28.1813, Review: Cog Sci; Ling Theories: Gibbs (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-1813. Thu Apr 13 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.1813, Review: Cog Sci; Ling Theories: Gibbs (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Dhaval Niphade <dhaval at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:09:41
From: Eric Heaps [eheaps at indiana.edu]
Subject: Mixing Metaphor

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36234937


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-2010.html

EDITOR: Jr.  Gibbs
TITLE: Mixing Metaphor
SERIES TITLE: Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 6
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Eric Heaps, Indiana University Bloomington

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

Raymond Gibbs was inspired to put together “Mixing Metaphor,” a collection of
essays, after an experience with psychology students several years ago. After
asking the students to write down anything they wanted on the topic of
metaphor, a rather vague, open-ended question that could have gone in many
directions, he found that 40% of all respondents referred to the illegitimacy
of mixing metaphors. When seeking further explanation from the students, he
discovered that this statement stemmed from explicit teachings in high school
related to books and essays on writing style and composition. Upon further
consideration, Gibbs found it ironic that this most notable of beliefs about
metaphor is so rarely studied in the world of metaphor scholarship, a vast
field that covers the manifold ways in which metaphor is manifest in human
experience as a fundamental scheme of thought.

Starting with the hypothesis that the sheer commonality of mixed metaphors
indicates that they are something more than failed attempts at humor, bad
writing, or worse, sheer cognitive error, Gibbs encouraged authors to write
anything they wanted in connection with mixed metaphor, allowing them to
create this diverse body of work, using a variety of empirical findings and
theories of metaphor. By doing so, he hoped to bring mixed metaphor to center
stage, encouraging the audience of the metaphor community to build and expand
this particular section of discourse.

He divides the volume into three sections, each composed of four chapters. The
first part of the volume examines whether mixed metaphors cause problems at
all. Following that, the second part examines how and why mixed metaphors are
used. Finally, the third part looks at ways in which mixed metaphors are
realized in different types of discourse.

Chapter 1: “A view of mixed metaphor within a conceptual metaphor theory
framework” by Zoltán Kövesce (pp. 3-16)

Several metaphor scholars insist that conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) cannot
support the existence of mixed metaphors, since once a conceptual metaphor is
activated, only a homogeneous metaphor can follow. In this chapter, Kövesce
argues that CMT accurately predicts the existence of mixed metaphors in
natural discourse. Building on the work done by Kimmel (2010), in which Kimmel
argues that the comprehensibility of mixed metaphor can be thoroughly
understood through close analysis of clausal structure, Kövesce seeks to
address some unexplained issues, specifically why we use mixed metaphors, why
they are so common, and how we comprehend them. He proposes that “all (target
domain) concepts consist of a number of different aspects” and that these
aspects are conceptualized using a large variety of source domains. For
instance, FAMILY includes a variety of aspects such as parents, children,
child-raising, and many more. Each of those aspects employs different source
domains traditionally and can be explained through other non-traditional
domains as well. As such, mixed metaphors provide a richer understanding of
the concept we’re trying to explain by acknowledging the different aspects of
that domain.  Our comprehension of discourse that is communicatively and
stylistically neutral, which Kövesce argues must of necessity be mixed, is
largely processed without difficulty due to low degree of activation involved
with the different concepts. He urges the continued exploration of this
hypothetical model that is compatible with both CMT and the comprehension of
mixed metaphor.

Chapter 2: “Mixed metaphor from a discourse dynamics perspective: A
non-issue?” by Lynne Cameron (pp. 17-30)

In this chapter, Cameron continues to build on her model of discourse dynamic
perspective, or “how people use [metaphors] in the flow of situated text and
talk,” specifically examining the frequency of mixed metaphors juxtaposed with
the infrequency of difficulty making sense of them. She particularly mentions
that her findings relate to spontaneous oral discourse, which is distinguished
from writing in that the text is not visible when spoken, and comprehension is
a quick, almost immediate process. Specifically, Cameron chooses to analyze
‘metaphor clusters’, portions of oral discourse with a significantly higher
number of metaphors than the talk surrounding the cluster. She states that
“speakers explore and develop ideas as they speak about them.” This premise
illustrates that even when a speaker starts with a clear idea of what they
want to say, putting that idea into words and seeing those words’ effects on
the audience can produce adjustments in the moment, which creates shifts in
metaphor that produce mixed metaphors. Cameron’s use of discourse dynamics is
specifically to combat generalizations in CMT, preferring instead to emphasize
the socio-cultural elements of language in use, which she argues eliminates
any ‘problem’ with mixed metaphor and instead insists that multiple metaphors
are “necessary and inevitable.”

Chapter 3: “Why mixed metaphors make sense” by Cornelia Müller (pp. 31-56)

Müller argues that the use of mixed metaphor in speaking, writing, and acted
gestures is not only completely reasonable but beneficial. Through the use of
mixed metaphors, makers of discourse are able to demonstrate a flexibility of
understanding through shifts to different parts of metaphorical mappings.
While this type of dynamic understanding of metaphor is not favored in studies
of style and rhetoric, Müller claims that mixed metaphors are based on “the
foregrounding of uncommon aspects of meaning,” that their active
intentionality belies the simplistic approach traditional methods take in
treating mixed metaphors as problematic. Very often, mixed metaphors are what
Linguistic Metaphor Theories refer to as ‘dead’ metaphors, metaphors whose
meanings have been conventionalized and do not simultaneously contain the
original literal meaning and the figurative one. Along with other proponents
of CMT, Müller points out that these dead conceptual metaphors govern our
cognition. She goes beyond CMT, however, in suggesting that we consciously
remap uncommon meanings on mixed metaphor, rather than as a kind of
subconscious entailment to the activated metaphor. In this process, although
the different source domains for the metaphors may clash, hidden meaning can
be activated which in turn will lend itself to semantic similarity. In effect,
Müller’s dynamic view coordinates with Cameron’s discourse dynamics, but
posits a more active control of metaphoricity.

Chapter 4: “Tackling mixed metaphors in discourse: Corpus and psychological
studies” by Julia E. Lonergan and Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (pp. 57-74)

In this chapter, Lonergan and Gibbs examine the corpus of the “Block that
Metaphor!” column from The New Yorker. First, they analyzed the composition of
excerpted mixed metaphors, finding that most had been employed in other kinds
of discourse and partially confirming their hypothesis that “people interpret
mixed metaphors as being meaningful and coherent because of their abilities to
engage in elaborate reasoning about the source domains explicitly mentioned in
the texts.” In a second study, they describe what is perhaps their most
important finding, namely that people consistently give the same reading of
phrases considered problematic due to the mixed state of their domains. This
is accomplished through an integration of the various metaphors into a
coherent whole via assumptions made by the audience. In conclusion, Lonergan
and Gibbs assert that mixed metaphor moves beyond CMT to include more
extensive inferences to a variety of source domains in the audience’s social
and cultural knowledge.

Chapter 5: “Mixed metaphor: Its depth, its breadth, and a pretense-based
approach” by John Barnden (pp. 75-112)

In this chapter, Barnden presents an overview of his AI implementation of the
ATT-Meta approach to metaphor he developed with Mark G. Lee. He uses the model
to handle a variety of types of mixed metaphor, such as chaining, which he
calls serial mixing, parallel mixing (different metaphorical views on same
target), and combinations of the two. What he calls parallel mixing is the
traditional idea where A is both B and C at roughly the same time. His
inclusion of serial mixing is to allow for situations where A is B and B is C
at roughly the same time. This model uses the nesting of pretence worlds to
examine discourse and different patterns of mixed metaphor. In these pretence
worlds, modeled users pretend that everything said is literally true, using
inference to build more complex mappings of metaphors run through the program.
By doing so, Barnden argues that these deep inferences based on assumptions of
the source topic and understanding of its domain allow for metaphor
processing. This runs counter to the traditional view that metaphor
understanding is derived from parallel mappings between a source and target. 

Chapter 6: “Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness” by Gerard Steen
(pp. 113-132)

In this chapter, Steen argues that although the clash of images elicited by
the use of mixed metaphor is often called poor writing, these metaphors are
usually deliberately constructed for specific rhetorical purposes. At the same
time, Steen is not insisting that most of this metaphor use is conscious, but
rather recognizing the goal-directed nature of language that is typically
unconscious, though in the cases he studies, still deliberate. In this way,
Steen uses deliberate to describe metaphors that have a specific rhetorical
purpose in their context. As listeners and readers recognize this
deliberateness of purpose, they are able to infer rich understandings of the
message being presented. Although there might be non-deliberate uses of
metaphor that appear mixed, Steen suggests that paying heed to the possible
deliberateness is an integral part of a three-dimensional approach to metaphor
that includes language, thought, and communication.

Chapter 7: “When language and cultures meet: Mixed metaphors in the discourse
of Spanish speakers of English” by Fiona MacArthur (pp. 133-154)

MacArthur examines a type of mixed metaphor that she labels “hybrid” metaphor,
where a user employs conceptual understandings from a foreign language in
their attempts at communication. Although this can occur with native speakers,
it is far more common among non-native speakers of a language who are
attempting to get across an idea which they are struggling to communicate in
their non-native language. MacArthur starts by refuting Pesmen’s (1991)
argument that mixed metaphors are condemned because discourse is intended to
show coherence in the culture and world view of the speakers, an inherent
characteristic of an autonomous closed system. Specifically MacArthur points
out that languages and cultures are most definitely not autonomous closed
systems, especially when viewed in the context of foreign language learners.
In the early stages of language learning, metaphor is largely absent from the
new speaker’s vocabulary, what little there is consisting of prepositional
metaphors rather than those based in nouns and verbs. However, when the
demands of fluency require speakers to do things like state their personal
views, they begin to produce metaphors, usually based on those found in their
native tongue. Perhaps the most important finding MacArthur relates is the
fact that ad hoc meaning created when listeners focus on meaning instead of
content demonstrates that strict adherence to conventional forms is not
entirely necessary for proficiency as competent understanding can be achieved
between listener and speaker. What’s more, in a global world where English is
used as a vehicle for international communication, insistence on conventional
metaphors is not as effective as fomenting greater understanding of metaphor
use in general to increase comprehension of these hybrid metaphors.

Chapter 8: “The ‘dull row’ and the ‘burning barbed wire pantyhose’: Complex
metaphor in chronic accounts of pain” by Charles Charteris-Black (pp. 155-178)

Charteris-Black examines how those who experience chronic pain are able to
lend credibility to and elicit greater understanding of their pain via the use
of mixed metaphor. Charteris-Black prefers to use the term ‘purposeful
metaphor’ to describe what is called deliberate metaphor by Steen earlier in
this collection. The use of this type of metaphor lends greater control and
power to the person in pain, who otherwise feels imprisoned by their illness.
Specifically, mixed metaphors describe pain or illness as being out of
control, liberating the speaker from what guilt they may feel about being in
their situation, as they simultaneously work toward repeated and extended
metaphors as they assert control. Further, these strong feelings are able to
communicate publicly what is otherwise an extremely private experience, by
creating an embodied simulation as described by Gibbs (2006) and Semino
(2010). 

Chapter 9: “We drank with our eyes first: The web of sensory perception,
aesthetic experiences, and mixed mappings in wine reviews” by Carita Paradis
and Charles Hommerberg (pp. 179-202)

Paradis and Hommerberg explore how mixed metaphor is almost expected in the
discursive practice of wine reviews as a way to evoke the mixed, sensory
experience associated with the initial wine tasting. The use of a variety of
source domains to describe a variety of different sensations (taste, sight,
smell, touch) helps the writer move from that initial sensory experience
through the process of thinking about it and finally into the realm of
language. This is important as their rhetorical purpose is to activate
kinesthetic and sensorial experiences for their readers. Beyond that, the
domains of metaphoric imagery employed reflect the source culture and help
create a sense of belonging for readers.

Chapter 10: “A corpus-based study of ‘mixed metaphor’ as a metalinguistic
comment” by Elena Semino (pp. 203-222)

In this chapter, Semino conducts a study of 141 occurrences of the expression
‘mixed metaphor’ in the Oxford English Corpus, specifically analyzing the way
they’re employed in different genres and grammatical forms, and the different
rhetorical purposes for their creation. After recognizing a variety of
deliberate uses of mixed metaphor in which the user stated a rhetorical
purpose, ranging from negative assessments to displays of humor or creativity,
Semino questions whether or not mixed metaphor is even a “viable and
operationable technical term.” She points this out because although the vast
majority of cases fit the ‘folk’ concept of mixed metaphor as negative, a
minority instead humorously point out witty uses of metaphor that are
effective, not negative. One particular conclusion of note is that Semino
points out that we are more aware of the contrast between metaphors that are
mixed when they are similar to one another. In so doing, she doesn’t intend to
dismiss the conclusion by other authors in the book that close proximity does
not necessarily limit understanding, but rather to point out something that
must be taken into account when studying comprehension and mixed metaphors.

Chapter 11: “Mixing in pictorial and multimodal metaphors?” by Charles
Forceville (pp. 223-240)

After a thorough examination of examples of non-linguistic mixing of domains,
Forceville argues that these uses are much more conscious and deliberate than
linguistic constructions, and are typically employed for important functional
and aesthetic purposes, and can especially be used to quickly grab an
audience’s attention. Beyond that, he argues that these instances of mixed
metaphor can be best explained using conceptual blending theory. However,
Forceville eschews the term mixed metaphor and its negative semantic impact
when describing these pictorial instances, preferring instead ‘multiple source
domain metaphors,’ as in all instances these constructions are so artfully
done as to not seem allied to the often unintentional mixed metaphors found
within verbal clauses. As pictures do not have grammar, Forceville finds there
is little to be gained through analysis of a term that depends on grammar.

Chapter 12: “Extended metaphor in the web of discourse” by Anita Nasiscione
(pp. 241-266)

Nasiscione specifically examines the stylistic use of lexical metaphor and
metaphorical phraseological units ranging back to Old English. Her conclusion
is that extended metaphor is a regular element of thought, an
interrelationship of metaphor and metonymy that provides stylistic and
semantic coherence to the text in which it is found. This naturally implies
that the idea that mixed metaphor is impermissible is incorrect, as extended
metaphor is by nature mixed and the study of extended metaphor is essential in
understanding meaning construction. If each extended metaphor consists of a
base metaphor and a series of sub-images, those sub-images with different
domains will invariably add to the understanding of the extended metaphor
while making it mixed.

EVALUATION

In this volume, Gibbs is able to bring together a variety of established
metaphor scholars to create a survey of current research in mixed metaphors
via focused articles related to those scholars’ work. Although the authors
come from the metaphor community, their work is of interest to linguists in a
variety of other specializations, especially since each of these scholars uses
techniques and theories from different areas of linguistics to advance their
own theories. As the first major edited volume to specifically focus on mixed
metaphor, this book serves to provide reference and access to the wide-ranging
work of these scholars to those who might not otherwise delve into the
scholars’ monographs. 

Overall, the articles coordinate with each other, providing counterpoints to
each other’s arguments and fleshing out the evidence for their various
conclusions. One point at which this coordination fails is in terminology.
While the choice of terms is of significant importance in a field focused on
language, the use of different terms for the same thing can make it difficult
for the reader to connect some of the articles without a sort of mental
gymnastics. For example, where Steen and many of the authors, including the
editor, refer to deliberate metaphors, Charteris-Black opts for the term
‘purposeful metaphors,’ perhaps obscuring the strong connections between his
work and Steen’s. While allowing for changing terminology in an evolving
field, greater care could be taken within an edited volume to ease
understanding of the reader and provide greater coherence to the work.

Most impressive from the volume is the individual authors’ insistence on their
work as a starting point for research in mixed metaphor, rather than a
conclusion. How can we further develop conceptual metaphor theory while
accounting for mixed metaphor? How does this research change views of
comprehension in language acquisition? What is the value of our current
terminology with respect to mixed metaphor? These are just a few of the
questions asked by the authors that provide starting points for future
research.

This volume is a valuable reference for anyone interested in the purpose and
structure of metaphors. Although at times the specifics of an author’s
argument may become too technical for a lay reader, the conclusions are
succinct and well-written and could even provide an entry point for those with
less knowledge of metaphor theory.

REFERENCES

Gibbs, R. W.J. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse
coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 97-115.

Lee, M.G., & Barnden, J.A. (2001). Reasoning about mixed metaphors with an
implemented AI system. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1&2), 29042. Doi:
10.1207/S15327868MS1601&2_3

Pesmen, D. (1991). Reasonable and unreasonable worlds: Some expectations of
coherence in culture implied by the prohibition of mixed metaphor. In J.W.
Fernandez (Ed.), Beyond metaphor: The theory of tropes in anthropology (pp.
213-243). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Semino, E. (2010). Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation.
Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 205-226. Doi:10.1080/10926488.2010.510926.it teachin�


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Eric “C” Heaps is a PhD candidate at Indiana University where he focuses on
theatre translation, investigating methods for translating theatre texts and
performance not only from language to language but from culture to culture in
the eventual production of the text. He does so using tools from translation
studies, somatic studies, and cognitive linguistics, among other fields. In
the past few years he has translated Gil Vicente’s ''Auto da Barca do
Inferno,'' Augusto Boal’s ''Torquemada,'' and three plays by Lucienne Guedes
Fahrer: ''A Recusa da Flor,'' ''Eu Não Esperava Tanta Humanidade,'' and
''Vendaval.''





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $70,000. This money
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out the Fund Drive 2017 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

We collect donations via the eLinguistics Foundation, a
registered 501(c) Non Profit organization with the federal tax
number 45-4211155. The donations can be offset against your
federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers
only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program. Contact
your human resources department and send us the necessary form.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-1813	
----------------------------------------------------------