Katachrese is a rhetorical stylistic device that can be used in all literary genres. However, different situations are described as killing. On the other hand, a word is named that closes a language gap, using an extension label from another field of meaning (1). Furthermore, the disagreeable connection of several metaphorical images, which are partly contradictory, is conceived under the term (2).
The term is derived from ancient Greek (κατάχρησις katáchrēsis) and translate with abuse. The translation also shows what is involved with the figure: namely the abuse of a word or a sequence of words [which are either used in a strange context or are simply connecting discreet language pictures. Let’s look at an example.
We meet at the foot of the mountain
In the above example, the crosstalk is the use of the word foot related to the mountain. The foot belongs in the area of the anatomy and basically means the lowest section of a leg. A mountain is a massive rock extraction. The two terms belong to different areas, whereby the foot is thus used in a different field of meaning and the lowest section of a rock survey means that the foot of the mountain is a reference for a language gap.
A language gap is because there is no fixed term for this section in the everyday language, and when a word from a different environment is used to describe what is meant, we speak of a crosstalk. In this case, the cataclysm is also a narrative of the word, and is therefore related to neologism. The same is true of Tischbein and Schlüsselbart.
Even a blind chicken has gold in his mouth
A further meaning, which has the kachachese, is clarified by the above example, namely the connection of non-members. In this case there are two speeches (also a blind chicken sometimes finds a grain / morning hour has gold in the mouth), which are merged into a rather comic statement, which has an exhilarating effect on the recipient (reader, listener).
About every thorn in the flesh
the veil of forgetting spreads once.
In this example as well, two speeches, which are anchored in the language, are connected with each other, which do not belong together. In contrast to the previous example, two metaphors are not broken up and assembled in an unusual way, but are interwoven with whole phrases that do not fit together (see also: metaphors examples).
Note: The catechesis has a comic effect on the reader, at least when linking linguistic images. This effect of the cataclysm was already used in antiquity to produce comedy. This construction is only to be regarded as a stylistic means, if the connection is intended – but if we are dealing with a slip, it is a stylistic mistake.
Effect and function of the cataract
In principle, it is difficult to attribute a clear and always valid effect or function to a stylistic device. Here, we run the risk of reducing the stylistic figure and not checking whether it really does. Nevertheless we would like to give some hints.
Overview: Significance, effect, function of the cataract
Two different things are called science in science. On the one hand, it means the assumption of auxiliary terms from a different field of meaning (table leg, key beard, etc.), and on the other hand it describes the combination of linguistic images which do not fit together and which partly exclude or appear contradictory.
The first meaning can be called a conventionalized or lexicalized metaphor. This means that the linguistic image after the formation has transcended into the general vocabulary of the language and has closed a linguistic gap.
The second use of the word can be commonly called an image break, that is, consciously connecting linguistic images that do not match each other, because the respective parts of the print are conflicting and thus conflict.
If we speak in an analysis of the catechesis, the second meaning is usually meant, while the first is treated as a linguistic image. It is basically a matter of the fact that the use creates a certain comedy – the effect of the figure is therefore funny.
The crosstalk can be used either intentionally or accidentally. The effect is the same in both cases. However, we can only call the whole thing as a stylistic device, if it is deliberately used – someone promises itself, this is a style defect.