Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche

in Creative Thought

Dr Susan Ryland University for the Creative Arts (UK)

mail@susanryland.co.uk www.susanryland.co.uk

Introduction How new meaning is generated

I will discuss: • how metonymy generates new meaning in creative thought,

using examples from visual art; • the two mechanisms of same-domain relations in visual art: part-whole / 'part of' / partonomy; category / 'kind of' / taxonomy;

• Ken-ichi Seto's definition of metonymy and synecdoche • The strengths and weakness of his proposal in relation to

visual art; • Conclusions.

Louise Bourgeois Maman outside the National Gallery of Canada

METONYMY: same domain relations based on contiguity, in which there is a shift of attention from a central entity to a

peripheral or overlooked element.

MARCHING FEET FOR ARMY

Cornelia Parker Negative of Words (silver residue accumulated from engraving words) 1996.

Cornelia Parker The Negative of Whispers, ( Ear plugs made with fluff gathered in the Whispering Gallery, St

Paul’s Cathedral, London), 1997

St Paul's Cathedral, London. Built circa 1700

Another type of same domain contiguity relations is found in:

SETS and SERIES

Bernd and Hilla Becher Water Towers 1980 (detail)

Bernd and Hilla Becher Water Towers, 1980. Nine gelatin-silver prints

“We wanted to provide a viewpoint or rather a grammar for people to understand and compare different structures.” — Bernd Becher

Butter bean (species-genus relations)

Twenty-five beans

'A process of ‘domain annexation’ or ‘micro-domain annexation’. Brigitte NERLICH, Synecdoche: a trope, a whole trope, and nothing but a trope? In: NERLICH, B. & BURKHARDT, A. (eds.) Tropical Truth(s). 2010: 310.

Helix® metric circles template

Transition type of same-domain relation based on contiguity: GROUPINGS / AD HOC CATEGORIES

Ceal Floyer, Helix, 2002,

Transition type of same-domain relation based on contiguity: AD HOC CATEGORIES

Ceal Floyer, Helix, 2001, 2002, 2002 (2) and 2003

Metonymy Draws attention to (often overlooked) peripheral elements within a domain of knowledge

Category Relations (synecdoche) Highlights perceived and imagined differences within category (taxonomic) relations, expanding meaning from a lesser to a greater domain of knowledge, i.e. from category 'bean' to a wider category of ‘start of life’.

Metaphor Finds similarities between distinct perceived and imagined domains of knowledge

What Ken-ichi Seto's says: Metonymy is a real world relation based on contiguity Contiguity has two kinds: spatial and temporal Metonymy is based on qualitative relations It is based on how the world is

Synecdoche is a category relation based on semantic inclusion Semantic inclusion means the relation between a more comprehensive category and a less comprehensive category Synecdoche is based on quantitative relations, i.e. set inclusion. It is based on how it is ordered in our minds This last point is based on French linguist Auguste de Chevallet (1853)

See: SETO, K.-I. Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche. In: PATHER, K. U. & RADDEN, G. (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia. John Benjamins. 1999.

The idea that 'set inclusion' is based on how something is ordered in our minds comes from the French linguist Auguste de Chevallet (1853). He stated that:

We can distinguish between two sorts of coexistence, one physical, which consists in the essential union of objects comprised in one and the same whole; the other categorical, which we imagine to exist amongst the different classes of objects or facts subordinated under a category.

• In physical category relations we perceive difference;

• Foregrounding differences reveals new meaning;

• This occurs at a 'tipping point' when there is a sudden shift from quantitative to qualitative relations.

• Humans enjoy identifying differences between closely related things (e.g. wine tasting)

I argue that both metonymy and synecdoche (category relations) include physical and semantic relations

If we decouple Seto's link between:

metonymy physical entity / E-relations synecdoche semantic / C-relations

We can say that:

Metonymy and synecdoche are same-domain relations in which metonymy uses partonomic relations, and synecdoche uses taxonomic relations that include both perceived and imagined elements.

Conclusion

End

Susan Ryland University for the Creative Arts (UK)

mail@susanryland.co.uk www.susanryland.co.uk

Please cite this document as follows: Ryland, Susan. Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche in Creative Thought, Metonymy Workshop, Metaphor Festi al Uni ersit of Stockholm 2011

REFERENCE LIST

BARCELONA, A. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. BURKHARDT, A. Between poetry and economy: Metonymy as a semantic principle. In: BURKHARDT, A. & NERLICH, B. (eds.) Tropical Truth(s): The Epistemology of Metaphor and Other Tropes. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. CHEVALLET, A. Origine et formation de la langue française. 2 parties en 3 vols. Paris: Dumoulin Imprimérie Impériale 1853-7. NERLICH, B. Synecdoche: a trope, a whole trope, and nothing but a trope? In: NERLICH, B. & BURKHARDT, A. (eds.) Tropical Truth(s): The Epistemology of Metaphor and Other Tropes. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. RYLAND, S. Resisting Metaphors: A metonymic approach to the study of creativity and cognition in art analysis and practice (PhD thesis). University of Brighton/University for the Creative Arts, http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/ 2011. See also: www.susanryland.co.uk SETO, K.-I. Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche. In: PATHER, K. U. & RADDEN, G. (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia. John Benjamins. 1999. TAYLOR, M. C. The Moment of Complexity: Emerging network culture, Chicago/London, The University of Chicago Press. 2001.