twitter
22
edits
Synecdoche: Difference between revisions
→Relation to Metonymy
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Relation to Metonymy == | == 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 of the term that states “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= | 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 of the term that states “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=Ref3/> 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 its relative. More specifically, synecdoche is a subsection of metonymy. In order to distinguish between metonymy and synecdoche, a person must examine the context of the words used in a sentence. | ||
=== Similarities and Differences === | === Similarities and Differences === | ||
According to Bredin, “synecdochic relations are structural, and metonymical relations are extrinsic – relations, in the one case, between particulars and their parts, and in the other case between particulars and other particulars” (54).<ref name= | According to Bredin, “synecdochic relations are structural, and metonymical relations are extrinsic – relations, in the one case, between particulars and their parts, and in the other case between particulars and other particulars” (54).<ref name=Ref3/> While synecdoche focuses on intra-relativity (the relation of the whole and its parts), metonymy focuses on extra-relativity (the mind's association with a word). More specifically, "Every metonymy is a synecdoche, but not every synecdoche is a metonymy. This rule is true because a metonymy must not only be a part of the root word, making a synecdoche, but also be a unique attribute of or associated with the root word" (Modugno).<ref name=Ref4/> For example, when referring to a car a person may call it their "wheels" which is a part of the car making the reference a synecdoche. If the person were to refer to the same vehicle as their "ride" then the car reference would become a metonymy. | ||
=== Examples of Metonymy === | === Examples of Metonymy === | ||