Why idioms mean what they do.

Abstract

This reply to Kreuz and Graesser (1991) expands on some of the theoretical and empirical issues discussed in an article on idiom interpretation by Nayak and Gibbs (1990). Specifically addressed are (a) the generality of Nayak and Gibbs's earlier findings on emotion idioms to idioms representative of other conceptual categories, (b) Nayak and Gibbs's characterization of the dead metaphor theory of idiomaticity, (c) the need for a componential analysis of idioms, and (d) a problem in the design and interpretation of one of Nayak and Gibbs's experimental studies