schemes of thought. For this reason, the traditional view simply cannot explain
why the figurative meanings of so many idioms make sense to speakers.
Various researchers in cognitive linguistics have explored a large number
of representative domains of human experience (e.g., time, causation, spatial
orientation, ideas, anger, understanding) to demonstrate the pervasiveness of
various metaphorical systems in our everyday thought, at least as these ideas
are manifested in the language people use (Johnson 1987; Kovecses 1986; Lak-
off 1987, 1990; Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff & Turner 1989; Sweetser 1990;
Turner 1991). This work adheres to the commitment in cognitive linguistics that
theories of linguistic structure and use must be in accord with what is generally
known about the human mind from different disciplines in the cognitive sciences
(Gibbs 1996; Lakoff 1990). This commitment entails the belief that the analysis
of the conceptual and experiential basis of linguistic categories and constructs
is of primary importance. For this reason, the formal structures of language are
studied not as if they were autonomous, but as reflections of general conceptual
organization, categorization principles, and processing mechanisms. By explic-
itly looking for links between linguistic structure and ordinary cognition, cog-
nitive linguists do not take the risk, as do most linguists of the generative
persuasion, of ignoring most influences of thought on language. This research
strategy has been quite beneficial to our understanding of idioms as partly
motivated, and not arbitrary, linguistic phenomena.
Some of the cognitive linguistic analyses of idioms provide some evidence for
the idea that idioms do not exist as separate units within the lexicon but actu-
ally reflect coherent systems of metaphorical concepts (Kovecses 1986; Lakoff
1987). For example, the idiomatic phrasesblow your stack, flip your lid, hit the
ceiling, get hot under the collar, lose your cool,andget steamed upappear to be
motivated by the conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HEATED FLUID IN A
CONTAINER, which is one of the small set of conceptual mappings between
differentsourceandtargetdomainsthatformpartofourconceptualizationfor
anger. These same conceptual mappings give rise to many of the conventional
expressions that are often viewed as nonidiomatic (e.g.,I exploded with anger).
But is there any evidence that conceptual metaphors, such as ANGER IS
HEATED FLUID IN A CONTAINER, are really conceptual and not, more sim-
ply, generalizations of linguistic meaning? We might understand, for instance,
thatblow your stack, flip your lid, hit the ceiling,andget pissed offrefer to the idea
of getting angry not because of conceptual metaphor but because the words
stack, ceiling, lids,andpissedhave meanings that at a higher level of generaliza-
tion refer to the idea of anger. Fortunately, a good deal of empirical work
in psycholinguistics has investigated the metaphoric motivation for idiomatic
meaning. These psycholinguistic studies employ different methodologies to
capture what people ordinarily, and unconsciously, do when they comprehend
and make sense of idioms.
One way of uncovering metaphorical knowledge in idiomaticity is through a
detailed examination of speakers’ mental images for idioms (Gibbs & O’Brien
1990). Consider the idiomspill the beans. Try to form a mental image for this
phrase and then ask yourself the following questions (Lakoff 1987). Where
are the beans before they are spilled? How big is the container? What caused
the beans to spill? Is the spilling accidental or intentional? Once they’ve been
740 Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.