Yes, many of our idioms are metaphors.
But they are dead metaphors, having lost the impact of originality through overuse. They are in fact nothing more than instruments that save us fro having to exert ourselves and express ourselves with some precision.
Idiom or Adverbial phrase or what?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
I think that whether something is a simile or metaphor operates on a separate axis from it being idiomatic. "Idiomatic" means that something is a customary usage: thus we can say that it is more idiomatic to say a "heavy smoker" than a "big smoker" even though there is no great departure from the basic meaning of the words for either phrase. In the same way, the phrase "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" is idiomatic, even though the meaning is obvious; "I'm so hungry I could eat a cow!" is no less transparent but much less idiomatic. Of course, many idiomatic phrases are completely opaque, and have nothing to do with their component parts, but this is not always so.
Jennifer, if it's bothering you that much, then you can distinguish these customary phrases as being just that -- customary usages, phrases that represent commonly accepted usage, even though they don't involve exotic meanings. Personally, I think that's included in the definition of something being "idiomatic," ie part of English idiom, common English usage, but they're your 'students'. I doubt they'll be seriously misinformed either way :)
As to the post referring to idioms as dead metaphors -- that may well be true. And I'll agree that they tend to make for weaker writing than consistently using new and fresh imagery. However, there's two very important points to consider:
1. We're teaching idiom in the ESL context, and for any foreign learner, too much originality is a bad thing*. If a non-native speaker tries to get too fancy in his or her use of language, that won't be interpreted as originality, but as the speaker not knowing the correct -- dare I say the idiomatic -- English usage, and it tends to be condescended to. Correct usage of English idioms, even if they are "dead" metaphors from one perspective, is a valuable tool for demonstrating linguistic proficiency for non-native speakers.
*(yes, this is a tautology.)
2. Have you ever thought about how terribly byzantine the language would become if everybody invented their own phrases for everything? Idioms save time and express thoughts with (in most cases) a fairly high degree of precision. I will be the last person to advocate for writers relying on cliches, but for the most part, we should no more complain about using unoriginal idioms than we should unoriginal words: they convey our meanings quite effectively and precisely, and in terms that will be easily understood by our interlocutors. Arbitrary word creation, while it may be 'original,' does not facilitate precise communication (and if you doubt it, I believe a fellow named Joyce wrote a couple books you might find interesting to read... ;) So don't knock idioms too hard. They're useful critters.
~Jeff
Jennifer, if it's bothering you that much, then you can distinguish these customary phrases as being just that -- customary usages, phrases that represent commonly accepted usage, even though they don't involve exotic meanings. Personally, I think that's included in the definition of something being "idiomatic," ie part of English idiom, common English usage, but they're your 'students'. I doubt they'll be seriously misinformed either way :)
As to the post referring to idioms as dead metaphors -- that may well be true. And I'll agree that they tend to make for weaker writing than consistently using new and fresh imagery. However, there's two very important points to consider:
1. We're teaching idiom in the ESL context, and for any foreign learner, too much originality is a bad thing*. If a non-native speaker tries to get too fancy in his or her use of language, that won't be interpreted as originality, but as the speaker not knowing the correct -- dare I say the idiomatic -- English usage, and it tends to be condescended to. Correct usage of English idioms, even if they are "dead" metaphors from one perspective, is a valuable tool for demonstrating linguistic proficiency for non-native speakers.
*(yes, this is a tautology.)
2. Have you ever thought about how terribly byzantine the language would become if everybody invented their own phrases for everything? Idioms save time and express thoughts with (in most cases) a fairly high degree of precision. I will be the last person to advocate for writers relying on cliches, but for the most part, we should no more complain about using unoriginal idioms than we should unoriginal words: they convey our meanings quite effectively and precisely, and in terms that will be easily understood by our interlocutors. Arbitrary word creation, while it may be 'original,' does not facilitate precise communication (and if you doubt it, I believe a fellow named Joyce wrote a couple books you might find interesting to read... ;) So don't knock idioms too hard. They're useful critters.
~Jeff
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Yes! 
I think Jeff's (skeptic's) post here is extremely valuable to this conversation. He clears up considerably the concept of idomatic language. In light of his information here (which, I admit, I have verified), I find that I, myself, in my earlier post on this subject, was confusing, to some degree, idomaticity with opacity.
Jeff, however, has quite correctly identified idomatic language as language which achieves natural use. That is, language which will be accepted as 'natural' by native speakers. In our particular area of interest as ESL teachers, this is to distinguish it from the "ESL-speak" commonly found in textbooks and coursebooks. The language may be more or less transparent, and that may need to be dealt with in the classroom. But, as Jeff suggests, let us not knock idioms nor relegate them to an ancillary role in language teaching, nor, for that matter, designate them as a concern for 'advanced' study or learners. Idomatic language ought to be a major focus of all of our classes at all levels of skill.
Thanks, Jeff.
Larry Latham
I think Jeff's (skeptic's) post here is extremely valuable to this conversation. He clears up considerably the concept of idomatic language. In light of his information here (which, I admit, I have verified), I find that I, myself, in my earlier post on this subject, was confusing, to some degree, idomaticity with opacity.
Jeff, however, has quite correctly identified idomatic language as language which achieves natural use. That is, language which will be accepted as 'natural' by native speakers. In our particular area of interest as ESL teachers, this is to distinguish it from the "ESL-speak" commonly found in textbooks and coursebooks. The language may be more or less transparent, and that may need to be dealt with in the classroom. But, as Jeff suggests, let us not knock idioms nor relegate them to an ancillary role in language teaching, nor, for that matter, designate them as a concern for 'advanced' study or learners. Idomatic language ought to be a major focus of all of our classes at all levels of skill.
Thanks, Jeff.
Larry Latham