{"id":5139,"date":"2021-10-21T16:02:56","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T14:02:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5139"},"modified":"2025-06-07T08:32:09","modified_gmt":"2025-06-07T06:32:09","slug":"metonymy-synecdoche","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/metonymy-synecdoche\/","title":{"rendered":"Metonymy – Synecdoche"},"content":{"rendered":"

METONYMY – SYNECDOCHE<\/span><\/h1>\n

Traditionally, the field of rhetoric has been divided into two main areas, one dealing with tropes and figures<\/em>, and the other deals with argumentation schemes<\/em>. Semantic and ornamental<\/em> rhetoric is opposed to\u00a0cognitive and functional<\/em> rhetoric. However, this distinction can be misleading.<\/p>\n

1. Tropes<\/span><\/h2>\n

A trope<\/em> is defined as an operation \u201cby which a word is given a meaning that is not exactly its proper meaning\u201d (Dumarsais [1730], p.\u200969). This definition can be paralleled by that of an argument, which is defined as an operation \u201cby which a proposition (the conclusion) is given a belief value <\/em>that is not exactly the proper belief value of that proposition.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

The linguistic mechanisms involved in trope referential shifts bear a significant resemblance to those involved in arguments. In both cases, the problem is one of transmission. In the case of a trope, the meaning<\/em> of one word is transferred to another. In argument, the belief value<\/em> of one proposition is transferred to another. The rules of transfer are similar in both cases.<\/p>\n

Metaphor<\/em><\/a>, irony<\/a><\/em>, metonymy and synecdoche<\/em> considered the four \u201cmaster tropes\u201d (Burke, 1945), are all relevant to the study of argumentation, albeit in quite different ways. <\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Metonymy<\/span><\/h1>\n

2.1 Metonymy as a Trope<\/span><\/h2>\n

Consider the classic example of metonymy, \u201cThe pen is mightier than the sword.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> A pen is \u201can instrument for writing or drawing with ink\u2026\u201d (MW, Pen<\/em>), and a sword is \u201ca weapon with a long metal blade and a handle with a hand guard\u2026\u201d (OD, Sword<\/em>).\u00a0\u00bb In the quoted proverb, the words pen <\/em>and sword<\/em> are used metonymically for \u201cwords, thoughts and discourse, verbal communication\u2026\u201d and \u201cphysical violence, military force\u2026\u201d respectively. The overall meaning is that \u201cviolence does not prevail over reasoned discourse<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

The semantic scheme of metonymy can be described as follows.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0There is a word {S<\/strong> \/ C1}<\/strong>, whose signifier is S<\/strong> and whose content is C1,<\/strong>\u00a0pen<\/em>\/\u201cwriting instrument.<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u2014 The signifier S<\/strong> is used metonymically to denote the content C0,<\/strong> pen<\/em>\/\u201cdiscourse.<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u2014 This transfer of meaning operates under the condition that it has a backing, expressed by a law of transition such as \u201cC0<\/strong> is in some relation of contiguity with C1<\/strong>.<\/em>\u201d In this case, \u201cthe pen is the instrument<\/em> with which discourse is produced.<\/em>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Subtypes of metonymic schemes are classified according to the nature of the connection between the contents of C0<\/strong> and C1.<\/strong> For example:<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Effect for cause, \u201cDeath is in the meadow<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u2014\u00a0Instrument for agent, \u201cShe is the pen of the president<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u2014\u00a0Agent (or \u201ccause\u201d) for the work produced: \u201cA new Shakespeare has just come out<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u2014 Instrument for object produced: \u201cThe pen is mightier\u2026<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u2014 Name of the place where the object is made for the object itself, etc. \u201cI feel like cognac.<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\n\u2014 Relevant current planned action for a participant: \u201cSir, your rendezvous just left<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

2.2 Metonymic and argumentative transfer<\/span><\/h3>\n

Figures and arguments require similar support. This can be illustrated by the following examples.<\/p>\n

The effect for cause metonymy<\/strong>: \u201cDeath is in the meadow<\/em>\u201d[1]<\/a> means that phytosanitary products (Ph<\/strong>)\u00a0 <\/em>(pesticides<\/em>, also called plant protection products<\/em>) used in agriculture can cause death<\/em> (D<\/strong>). The word (signifier) designating the effect (D<\/strong>) now designates (refers to) its cause (Ph<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

In the effect-to-cause argument<\/strong>, the truth-value predicated on the effect is transferred back to the cause, or a set of causes:<\/p>\n

Metals expand when heated.<\/span><\/p>\n

The metal expanded<\/em> (is an established fact<\/em>), SO it was heated (is an established fact<\/em>)<\/p>\n

The tire exploded, so [either C1<\/strong>, or C2<\/strong>, or\u2026] (id<\/em>.); see case-by-Case<\/a><\/p>\n

The effect-to-cause argument transfers the predicate \u201c\u2014 is an established fact<\/em>\u201d from the effect to the cause.<\/p>\n

The word death<\/em> refers to death. In the case of metonymy, its referential domain is extended to include the cause<\/em> of death<\/span>, \u201cdeath<\/em> refers to phytosanitary products.<\/em>\u201d
\nIn our standard view of reference, a word refers to an object. In fact, it refers centrally to an object, and<\/em><\/span> to objects that are contextually related to it. In other words, the word (signifier) actually refers to any element belonging to the semantic cluster<\/em> of these objects.
\nOrdinary language clearly expresses this fact:<\/p>\n

(1) He has a fever, so he has an infection.<\/span>
\n(2) Give him an antibiotic, it will reduce the fever.<\/span><\/p>\n

The antibiotic actually acts on the infection;\u00a0<\/em> so, the fever<\/em> in (2) is an effect-for-cause metonymic designation of the infection. On the other hand, fever is a natural sign<\/em> of an infection: \u201cHe has a fever, <\/em>which means he has an infection<\/em>\u201d: this is exactly what the metonymic analysis says.<\/p>\n

Metonymy designating a work by the name of its author corresponds to an argument that transfers a judgment about the author to the work: \u201cThe author of this book supported the former dictator<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d
\nPerelman (1952) studied the mechanisms of this metonymic transfer from the person to his or her actions and products from an argumentative point of view.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0Synecdoche<\/span><\/h2>\n

As the example of the rendezvous above\u00a0 in \u00a71 shows, metonymic naming can operate on any pair of strongly connected objects, where this connection may be accidental (local), or essential. Synecdoche operates on constituent parts of a whole. The term \u201cmetonymy\u201d is sometimes used to refer to both metonymy and synecdoche.<\/p>\n

3.1 \u201cPart\u2013Whole\u201d and \u201cWhole\u2013Part\u201d Relations<\/span><\/h3>\n

For instance, a roof<\/em> is a component of a house.<\/em> In \u201clooking for a roof<\/em>\u201d, roof<\/em> means \u201chouse\u201d, houses being considered prototypical shelters.<\/p>\n

Part\u2013whole arguments<\/em> transfer the predicate associated with the part to the whole. These arguments are supported by the same kind of connection, see composition and division.<\/a><\/p>\n

The roof is in bad condition, so the house must not be well maintained.<\/p>\n

3.2 Genus for Species and Species for Genus<\/span><\/h2>\n

In a synecdoche of genus for species, the name of the genus is used to refer to one of its species. The name of the genus replaces the name of the species. For example, \u201cthe animal\u201d replaces \u201cthe lion.<\/em>\u201d This use is most common in textual co-reference.<\/p>\n

We saw a lion. The poor beast was thin and sick.<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on the same relationship, the argument by the genus attaches the predicates of the genus to the species, see taxonomy and category<\/a>; categorization<\/a>:<\/p>\n

This is a lion, therefore it is an animal, and therefore, it is mortal.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. The tree and its fruits<\/span><\/h2>\n

The following argument was made in defense of Paul Touvier, the leader of the pro-Nazi militia in Lyon, France, during the Nazi occupation. He was sentenced to death after the war, he escaped and remained in hiding for 25 years. The following is an excerpt from a letter written by the Rev. Blaise Arminjon, S.J., to the then president of France on December 5, 1970, in support of Paul Touvier’s petition for clemency:<\/p>\n

How can we to believe that he [Touvier] is a \u201ccriminal\u201d, or a \u201cbad Frenchman\u201d, when his conduct for twenty-five years, and the education he has given his children, have been so admirable? A tree is known by its fruits.<\/span>[2]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

A Toulminian analysis can be applied to this passage, the warrant for which is provided by the biblical topos, \u201cA tree is known by its fruits.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
\nLuke 6:43-45, New King James Version.<\/span><\/p>\n

This transitional law also permits an interpretation based on a metonymy. Speaking of \u201cthe [admirable] conduct of Touvier for twenty-five years<\/em>\u201d is a metonymic reference to Touvier metonymically.\u00a0Saying that \u201cthe education that Touvier gave his children<\/em> is admirable<\/em>\u201d spreads metonymically to the agent, Touvier, who is necessarily equally admirable.<\/p>\n

The same phenomenon can be equally expressed through a trope or an argument, both implement the same kind of rationality.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> La Mort est dans le pr\u00e9<\/em>, youtube.com\/watch?v=nAMARhJoFaQ
\n<\/span>[2]<\/a> Quoted in Ren\u00e9 R\u00e9mond & <\/em>al,, Paul Touvier et l’Eglise<\/em> [Paul Touvier and the Church<\/em>], Paris, Fayard, 1992, p. 164.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

METONYMY – SYNECDOCHE Traditionally, the field of rhetoric has been divided into two main areas, one dealing with tropes and figures, and the other deals with argumentation schemes. Semantic and ornamental rhetoric is opposed to\u00a0cognitive and functional rhetoric. However, this distinction can be misleading. 1. Tropes A trope is defined as an operation \u201cby which […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5139"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14338,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5139\/revisions\/14338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}