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
Pauls 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 franaise. 2 parties en 3 vols. Paris:
Dumoulin Imprimrie Impriale 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.