twitter
22
edits
Synecdoche: Difference between revisions
→And Metonymy
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
For instance, an object can be identified by the material it is made with or by the material it is packaged in. (Mulvey 165).<ref name=Ref2/> | For instance, an object can be identified by the material it is made with or by the material it is packaged in. (Mulvey 165).<ref name=Ref2/> | ||
== | == Relation to Metonymy == | ||
Synecdoche and Metonymy are similar, but different. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding defining metonymy and categorizing words as metonymical. Most definitions are vague, thereby giving the confusing implication that any word can reflect metonymy if used in the right context. In Hugh Bredin's article “Metonymy,” he supplies a general definition for metonymy which states that “metonymy is the transfer of the name of a thing to something else that is closely associated with it - such as cause and effect, container and contained, possessor and possessed, and so on; for example, "crown" or "throne" for monarchy” (45).<ref name=Ref4/> Bredin asserts that such a definition is an “enumeration of instances” that poorly explains the exact function of metonymical words. The one aspect that all critics agree upon in regards to metonymy is that synecdoche is it's relative. More specifically synecdoche is a subsection of metonymy. In order to distinguish between metonymy and synecdoche, a person must examine the relationship of the words involved. | Synecdoche and Metonymy are similar, but different. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding defining metonymy and categorizing words as metonymical. Most definitions are vague, thereby giving the confusing implication that any word can reflect metonymy if used in the right context. In Hugh Bredin's article “Metonymy,” he supplies a general definition for metonymy which states that “metonymy is the transfer of the name of a thing to something else that is closely associated with it - such as cause and effect, container and contained, possessor and possessed, and so on; for example, "crown" or "throne" for monarchy” (45).<ref name=Ref4/> Bredin asserts that such a definition is an “enumeration of instances” that poorly explains the exact function of metonymical words. The one aspect that all critics agree upon in regards to metonymy is that synecdoche is it's relative. More specifically synecdoche is a subsection of metonymy. In order to distinguish between metonymy and synecdoche, a person must examine the relationship of the words involved. | ||
=== Similarities and Differences === | === Similarities and Differences === | ||