Choose your imagery

Today I'll jump right into a very practical issue: the imagery that idioms conjure up.

We know that idioms are a staple of the advanced level. We also know that idioms are, basically, "ready-made language". They've been around for as long as most people can remember and, if you don't like them, well, there's not much one can do about it. I suppose you can create your own expressions, but if you're the only speaker using them, they are not going to be of much use unless you convince thousands of people to work them into their daily conversations.

As a sophisticated learner, though, you can choose the kind of imagery you resort to, so that you may decide what you want the listener/reader to "see". I use the verb "see" deliberately because, whether you like it or not, when you speak you are often "painting". By using references to images, you plant mental pictures in your interlocutor's head. I don't know about you, but whenever someone mentions the proverbial "bull in a china shop" I can't help picturing the said bull wreaking havoc in the said store. Of course, other expressions paint no picture whatsoever. At least not in my mind. So, how can we create different "visualizations" (let's call them that)? And, more importantly, why is that relevant to your English?

In order to find out, we'll consider a common enough reference: causes and effects (i.e. events and their consequences) and see how we refer to them. Alright. We deal with that every single day, don't we? For the sake of clarity, we can state that, sometimes, one event has ONE consequence, which can be either pleasant or unpleasant. Thus, when you take a medicine, for instance, you may expect two basic outcomes:

• Scenario A: The medicine cures you and you feel good.
• Scenario B: The medicine cures you, but your left eye will not stop twitching.

The second scenario presents what we call a side effect. Okay. Here's the rub: when I hear those two words (side effect) I don't picture anything in particular. It's not like the aforementioned bull breaking valuable objects in an enclosed space. That is not what this post is about, though. As a matter of fact, what I would like you to consider is rather the opposite: the case in which an idiom manages to make a listener "visualize" a scene.

So let's look at a more specific case of causes and effects. Let's discuss the case in which ONE event causes SEVERAL events to happen not simultaneously but one after another. How do you refer to that phenomenon? Here you have some options:

Do you see what I'm getting at, here? Roughly speaking, those expressions convey the same basic meaning ("sorta, kinda..."), but offer different nuances and, therefore, paint different pictures. Check out this sentence:

We had a chance meeting and it all snowballed from there.

This may well be said by someone who refers to a project which started after a casual conversation and got increasingly big. For all we know, it may have gone on to become a worldwide sensation. Okay. Do you see the difference between that image (the snowball rolling down a mountain) and the one you "see" when someone mentions an event that sent shock waves through the country? The little snowball versus the impact of an earthquake or an explosion. Now compare those two different types of consequences with the ripples on the surface of a lake (implicit in the abovementioned ripple effect). You can't seriously tell me that they elicit the same response from your listener.

Truly advanced imagery may revolve around more complex elaborate semiotic relationships. For instance, you may first resort to a black swan event and then, somehow, manage to refer to a big stone which falls into the water. First you present a swan in a lake and then you add the ripples that disturb its stillness. Isn't that nice? I'm afraid that's the sort of stuff that we expect from an accomplished writer or a poet (or a language teacher), not necessarily from a C1/C2 student.