WHY IDIOMS MEAN WHAT THEY DO

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. In this response, it is emphasized how a conceptual analysis of idiomaticity is especially significant for motivating why idioms mean what they do and why speakers view idioms with similar figurative meanings as being differentially appropriate in varying discourse situations.