Dr. Elena Faur is visting our group once more, and will present exciting new research on the currently popular topic of "mixed metaphors". Welcome to the room or zoom link (to be sent to everyone on the CogSem mailing list), from 15:00 for introductions. If you wish to join us for the post-seminar at Valvet, let Jordan know by Monday, Sept 28.

While traditionally condemned as an “incongruous”, “illogical” use of language, or indicative of “bad style”, the creative potential of mixed metaphor has been increasingly acknowledged in recent years. Studies, brought together in a volume dedicated to the phenomenon (Gibbs 2016), and conducted from diverse theoretical perspectives (e.g. Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Deliberate Metaphor Theory, Conceptual Blending Theory, Discourse Dynamics) have highlighted its multiple dimensions (analogy-making, conventionality, conscious or deliberate use, intentionality, the interaction of different semiotic systems). Although the complexity of the phenomenon is now widely recognized, scholars have simultaneously stressed the need for “integrative models” capable of accounting for its multifaceted nature.

I will first argue that Coseriu’s matrix (Coseriu 1985), developed within Integral Linguistics, provides such an “integrative” framework for the study of mixed metaphors. It distinguishes three interconnected levels of meaning-making: universal, historical and individual. From this perspective, mixed metaphors are best understood as discursive phenomena that emerge at the individual level, while presupposing and integrating the contents of the previous universal and historical levels. Based on the qualitative analysis of a dataset of mixed metaphors, I show that (1) when interpreted in discourse as oriented toward an “expressive” purpose (e.g., producing an ironic or humorous sense effect), the apparent incongruence of mixed metaphors can be suspended and reinterpreted as deliberate, thereby becoming acceptable within the communicative context; (2) given the high degree of metaphoricity and creativity they exhibit at the discursive level, mixed metaphors are less likely to become conventionalized and integrated into linguistic norms, or to establish stable associative relations with other signs within a given language (historical level); (3) in order to convey their uncommon lived experience, speakers operate at the universal level by creating analogies that combine metaphors in unconventional ways, typically through the integration of semantically incompatible metaphorical vehicles. Secondly, I will show that, despite certain differences between the two frameworks, the Motivation & Sedimentation Model (MSM) – developed within cognitive semiotics (e.g. Moskaluk et al. 2022) – shows notable affinities with Coseriu’s framework in addressing the various facets of mixed metaphor. 

Coseriu, Eugenio (1985). “Linguistic Competence: What is it Really?”, The Modern Language Review LXXX, xxv–xxxv.

Gibbs Raymond W. (ed.) (2016). Mixing Metaphor (Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 6).

Moskaluk, K., Zlatev, J., & van de Weijer, J. (2022). “Dizziness of Freedom”: Anxiety disorders and metaphorical meaning-making. Metaphor and Symbol, 37(4), 303-322.