Talk:Synecdoche

I need to do some research before I make any changes here, but I believe it is incorrect to say that Synecdoche is a form of Metonymy. Though closely related, I believe they are distinct figures of speech.

A Metonymy replaces the (dare I say) literal with something associated with the literal, vis:

"Can I have another cup?" When you are asking for more coffee.

"Nice mouth!" When you are retorting the cuss words used in a flame.

A Synecdoche, by contrast, replaces the (here I go again) literal with (basically) either a part of the something, or the whole class to which the something belongs. Vis:

Part put for whole: "His feet are swift to shed blood." More than his feet are at fault for his evil ways; he is.

Whole put for part: "Everyone hates her." In truth, only the speaker and perhaps the speaker's friends, from among the inhabitants of the whole earth, hate her.

user:jstanley01

A slightly clearer use of synechdoche is the literal sense: "All hands on deck!", etc. Without needing a lot of interpretation, etc., this makes things a bit easier to follow, I think; good way to extend it deeper, though. user:zarquan42

Ten-Four. "All hands on deck" is a great Synecdoche! It is a better example to illustrate the figure of speech too, when a part is put for the whole. A part, the crewmen's "hands" are put figuratively to represent the crewmen.

"His feet are swift to shed blood" contains at least one more figure, a type of Metonymy called Metalepsis or Double Metonymy, where "to shed blood" is put for "to kill" or "to murder." Multiple figures make the statement deeper, but too complex when trying to isolate a good example of a single figure.

Bullinger bears looking at on the subject of Synecdoche. His Figures of Speech Used in the Bible identifies 4 types: 1) Synecdoche of the genus, 2) Synecdoche of the species, 3) Synecdoche of the whole, and 4) Synecdoche of the part. user:jstanley01

I'd call the cup question an ellipsis, and the everyone indefinite. lysdexia 00:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another good example is "Lend me your ears" Calling someone to listen. "Give me a hand" also works. A whole person is needed to help, not just a hand.

Baseball bats...

Baseball bats are made of ash, not hickory. Knife handles are made of hickory.

--Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not metonymy

I agree that synecdoches should not be listed as a form of metonymy (ala similies are a form of metaphors). They are related but represent two distinct forms of reference rather than one being a superset of the other.

Definitely Not metonymy

not only do I agree with the assertion that it is not metonymy, but i have compelling evidence. As an AP English student, I have had to deal with all of these English terms (ex: synecdoche, alliteration, anaphora, etc.). The teachers have given me several of these packets, and metonymy is listed as being similar to synecdoche, but not the same. However, synecdoche is called a type of metaphor, I am going to make that change, and if anyone can contradict me on this then please e-mail me at [email protected]

==

YES, IT IS METONYMY!!!!!

In reference to the second example of metonymy here listed. There is nothing literal about a "nice mouth" being associated with a word that has a subjective value attached to it. That sentence, my friend, enters into the field of metaphor.

Synecdoches are a form of metonymy. The figure of speach that uses "A part for the whole" is a type of metonymy. Metaphor is something completely different! For information about this subject, you can refer to books that explain extensively about the relationship and difference between the two by professor G. Lakoff, of the University of California, Berkeley.

Bad examples

I don't think using a brand to refer to the general product (such as kleenex for facial tissue) is really a synecdoche. It may have the form of a synecdoche, refering to the genus with the species, but it is not used as a figure of speech, at least not usually. When I ask for a kleenex, there is no special emphasis or figuarative meaning; I am doing just that, asking for a kleenex, with the socially implied understanding that any other facial tissue will do just as well. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 23:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also don't think "Milk" when referring to "Cow's Milk" is synecdoche. If it were, then all language would be synecdoche. One could always add greater specificity to what one is describing. —This unsigned comment was added by 216.143.155.9 (talk • contribs) .

Several of the examples on this page are not examples of what is described by the definition on the page. Either the definition is wrong, or these are not example of synecdoche:

"body" for the trunk of the body

This is just an example of a word having more than one related meaning. It certainly isn't a methaphor of any description.

"the police" for a handful of officers

This is simply an example of corporate identity. If a policeman makes a statement in his official capacity it and someone said "the police said x today" then this is would be a metaphor, but it would be one of personification (ie "the whole police force expressed this by one of them speaking"), rather than one where an individual speaking was refered to as the whole (not "an individual whom I call "the police" actually said these words").

"milk" for cow's milk

Laughable! If I say "pass me that jug of milk" I am not trying to express "pass me that jug of cows milk" and no one interpreting what was actally being said could ever take that meaning from it. If the jug of milk I am pointing to is cow's milk, then yes, I am refering to a jug of cow's milk, but I am simply choosing to not describe it as such.

"copper" for penny

This without doubt evolved from an example of synecdoche, but now is just another example of a word with more than one meaning.

"kleenex" for facial tissue

Not a metaphor. This is a brand name which has moved into common usage with a meaning of its own.

Any comments, or should I just remove these? TomViza 22:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can remove most of them, but the ones that were at one point synecdoches should probably be moved into a special section, together with White House for the U.S. presidential administration, Crown for a government with a royal family (e.g., in the phrase property of the Crown), and any other terms that were once synecdoches but are now dead metaphors (or idioms, or new meanings) rather than true figures of speech. I think they'd be helpful for illustrating the term with familiar examples, but it needs to be made clear that they're no longer perfect examples. Ruakh 23:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good example: THE Prohibition (for Americans)

I´ve added a common example of the rare synecdoche of the whole-for-part type: in the United States they call a local prohibition of certain drugs (alcoholic) from 1919 to 1933, The Prohibition. Drcaldev 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not actually an example of totum pro parte (the whole for the part). If Prohibition were a big thing that prohibited lots of things besides just alcohol, and the term "Prohibition" were often used to refer to just one part of it, the prohibition of alcohol, then it would be; as it is, it's just using a general term as a proper noun with a specific meaning. If we accept your example, then simply using "the U.S." to mean the U.S.A. would be synecdoche. Ruakh 14:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read about it, you will find that´s precisely the point. See |Prohibition. Alcohol is part of the drugs, therefore to say "prohibition" (totum) for "prohibition of X drug in X country" (parte) is a clear and so common synecdoche, people resist to accept it as such. See Talk:Prohibition. Drcaldev 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had political/POV reasons for objecting to the specialized use of the term "Prohibition", and that you were trying to label it synecdoche in the hopes of convincing Wikipedians to consider it imprecise and to stop using it. Now that I know that, I can point out that synecdoche is not always imprecise, and that imprecision is not always synecdochic, so your edit here doesn't really help your POV-pushing: even if you convinced your fellow editors that our use of the term Prohibition were synecdochic, that wouldn't stop them from using it. (I suppose next you'll object that Wikipedia shouldn't use the phrase "Reconstruction" in referring to the period after the American Civil War, nor "Second Empire" to refer to the time of Napolean III, nor "Warring States Period" to refer to China after the fall of the Han, since there have been other reconstructions, other second empires, and other periods of warring states?) Ruakh 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... you tempt me. I do like your objections. What´s your defense against them?

I´m mostly concerned with logic and disambiguation. A bunch of prohibitionists harrasses me with their intent to hawkypedize wikipedia.

Would you like to vote (as you please) on the Talk:Prohibition request for redirecting the page to a neutral Prohibition (disambiguation)? Drcaldev 05:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two separate issues. Some terms have common, well-defined meanings in certain contexts, such that it's perfectly reasonable to use them without qualification in an article where that context is clear. This doesn't necessarily mean that they make good article titles, however, because they might have different common, well-defined meanings in different contexts (e.g., "Middle Kingdom" is both a period in Ancient Egyptian History, after the Old Kingdom but before the New Kingdom, and a term for Ancient China's view of itself; as it happens, Middle Kingdom is a disambiguation page, listing both those and some less common uses of the phrase), or because they might have poorly-defined meanings when there is no context. Now, it's definitely reasonable to use the term "Prohibition", with a capital P and no other qualification, in an article pertaining to U.S. history or culture; at least 95% of the time that the term "Prohibition" is used in the U.S., it means either the time period that there was a Constitution ban on alcohol, or the ban itself. (The only other time I've encountered it is when Libertarians are explaining why they oppose anti-drug laws; they refer to these laws collectively as Prohibition, in a clear attempt to compare them to Prohibition in the usual sense and suggest that they have the same failing.) I don't know how the term is used in other countries, though, so don't really feel comfortable voting at that page. Ruakh 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking of the examples

I thought I understood synechdoche from the definition, but the examples left me more than confused. Is anyone opposed to listing the examples in their full form - i.e. so the reader has their context? To me, it is difficult to imagine how "white hair" is used to indicate the elderly with no context, however, it's very easy if a full sentence is provided: "We ran past all the white hairs in the grocery store. (white hair = elderly)"--Will.i.am 18:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could. The problem is, a lot of the examples aren't very good. Some are well established (like milk, hands, head; they may have originated in synecdoche, I'm not sure, but now they're simply alternative senses, and in the case of milk the putatively-synecdochic sense is much more common than the more general sense). Others aren't exactly synecdoche (I removed "Pentagon" for "top Pentagon officials", as I think it's clearly non-synecdochic metonymy, but I left in some more borderline examples, such as "Judas" for "traitor", which I think is best seen as an ordinary metaphor). Ruakh 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I never actually made my intended point, which is that instead of using made-up-but-plausible examples that people might see in everyday life, we should take examples from actual poetic sources. The "bread" for "food" example, for example, could use one of the Biblical "Man does not live by bread alone, but by the Word of G-d"-style passages (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, or Luke 4:4). Ruakh 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Some real-world examples would also give this article some notes/references.--Will.i.am 22:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make a mean burrito...

Would someone claiming to make "a good pizza" be a synecdoche?