Anatomy of a malapropism

English is full of troublesome pairs of words – if they look alike and sound alike, and share a common thread of meaning, no wonder we confuse them.

Tony Ding/AP
The words 'flaunt' – as in flaunting a new car – and 'flout,' or expressing disdain for something, are often confused. Here General Motors CEO Mary Barra talks about the 2016 Chevrolet Volt hybrid car at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

Let us now praise Mrs. Malaprop. A character in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s 1775 play “The Rivals,” she’s made audiences laugh with her almost-but-not-quite-right word choices for generations. Other playwrights have worked this comic vein – notably Molière, and Shakespeare, whose constable Dogberry, in “Much Ado About Nothing,” was a sort of proto-Barney Fife. But today we call such bungled usages malapropisms.

Reviewing some examples of these the other day, though, I began to have a little sympathy for their namesake – and all the rest of us who occasionally pick the wrong one of a pair of troublesome words. A number of these pairs sound just enough alike and share some common element of meaning to be plausibly confused. 

Take flaunt and flout, for instance. Flaunt means to show (something) off: a new car, for instance. Flout means to show or express disdain for something: regulations that tell you where you can or cannot park that new car, for instance. Their meanings are distinct: One refers to behavior that arguably pushes the line, the other to behavior that is clearly over the line. But the two sound similar. And they share a common thread of brazenness, cheekiness. No wonder people confuse them.

And etymology is not of much help here. Flout has been used transitively (“to flout the law”) since the 1550s. But it’s not clear just whence it derives. “Possibly special use” of a Middle English verb meaning “to play on the flute,” the Oxford English Dictionary suggests, with less than complete conviction. “Compare,” the dictionary continues, “a similar development of sense in Dutch fluiten to play the flute, to mock, deride.” Well, OK, maybe.

And flaunt? Here’s what the OED has to say: “Of unknown origin.” OED allows that the word looks French, but it can suggest no known French word from which it could have come. Early uses of flaunt suggest flags, banners, plumes, etc., waving “gaily or proudly,” the dictionary explains, adding, “Possibly the word may be an onomatopoeia formed with a vague recollection of fly, flout, and vaunt.”

Flounder and founder are another troublesome pair. Both refer to slow failure. The mnemonic is that flounder is what a flounder (fish) does; to founder is what a sinking ship does – it goes to the bottom. Again, the two words sound alike and share a common thread of meaning, even though they’re not synonymous.

Hone is widely, and correctly, used to mean “to sharpen (something),” either literally (a knife) or more metaphorically (skills, a sales pitch). It’s also used, less correctly, as an equivalent of “to home in on, or to converge upon.” The American Heritage Dictionary, for example, accepts this usage. But Steven Pinker, for one, isn’t buying it: In his new book, “The Sense of Style,” he calls it “a malaprop of to home, ‘return home,’ (what homing pigeons do).” Again, there’s an overlap in meaning (“gradually converge on a precise point or edge”) that “conspires with the similar sounds to encourage the malaprop.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.