5 Funny Figures of Speech

Wordplay is a fertile field for study in English. Although the following forms of humor should be used sparingly if at all, writers should be familiar with them and their possibilities.

1. Malapropism
A malapropism, the substitution of a word with a similar-sounding but incongruous word, may be uttered accidentally or, for humorous effect, may be deliberate. The name derives from that of Mrs. Malaprop, a character in an eighteenth-century play who often uttered such misstatements; one of her comments, for example, is “she’s as headstrong as an allegory,” when she meant to say “alligator.” (The word ultimately derives from the French phrasemal à propos, meaning “poorly placed.”) Numerous characters are assigned this amusing attribute; the Shakespearean character Dogberry’s name inspired an alternate label.

2. Spoonerism
Spoonerisms are similar to malapropisms; the distinction is that a spoonerism is a case of metathesis, in which parts of two words are exchanged, rather than one word substituted for another. This figure of speech was named after a nineteenth-century Oxford academician who appears to have been credited with various misstatements he did not make; one of the many apocryphal examples is “a well-boiled icicle” (in lieu of “a well-oiled bicycle”).

3. Paraprosdokian
The word for this type of wordplay, from Greek (meaning “against expectation”) but coined only a few decades ago, refers to a sentence with a humorously abrupt shift in intent, such as “I don’t belong to an organized political party — I’m a Democrat,” from twentieth-century American humorist Will Rogers, or Winston’s Churchill’s summation of a colleague, “A modest man, who has much to be modest about.”

4. Tom Swifty
This name for an adverb, used in an attribution for dialogue, that punningly applies to the words spoken (for example, “‘We just struck oil!’ Tom gushed”) was inspired by the writing style in a series of children’s novels featuring the character Tom Swift, written continuously since the early twentieth century. Although no such puns appear in these stories, such examples are suggestive of the overwrought adverbs that are a distinctive feature. (Originally, such a pun was called a Tom Swiftly.)

5. Wellerism
A Wellerism, named after a Dickensian character, is a statement that includes a humorous contradiction or a quirky lapse in logic, such as “‘So I see,’ said the blind carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw,” or a prosaic similar construction whose humor derives from a pun, as in “‘We’ll have to rehearse that,’ said the undertaker as the coffin fell out of the car” (which plays on the prefix re- in association with the noun hearse).

Fight the Good Fight Against Creeping Errors

Editing, the skill set practiced by the other half of my writer/editor dual personality, is a pleasurable pursuit for me. It enables me to practice problem solving, help people express themselves, and improve my own writing. But as I peruse some of the prose I examine professionally — more than a million words each year — I repeatedly come across banal but annoying errors that baffle me.

There are corollaries of these mistakes in every profession, and in the personal compartments of one’s life. They’re the editorial equivalent of finding that the toilet seat has been left up. (I’m sure you can think of cognates in your experience.) These are among those indefensible editorial errors that seem to perpetuate themselves like a virus, inconsequential in isolation but aggravating in the aggregate.

One irritating error I find often is the intrusive framing of a name in commas when it is an appositive of a preceding description of the person named, as in “The exhibition showcases the work of photographer, Mathew Brady, who produced many iconic images from the Civil War era.” This mistake is rarely replicated in well-edited publications. Unfortunately, many people are corrupted by its ubiquitous appearance in not-so-well-edited publications, and it is thus passed on to infect others.

(This error is no doubt influenced by a superficially similar — and correct — construction: “The exhibition showcases the work of the photographer, Mathew Brady, who produced many iconic images from the Civil War era.” This is correct form only if the photographer has already been referred to as such in a previous sentence without being named. Also, some publications precede an epithet describing a prominent person with the — as in “The exhibition showcases the work of the photographer Mathew Brady, who produced many iconic images from the Civil War era” — though the insertion is an unnecessary affection — but notice that the name is not set off by a pair of commas.)

Many other examples of such evergreen errors exist, including words misspelled (definately in place of definitely), imperfectly rendered because they’re imperfectly heard (supposably substituting for supposedly), unnecessarily augmented (irregardless, when regardless is sufficient), or faultily combined (alot instead of “a lot”). The persistent prevalence of these mutations is baffling, considering that the correct forms are found in any self-respecting publication. But the answer must lie in the explosion of email and texting, the proliferation of blogs and websites with less-than-rigorous editing, and the erosion of editorial quality in traditional print publications.

The only defense against deterioration of grammar, syntax, usage, spelling, and punctuation standards is careful writing and careful editing with the assistance of good role models, knowledgeable editors, and reliable reference sources.

Non-standard English and the New Tribalism

Dave Frohnmayer, President Emeritus of the University of Oregon, defines the New Tribalism as,

the growth of a politics based upon narrow concerns, rooted in the exploitation of divisions of class, cash, gender, region, religion, ethnicity, morality and ideology, ‘a give-no-quarter and take-no-prisoners’ activism that demands satisfaction and accepts no compromise.

I believe that much of the misuse of standard English that we are witnessing is linked to the New Tribalism.

Nonstandard English is a tribal marker. Consciously or unconsciously, speakers who have been taught standard grammar and word formation, but persist in saying or writing such stuff as,

Me and my friends play video games.
They invited my wife and I.
The detour effected our plan’s.
Your my best friend.
I’ll definately be their.

do it because they identify with a group that feels that the use of standard speech does not reflect who they are.

In the first half of the 20th century, when not every child had the opportunity to progress all the way through high school, learning to speak a standard dialect in addition to one’s home dialect was not seen as an optional by-product of education. The teaching of standard grammar, pronunciation, and spelling was one of public education’s major goals. Standard English was seen as a passport to a job in a bank or an office or a high class department store. It was a goal that ambitious young people mastered before having to leave school at the age of 13 or 14.

Two interviews in a documentary about life in the 1930s and 1940s illustrate the change that has taken place in U.S. educational outcomes since the early 20th century.

One of the interview subjects was a white man who grew up on an isolated farm and attended a one-room school house. The other subject was a black man who grew up in a poor neighborhood in Chicago. I can’t say with certainty, but I’d guess both grew up speaking nonstandard dialects at home. In the interviews, both men spoke standard English. They spoke with regional accents and inflections, but neither man made the pronoun and verb errors that are so common these days.

In the 1940s, only about 50% of the school population graduated from high school. The other half did well to complete eighth grade. Nowadays, school attendance is compulsory to the age of 16 in nineteen states, 17 in eleven states, and 18 in twenty states. Mastery of English grammar seems to have dwindled as time spent in school has increased.

A lot of critics blame the modern plague of sloppy English on texting and computer use. I don’t buy that.

Texting and Twitterspeak are dialects in their own right. They operate under their own sets of rules. There’s no reason an excellent texter can’t also be an excellent writer of standard English.

Doctors may talk about “phalanges” at a medical conference, but they talk about “fingers” and “toes” to their patients. The toughest punk on the street corner probably doesn’t go home and address his mother as “Yo, Bitch!” Most speakers instinctively shape their language to suit their listeners and readers.

When native speakers pass through eight or more years of formal instruction without mastering standard English, something psychological is going on.

Certainly there are other contributing factors, but I’m convinced that a great part of the problem is a fear of tribal rejection.

What standard English needs is a lobby, like the ones that exist to fight bullying and domestic abuse. It needs well-funded activists and celebrity spokesmen urging young people to say “My friends and I play video games.” It needs more employers like Kyle Wiens, iFixit CEO and founder of Dozuki. He requires all job applicants to pass a grammar test before interviewing them for a job of any kind. Says Wiens,

Grammar signifies more than just a person’s ability to remember high school English. I’ve found that people who make fewer mistakes on a grammar test also make fewer mistakes when they are doing something completely unrelated to writing — like stocking shelves or labeling parts.

Now, as in the 1940s, the ability to speak and write a standard form of English is the ticket to a better life. Even if tribal identity requires speaking a distinctive dialect within the group, the ability to speak and write a standard form of English can be a great social equalizer.

3 Tips for Careful Writers

1. Know the Rules
This doesn’t mean to simply remember what you learned — or what you think you learned — five or fifty years ago. Careful writers continuously educate and reeducate themselves about grammar, syntax, usage, and style. In preparing to write my posts over the last few years, I have engaged in extensive research, consulting print and online authorities to confirm or correct my own understanding of what constitutes good writing. Confront your prejudices, and check your recall and understanding of the basics. Most important, don’t believe everything you think.

2. Be Open to New and Unusual Usage
Language changes, and writers must change with it. This doesn’t mean that you should abandon your high standards and accept colloquial language; some contexts simply do not allow for a relaxation of the rules. But most forms of writing are flexible, and you should be, too. Adapt the language to the content, but consider also adapting the content to the language.

3. Verify
When in doubt, look it up. When not in doubt, look it up. Don’t be content with spell-checking programs; check not only definitions of words, phrases and expressions but also their connotations. When discussing a person, place, or thing, don’t simply double-check the spelling and treatment of the term; reacquaint yourself with the person, place, or thing to confirm or correct your impression that the reference is appropriate for the content. (And check your facts.)