Today I'll jump right into a very practical issue: the imagery that idioms conjure up.
We know that idioms are a staple of the advanced level. We also know that idioms are, basically, "ready-made language". They've been around for as long as most people can remember and, if you don't like them, well, there's not much one can do about it. I suppose you can create your own expressions, but if you're the only speaker using them, they are not going to be of much use unless you convince thousands of people to work them into their daily conversations.
As a sophisticated learner, though, you can choose the kind of imagery you resort to, so that you may decide what you want the listener/reader to "see". I use the verb "see" deliberately because, whether you like it or not, when you speak you are often "painting". By using references to images, you plant mental pictures in your interlocutor's head. I don't know about you, but whenever someone mentions the proverbial "bull in a china shop" I can't help picturing the said bull wreaking havoc in the said store. Of course, other expressions paint no picture whatsoever. At least not in my mind. So, how can we create different "visualizations" (let's call them that)? And, more importantly, why is that relevant to your English?
In order to find out, we'll consider a common enough reference: causes and effects (i.e. events and their consequences) and see how we refer to them. Alright. We deal with that every single day, don't we? For the sake of clarity, we can state that, sometimes, one event has ONE consequence, which can be either pleasant or unpleasant. Thus, when you take a medicine, for instance, you may expect two basic outcomes:
Scenario A: The medicine cures you and you feel good.
Scenario B: The medicine cures you, but your left eye will not stop twitching.
The second scenario presents what we call a side effect. Okay. Here's the rub: when I hear those two words (side effect) I don't picture anything in particular. It's not like the aforementioned bull breaking valuable objects in an enclosed space. That is not what this post is about, though. As a matter of fact, what I would like you to consider is rather the opposite: the case in which an idiom manages to make a listener "visualize" a scene.
So let's look at a more specific case of causes and effects. Let's discuss the case in which ONE event causes SEVERAL events to happen not simultaneously but one after another. How do you refer to that phenomenon? Here you have some options:
Do you see what I'm getting at, here? Roughly speaking, those expressions convey the same basic meaning ("sorta, kinda..."), but offer different nuances and, therefore, paint different pictures. Check out this sentence:
We had a chance meeting and it all snowballed from there.
This may well be said by someone who refers to a project which started after a casual conversation and got increasingly big. For all we know, it may have gone on to become a worldwide sensation. Okay. Do you see the difference between that image (the snowball rolling down a mountain) and the one you "see" when someone mentions an event that sent shock waves through the country? The little snowball versus the impact of an earthquake or an explosion. Now compare those two different types of consequences with the ripples on the surface of a lake (implicit in the abovementioned ripple effect). You can't seriously tell me that they elicit the same response from your listener.
Truly advanced imagery may revolve around more complex elaborate semiotic relationships. For instance, you may first resort to a black swan eventand then, somehow, manage to refer to a big stone which falls into the water. First you present a swan in a lake and then you add the ripples that disturb its stillness. Isn't that nice? I'm afraid that's the sort of stuff that we expect from an accomplished writer or a poet (or a language teacher), not necessarily from a C1/C2 student.
As learners, you have a small advantage over native speakers. You are not customarily exposed to certain nonstandard expressions. Therefore there are plenty of mistakes you are simply unlikely to commit. Consider these sentences:
Ain't got a problem
I like them sneakers
Granted. By and large, English learners and native English speakers tend to make different kinds of mistakes. Sometimes, though, we can find an unexpected overlap. An inexperienced English student, for instance, may use the infamous double negative. For different reasons, (emphasis, register, dialect, lack of formal education) some native speakers may commit the very same "mistake". Just watch the first 30 seconds of this glorious cover of I don't need no doctor, the Ray Charles classic.
Another example: some native users might mess up conditional sentences in a way that should strike a chord with any teacher who has ever taught B2 level: If I would have known that before... This happens because native speakers also fall victim to an old danger: bad references. It stands to reason that speakers whose parents don't have a good grasp on conditionals should perpetrate the aforementioned "crime".
So, what happens when you hear a native speaker use what we can safely call "objectionable English"? (and I don't mean "colorful language" or "taboo vocabulary" here, but plain ungrammatical sentences, nonwords or suspicious idioms.) What do you do then? What happens when you hear two conflicting phrases? For instance: I feel good and I feel well.
A stuffy by-the-book teacher will typically correct the perceived "error"... and s/he will be plain wrong. They will be quick to point out that you ought to say "I feel well". However, that correction would fail to acknowledge a well-established phrase in the English language. Are you going to critize the likes of James Brown and Nina Simone? I don't think so. As an experienced teacher, I can tell you that both are "okay". "I feel well" simply sounds a bit formal whereas "I feel good" has a friendly, colloquial ring to it. I would not say the same about similar structures. The sentence "the negotiation went quite good" grates on my ears. I'm afraid it's a no-no.
Nonetheless, sometimes you'll come across pairs of expressions that cannot be explained away like I just did. That tends to happen when the error does not hinge on grammar rules or lexical precision, but rather on a concept that somehow feels "off". So-called malaphors represent that very scenario.
Malaphors
Malaphors or mixaphors (I love these two blend-words!) present an amusing way of mixing concepts. (When they are not uttered as a phrase but used as an extended rhetorical device, they are typically called "mixed metaphors"). Check out this sentence:
All at once, he was alone in this noisy hive with no place to roost
The "he" in that sentence is simultaneously compared to a bee and a rooster. Isn't that bizarre? Indeed, it is. In point of fact, that's a textbook case of mixed metaphors. Likewise, we should not juxtapose conflicting idioms. Let's assume that you want to characterize someone as a truly original thinker. You can conceivably say something like this:
This girl really pushes the envelop and blazes the trail.
Both idioms exist (and have the very same meaning), but, clearly the mental picture suggested by that sentence is odd: someone handling a (paper?) envelop while setting a path on fire. I doubt you can do both things at the same time. Anyhow, this wouldn't be an example of two mixed metaphors but rather a prime example of confusing imagery. I don't think I need to explain why something like that should be avoided.
In any event, the reason this happens is that, oftentimes, language learners tend to store/remember just the core "idea" within a particular expression and then build a sentence around that basic notion. Well, native speakers sometimes do the exact same thing. Indeed. Let's say a native speaker is vaguely familiar with two separate idioms:
Every cloud has a silver lining
To have a silver spoon in one's mouth
There is a chance that they may get confused in someone's head. This person might end up using a hybrid expression that takes a bit of both phrases: "every cloud is born with a silver spoon in its mouth" (!)
Those two expressions clearly refer to completely different realities. One alludes to the notion of seeing the bright side of a negative situation. The second one refers to inherited money. Yet, as the video above suggests, a native speaker might only remember "the silver element", which can be enough for him or her to mix up both expressions and produce an utterly ludicrous phrase. Okay. I must confess, I've never heard anyone utter the sentence "every cloud has a silver spoon in its mouth, but I have definitely heard people (native speakers) say "Don't worry, we'll burn that bridge when we get there." Again, this is obviously a hilarious combination of two different idioms:
We'll cross that bridge when we get there
To burn one's bridges
Trust competent speakers
Why do I bother to mention all this? Because you should be very careful who you trust. A native speaker is usually a pretty good reference, but they are by no means infallible sources of linguistic advice. Also, remember that sometimes educated speakers choose to use an incorrect phrase deliberately, for comic effect or simply because they want to adapt to a specific situation. At the advanced level you should be able to identify a speaker's attitude or tone so you can decide whether a given nonstandard phrase is a mistake or a joke.
Needless to say, we can always come across a native speaker who might not have a good handle on certain idioms. Just like a Spaniard may say "estoy entre la espalda y la pared "(roughly translated: "I'm between the lock and a hard place"), a Canadian English speaker can also make an analogous mistake. What can I say? Some speakers are more competent than others. So, you know what to do. Make sure that the language user you choose to imitate knows what they're doing. Otherwise you may find yourself "screwing your foot in it."
________________
N.B. To those of you that have watched the video above: I have definitely heard people say "butt naked" more often than I have "buck naked." But the truth is that both expressions are quite common. Should you be curious, you can read this informative article whichsheds some light on the actual usage of those two phrases. By the way, in case you are wondering, I always say "buck naked",but, then again, that is my personal choice.
N.B2. Yes. Yes. You don't "screw your foot in it". Either you "put your foot in it" or you simply "screw up".
Lately I have realized a recurring phenomenon amongst my students. Whenever I mention the fact that a particular structure or expression can be used in two or three different ways, I observe a distinct knee-jerk reaction. Invariably, some student will ask me: "So, which one is correct?" That's when I reply that "there is no correct expression." At this some of my students look utterly flummoxed. How is that possible? How can a word have two different plural forms? Of course, there is a number of reasons why this can happen: different registers, regularization processes, dialectal divergence, etc.
Even when there is an evidently "correct" (i.e. standard) form and an "incorrect" (i.e. nonstandard) version, things are not necessarily black and white. Thus Bill Withers, the author of the soul classic Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone, would not have uttered the sentence "ain't no doubt in my mind" during a TV interview. Most likely he would have said "there is no doubt in my mind." The same speaker that uses a "correct" verb form in the interview chooses the "incorrect" one for the song. So there's that.
Then we come up against another problem. Something that is "incorrect" today may be "correct" tomorrow. Yes... I could get really technical and discuss the concept of diachronical continuum, but, for the sake of clarity, let's just say that language transformation is a slow process and changes do not occur overnight. That explains how it is perfectly possible for different options to be available at the same time. Whatever non-linguists tell you, the truth is that, before a linguistic novelty (i.e. a new/modified expression) becomes established, it coexists with the older form for a few decades or even generations. That phenomenon is called linguistic variation. Of course, at first, the "novelty" is deemed to be an outright mistake. With the passage of time, though, the "wrong" expression starts to feel rather "normal". Eventually, the "correct" one sounds dated and is abandoned. That's how changes take place. Therefore sentences such as "I'm seeing", "I'm hearing" or even "I'm loving it", which were frowned upon in the 1980s, are gradually becoming acceptable now. Is it okay to say "I'm loving this book"? Well... it depends.
Words of foreign origin
In Spain we find the case of "real classical Latin" and what I call "Spanish Latin". Established Spanish writers will use the expression in flagrante, which happens to be the classical formula used by the Romans (the full phrase being in flagrante delicto). However, the prestigious Diccionario de la Real Academia sanctions the use of the corrupt form in fraganti. Notice that erroneous first syllable: "fra". For reasons that need not be described, in Spain the word underwent a shocking transformation. Is "fraganti" classical Latin? I'm afraid it's not. It's dog Latin. The difference between flagrante and fraganti reminds me of that kid I met in the US, whose name was Grabiel. Yes. Grabiel. The kid insisted that his name was not Gabriel but GRAbiel. An obvious mistake had been made (unsurprisingly, his parents happened to be uneducated immigrants), but of course nobody made him change his name. In a similar way, "incorrect" Latin expressions made their way into the Spanish (a grosso modo, de motu propio, etc.) and have managed to stay in the language, because most people were okay with them.
Why do I mention all this? Because an ancient tongue is kind of swampy terrain and different modern languages adapt loanwords in different ways. That's why we find Latin words with two possible plurals in English. Take a word that I used above: the technical term "continuum". What is its plural? Continuums or continua? If you get ahold of a copy of The Power of Babel (2001) and turn to page 81 you will see that Professor John McWhorter uses continua. So is continua is the correct plural?
Let me think. My favorite dictionary, the one and only Merriam Webster, also accepts the regularized version continuums. So, again... which one is "correct"? The answer is both and, since we find this trend across the board, there's hardly any need to panic. Sometimes several alternatives are grammatical.
Foreign plurals
What I just explained is not an isolated example. As a matter of fact, in the case of foreign plurals we usually tend to find two options. The Italian word paparazzo only has one acceptable plural: paparazzi, butHebrew terms such as kibutz and goy can take both the original plural (kibutzim and goyim) and the regularized versions (kibutzes and goys). The same thing is true for certain Latin words: ultimatum and curriculum offer two plurals. Nevertheless, that is not the case of other Latin terms. Alumnus and bacterium, for example, only accept the "original" plurals, namely, alumni and bacteria. Don't ask me why. I don't make the rules. Ultimately, whenever you have two options, using one form or the other boils down to a choice. That's when the concept of style comes into play. I'll say it again. Not grammatical correctness but... style.
Style
Ask yourself: Do you say stupidest or the most stupid? Do you say if an astronaut takes his or her cat? or do you say their cat? Do you say the majority of people thinksor the majority of people think? The by-the-book correct expression is, of course, thinks (since the head of the noun phrase is majority), but the ad sensum use calls for "think" because it's the people (a plural noun) that do the thinking. In the first paragraph of this post I wrote "there is a number of reasons...". Well, that is my choice. Someone else could have chosen "there are a number of reasons". I know. I know. Some grammar sticklers will tell you that only the first one is correct and many teachers will mark the second option wrong. That said, there are solid reasons to justify either choice.
Not anything goes
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that obviously ungrammatical sentences can be justified on the grounds of "personal style". As is the case of so-called eggcorns and malaprops, a mistake is a mistake (even though languages are chock-full of embarrassing blunders that then go on to become official). Case in point: I abhor an atrocity like "I was literally petrified". Really. It makes my skin crawl (not literally), but I can accept that some speakers spell "chock-full" like me (with a hyphen) while others favor "chockfull" (without the hyphen). As far as I'm concerned both are acceptable and that's fine.
So, at this point you may be wondering... "What do I do if I'm not sure what to say?" If you want my advice: follow competent speakers and make sure you imitate expressions that are in reputable use. By "competent speakers" I refer to writers like Ian McEwan or Joyce Carol Oates, intellectuals like Steven Pinker or Sam Harris, actors like Stephen Fry or Emma Thompson... They are all exceedingly eloquent speakers whose mastery in English I definitely look up to. Dictionaries can also be helpful, of course.
Every now and then it is okay to be persnickety in terms of grammatical correctness but don't push it. Most of the times, things are not black or white. Indeed, there are many shades of "gray" or... wait a second. Is it "gray", with an A, or should I spell it "grey" with an E?
