Idioms in Cognitive Linguistics

Despite the previous notion that when learning and using a new idiom, the speaker has to form an arbitrary link between the idiom and its nonliteral meaning which is related to the non-compositional view of idioms, it has been believed with the advent of cognitive linguistics that there is a systematic conceptual motivation underlying the meaning of most idioms which are based on conceptual metaphors and metonymies (Kovecses and Szabo, 1996, p.

326). This motivation for the occurrence of idioms can be regarded as a cognitive mechanism that links domains of knowledge to idiomatic meanings (p.

330).

Mentioning Gibbs and O’Brian, Kövesces (2010a, p. 211) wrote:

In order to provide evidence for the role of conceptual metaphor in the comprehension of idioms, Gibbs and O’Brian (1990:147) gave their participants idiom (e.g. hit the ceiling) and non-idiomatic expressions (e.g. hit the wall) and wanted them to report the visual imagery that each phrase elicited. Gibbs and O’Brian concluded that the consistency of the idiom images is due to the

‘constraining influence of conceptual metaphors’ according to which the underlying nature of our thought process is metaphorical; this means that we use metaphor to make sense of our experience.

It can be inferred that, in order to achieve a successful communication by grasping the meaning or gist of an idiomatic expression, to accomplish cognitive equivalanece while translating, or to teach or learn a second language effectively, the underlying conceptual metaphor or metonymy should be revealed.

Idioms can be investigated within the framework of cognitive linguistics by categorizing them into two different types: metaphor-based idioms, metonymy-based idioms, and also simile-metonymy-based idioms, which are also the tools for this PhD thesis.

2.2.2.1. Metaphor-Based Idioms

The metaphor-based idioms, in other words conceptual metaphors, are created through the mapping of two domains of knowledge, one is the source domain which is a well-delineated and familiar physical domain, and the other one of the target domain that is a less well-delineated, less familiar, and abstract domain (Kövecses and Szabo, 1996, p. 331). Lakoff and Johnson formulate it as follows:

In a metaphor, there are two domains: the target domain, which is constituted by the immediate subject matter, and the source domain, in which important metaphorical reasoning takes place and that provides the source concepts used in that reasoning. Metaphorical language has literal meaning in the source domain. In addition, a metaphoric mapping is multiple, that is, two or more elements are mapped to two or more other elements. Image-schemata structure is preserved in the mapping – interiors of containers map to interiors, exteriors map to exteriors; sources of motion to sources, goals to goals, and so on. (1980, p. 265)

For instance, in the metaphorical expression of to spit fire, the domain of fire is used to understand the domain of anger, which means that anger is comprehended through the concept of fire. Thus, the conceptual metaphor underlying this idiom is ANGER IS FIRE. Moreover, in the sentence ‘The fire between them finally went out’, there is the conceptual metaphor of LOVE IS FIRE; in "The painting set fire to the composer's imagination", the conceptual metaphor underlying this idiom is IMAGINATION IS FIRE, in "The killing sparked off nots", it is CONFLICT is FIRE, in the case of burning the candle at both ends, it is ENERGY IS FUEL FOR THE FIRE, etc. (Kövecses and Szabo 1996, pp. 331-332). All of these conceptual metaphors can be regarded as some of the samples of fire-metaphors and they demonstrate that many idioms are conceptually motivated and they arise from the conceptual metaphors.

Thus, Kövecses and Szabo made further comments about the metaphor-based idioms:

(1) the conceptual metaphors really exist, that is, they have psychological validity, and (2) that many of the idioms we have seen so far are not isolated linguistic expressions, but come from a source domain used to understand and talk about a target domain To a large degree, to do the first involves being able to do the second (p. 333).

2.2.2.2. Metonymy-Based Idioms

Conceptual metonymy is considered as the other cognitive mechanism motivating idioms. Metonymy means referring one thing in order to refer to another which is related to it. One of the definitions provided that “Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same idealized cognitive model” (Radden and Kövecses, 1999, p. 21). One of the best known examples is “The ham sandwich is waiting for his check” in which ham sandwich refers to the customer who ordered this sandwich (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, p. 35).

Contrary to a metaphor, there is only one domain or one mapping in metonymy.

Although in both cases one concept is being used to refer to another, they differ

in terms of processes. While metaphor is understanding one thing in terms of another, metonymy has a referential function and it uses one thing to stand for another (Chielens, 2006, p. 9). Lakoff and Johnson clearly explained the difference between the two by stating that:

[O]ne must determine how the expression is used. Do the two domains form a single, complex subject matter in use with a single mapping? If so, you have metonymy. Or, can the domains be separate in use, with a number of mappings and with one of the domains forming the subject matter (the target domain), while the other domain (the source) is the basis of significant inference and a number of linguistic expressions? If this is the case, then you have metaphor (1980, p. 267).

Another important point on metonymy is that they emerge from three types of relationships: WHOLE FOR PART (target-in-source) and PART FOR WHOLE (source-in-target) and PART FOR PART (Barcelona, 2011; Kövecses and Radden, 1999).

The example for the part-for whole metonymy which is also called synecdoche is: “We need a couple of strong bodies for our team” in which there is the conceptual metonymy of STRONG BODIES STAND FOR STRONG PEOPLE.

Similarly, in “There are a lot of good heads in the university”, good heads refer to intelligent people. Here the point is not just to use a part which is head to stand for a whole that is a person but rather “to pick out a particular characteristic of the person, namely intelligence, which is associated with the head” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, p. 36).

On the other hand, there is PART FOR PART metonymy in “She likes reading Shakespeare” in which the AUTHOR’S NAME refers to the WORK (Wei, 2010, p. 18).

As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) put it, metonymic concepts are systematic like metaphoric ones, which exist in the culture. The instances of certain metonymic concepts in terms of which human beings organize their thoughts and actions are: THE PART FOR THE WHOLE as in “Get your butt over here!”, PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT as in “He bought a Ford”, OBJECT USED FOR USER as in “The buses are on strike”, CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED as in “Napoleon lost at Waterloo”, INSTITUTION FOR PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE as

in “I don’t approve of the government’s actions”, THE PLACE FOR THE INSTITUTION as in “The White House isn’t saying anything”, THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT as in “Pearl Harbor still has an effect on our foreign policy” (pp. 38-39).

All in all, despite the differences between the kinds of processes in metaphor and metonymy, metonymy is not only related to the language itself just like metaphors, but mainly human beings’ thoughts and actions.

2.2.2.3. Simile-Based Idioms

Simile-based idioms are another group of idioms which also bear a systematic cognitive motivation in their interpretation. They are generally defined as idiomatic expressions that use conjunctions in order to compare two concepts.

Their main function is “to intensify certain features already attributed to entities.

The features of less known entities are usually compared to the features of better known entities” (Stamenkovic, 2010, p. 187). Despite the fact that they are the product of the same human cognitive processes as in metaphors and metonymies, they have been studied less than metaphors and metonymies within the framework of cognitive linguistics.

The cognitive operations of simile-based idioms range from a one-to-one correspondence metaphoric mapping to complex patterns of conceptual interaction. For example, “John is a pig” can mean “John eats like a pig” or

“John sweats like a pig”; therefore, a metaphorical expression need different cognitive operations for their interpretation which demonstrates the need for situational cognitive models in the analysis of simile-based idioms (Masegosa, 2010, p. 8).

As Stemenkovic put, the cognitive motivations for the creations of simile-based idioms are just like metaphors. In terms of their sources, they can be divided into four main categories. The first one is that they can be relatively objective by describing the physical properties such as shape, colour, and size; for instance, as slow as a snale or as fat as a pig. The second group is the simile-based

idioms which are relatively objective and culture-influenced such as as greedy as a pig, as free as a bird both of which are partially based on relatively objective features. The third type is culture-influenced whose features were motivated by cultural products such as as cunning as a fox, as silly as a goose.

Lastly, there are simile-based idioms which are motivated by other mechanisms such as irony, metonymy, alliteration and assonance. The instances of this group are as dead as dodo, as frisky as a ferret (2010, pp. 188-189).