Abstract
Mixed metaphors have long been regarded as a sign of bad style. Even the multiple use of metaphors within a short paragraph is discouraged in writing. Despite the prevalent disdain for mixed metaphors, however, most non-specialists find them elusive and are ignorant of how they come into being and why they are widely opposed. Sullivan addresses this issue in her monograph Mixed Metaphors: Their Use and Abuse, elucidating the definitions of mixed metaphors and their communicative effects on addressees, as well as showing her own stance on this linguistic phenomenon.
The book comprises 9 chapters, the first one serving as an introduction to the monograph and providing an essential overview of mixed metaphors. Sullivan reveals that, apart from traditional mixed metaphors, which involve the combination of two or more incompatible metaphors, a sole metaphor may mix as well, for instance when it is internally inconsistent or contradicts non-metaphoric concepts. Chapter 2 briefly presents Conceptual Metaphor Theory, based on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) seminal book Metaphors We Live By. Conceptual metaphor is a fundamental pattern of human thought in which one concept is comprehended in terms of another. The author also expounds the four basic concepts: “image metaphors,” which differ from conceptual metaphors in that they happen consciously and do not contribute to our understanding of abstract concepts; “primary metaphors,” that is basic conceptual metaphors learned through our simultaneous experience of source and target domains; “compound metaphors,” that is the compatible combinations of single metaphors; and “dead metaphors,” that is metaphoric expressions that no longer prompt metaphors in our mind. Chapter 3 discusses three main factors that motivate incompatible metaphors to mix, namely, proximity, similarity, and the state of waking, while shedding light on how to avoid mixed metaphors. In Chapter 4, Sullivan shows some other right conditions encouraging metaphors to mix even if the above three factors are missing, namely, repeating the same metaphor combination or adding new metaphors nearby. In the second half of the chapter, Sullivan argues that imaginable but bizarre source domains may also lead to metaphor mixing, but they are often more memorable than self-contradictory ones and sometimes stylistically beneficial. Chapter 5 focuses on the specific type of metaphor mixing resulting from the ambiguity between a metaphor’s literal and metaphorical meanings, while introducing relevant linguistic phenomena such as ambiguous metonymy, tautological metaphors, allegory, and zeugma (e.g. “The farmers grew potatoes, radishes, and bored,” p. 110). In Chapter 6, particular attention is paid to metaphoric idioms, which are especially easy to mix due to speakers’ unfamiliarity with their historical origins. When speech errors occur within metaphoric idioms, this often results in mixed-metaphor malaphors. But when they are reanalyzed as single idioms with folk etymologies, the mixed metaphors tend to disappear. In Chapter 7, Sullivan stresses the significance of multiple metaphors and provides ways of using them without mixing them, that is, keeping metaphors differentiated and far apart, presenting them as alternatives, and fitting them together neatly. Chapters 8 and 9 summarize the effects of mixed metaphors, thereby offering legitimate reasons to prevent metaphors from mixing and presenting linguists’ incentive to support them. Misused mixed metaphors give the impression of ignorance and may occasionally offend. But they can also indicate humans’ cognitive flexibility and serve the purpose of expressing intense emotion, physical experience, chaos, and even oddity.
This book is informative and rich in content. While going deep into core issues concerning mixed metaphors, the author also explains in detail some other relevant linguistic phenomena, such as non-metaphoric malaphors, folk etymologies, and more. There are also extensive reading recommendations at the end of most chapters, providing readers with access to deeper and more detailed discussion on important topics. The book is reader-friendly, with 37 evocative figures, including illustrations by the author, numerous endnotes, as well as an appendix with all the metaphor labels discussed in the text and their diagrams, which facilitate the understanding of their specific cross-domain mappings. In addition, arguments are interwoven with abundant elaborate examples from vastly different genres, ranging from political speeches and works of literature to scientific articles and multimodal tweets, thereby throwing into sharp relief the ubiquity of mixed metaphors. At the same time, occasionally several similar examples are explained to support an argument, when a typical one may suffice. By contrast, in a few cases the author skips the explanation of necessary background or cultural information, which may lead to confusion, especially for non-native speakers of English. Probably the most noticeable deficiency of the book is the inadequate discussion on how to determine the origin of the substituted word in a malaphor. For example, Sullivan does not provide compelling evidence for her conclusion that the word “duck” as the replacement of “fish” in “fish out of water” comes from “water off a duck’s back,” rather than from another idiom or metal association.
As a trailblazer in providing a comprehensive introduction to mixed metaphors, Sullivan duly makes the book enlightening and pedagogic. While a sharp divide lies between non-specialists’ prescriptive prejudice against mixed metaphors and linguists’ firm defense of them, she maintains an impartial stance, guiding the readers to use metaphors precisely in avoidance of mixes, while also encouraging them to “live on the edge,” daringly using mixed metaphors to their advantage. Thus, this monograph not only serves as a reference for scholars, writers or poets, but is also a must-read for students and teachers of writing, as it may inspire them to use and teach metaphors effectively.