Ga i l and Rog er Ra tc li f f , 198 6. Infe rences about predic table events . Journa l of Exper im enta lP syc ho l ogy : Le a rn i ng , Me mory , a nd C ogn i t i on 12 : 82 -91 .Nayak, Nandini and Raym ond W . Gibbs , 1990. Concep tua l know ledge in the in terpre ta tion of id ioms.Journa l of Exper im enta l Psycho logy: Genera l 119: 315-33 0.Pott s, Geo rge R. , Janice M. Ken nan and Jon a thon M . Golding, 1988. Assess ing the occurrence of e lab-ora t ive infe rences : Lexica l dec is ion ve rsus naming. Journa l of Memory and Language 27: 399-415.Srul l , Thom as K . and Ro ber t S . W yer , 1979. The ro le of ca tegory access ib i li ty in the in te rpre ta t ion ofinformat ion about pe rsons : Some de te rminants and impl ica t ions . Journa l of Pe rsona l i ty and Soc ia lPsych ology 37: 1660-1662.W olff , Paul and Dedre Gentner , 1992. The t ime course of metaphor com prehens ion. Paper presented a tt he Annua l Me e t i ng o f t he C ogn i t i ve S c i e nc e S oc ie t y , B l oomi ng t on , IN .

S a m Gl u c ksb e rg i s P ro fe s so r o f P syc ho l ogy a t P r inc e ton U n i ve r si t y . He i s t he au t ho r o f nume rous pub-l ica t ions on topics in cogni t ive psychology and psychol inguis t ic s . His current re sea rch focuses on f igu-ra t ive language comprehens ion.M a t t h e w S . M c G I o n e i s current ly an Ass is tant Professor of Psychology a t Lafaye t te Col lege . He hasauthored severa l a r tic les on the use and in te rpre ta t ion o f id ioms and m etaphors .

when love is not a journey

Documents