Mixed Metaphors and Coherence

A mixed metaphor combines expressions associated with different source images. The combination may be awkward, comic, inventive or entirely ordinary. Identifying more than one image does not, by itself, establish that a passage is confused.

Lakoff and Johnson distinguish consistency, in which images fit a single unified scene, from coherence, in which different metaphors can contribute compatible ways of understanding a topic. Their analysis of arguments as journeys, containers and buildings shows how partial overlaps can support meaningful combinations.

Three questions that should be kept separate

First, can the literal images be pictured together? Second, do the expressions make compatible contributions to the topic? Third, is the sentence useful and intelligible for its intended audience? These questions may receive different answers.

Consider the constructed sentence “The discussion moved forward once its central claim had stronger support”. Movement, a centre and physical support all contribute to the description. It is unnecessary to imagine one literal object simultaneously walking, containing a centre and standing on props. The sentence may be understood through its claims about progress, importance and justification.

This does not mean that any combination will work. A passage can create incompatible expectations or make its subject hard to identify. Its success should be assessed at the level of the actual wording and purpose, rather than by counting how many source domains an analyst can name.

A comparison of different combinations

The examples below are invented to make the distinctions visible. They are not ratings obtained from a reader study.

Constructed passage	Relationship between images	Question for the reader
“The argument advances on a secure foundation.”	Travel describes progress; building describes justification.	Are the two aspects clear enough without one consistent physical scene?
“We must prune the bottleneck before it catches fire.”	Gardening, restricted flow and combustion compete for attention.	What specific problem and action does the writer mean?
“The policy is a safety net. But a net can also entangle.”	One source is extended to expose another property.	Has the writer challenged the policy by reinterpreting its own image?
“This voyage needs a gardener.”	An unexpected combination invites an explanation.	Does the surrounding passage make the intended relationship productive or merely puzzling?

The third row is especially useful: a change of implication need not involve a new source domain. Conversely, the first row mixes sources without necessarily producing a contradiction. An account of mixed metaphor benefits from distinguishing the number of images from the relationships between their implications.

Coherence through shared implications

In Lakoff and Johnson's account, different metaphors can overlap through the aspects of a concept they help explain. For an argument, a building may organise support and structure, while a journey may organise progress towards a conclusion. Both can contribute to an account of how an argument develops.

An entailment in this discussion is an inference invited by the source structure. If something depends on a foundation, damage to that foundation can threaten what it supports. An analyst can then ask whether a passage applies this relationship to premises and conclusions. The inference must be demonstrated from the wording; it should not be added merely because buildings have foundations.

Coherence is also local. Two images may cooperate in one paragraph and conflict in another. A journey description can be useful for the sequence of an investigation but less useful when a writer implies that the destination was already known. The relevant issue is which relationships are being projected at that point.

Deliberate disruption and creativity

A surprising combination may be the point of a poem, joke or critical argument. It can slow reading, expose a habitual comparison or force readers to revise their first interpretation. Calling the mixture a mistake before examining its context can remove the very feature that makes it interesting.

Kövecses's account of metaphorical creativity gives contextual factors an active role in which images become available. A nearby object, a preceding expression or shared knowledge can make an otherwise unlikely comparison relevant. This provides a reason to retain surrounding text when documenting an unusual mixture.

Conceptual Blending and Mental Spaces offers another framework for analysing combinations. A blended scene may organise selected elements in a way that neither input supplies alone. Merely finding two metaphors, however, does not demonstrate a particular blending analysis; the proposed correspondences and new structure need to be shown.

Editing without flattening the meaning

For explanatory prose, begin with what the reader needs to understand. If a mixed expression obscures an instruction, state the intended action directly. If two images explain different aspects clearly, retaining both may be more useful than forcing the whole subject into one scene.

For literary or personal accounts, preserve the original wording before offering a paraphrase. A shift from being carried to walking, for example, changes agency as well as imagery. Smoothing it into a single travel metaphor can erase that change. The same care applies to a speaker whose account moves between pressure, weight and containment.

A useful record therefore includes the passage, the proposed source images, their shared or conflicting implications, and the purpose of any suggested revision. It should also distinguish an analyst's judgement of clarity from evidence about how actual readers responded.

Related pages

• Metaphor in Literature and Creativity
• Metaphor in Poetry: Close Reading and Interpretation
• Metaphor, Context and Speaker Meaning
• Primary and Complex Metaphors
• Metaphor Research Library