Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche in Creative Thought Dr Susan Ryland University for the Creative Arts (UK) [email protected]www.susanryland.co.uk
Name:Susan Ryland - University for the Creative Arts (UK) Background: Artist with a research interest in cognitive linguistics My research interest: The cognitive mechanisms of new meaning generation.
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:
• Ken-ichi Seto's definition of metonymy and synecdoche • The strengths and weakness of his proposal in relation to
visual art; • Conclusions.
We agree that metaphor is a cognitive process capable of generating new ideas. It is manifested in language, music, art and so on (as we have heard during this Metaphor Festival 2011). If follows that metonymy is also a cognitive process capable of generating new ideas, but we are less clear as to how it does this. I am going to talk through some visual art examples of metaphor, metonymy and category relations (which I refer to as synecdoche). I will then tease-out the distinction between metonymy and synecdoche according to Ken-ichi Seto's definition, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of his proposal. Then reach some tentative conclusions. Lets look at metaphor first: Next slide ................
Louise Bourgeois Maman outside the National Gallery of Canada
Metaphor is clearly at work in this sculpture by Louise Bourgeois Maman : in which she brings together two disparate domains of knowledge: a giant spider and the concept of 'Mother' Both Magnificent and Monstrous. Good and great artworks usually have multiple layers of meaning and ambiguity. So, with this sculpture, we can also interpret it literally as a 'mother spider', as there is an egg-sack underneath. The ways in which metonymy and synecdoche work in visual art, still needs further research... Next Slide:
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.
Definition of metonymy Metonymy is a dynamic cognitive process of meaning expansion or elaboration, within a domain or domain matrix; in which a domain is considered to be 'any coherent organization of experience', and 'meaning elaboration' as being 'the accumulation of a network of new senses around the original meaning'.(Ryland, 2009; 2010) Metonymy as a usage event (Panther, 2006: 147–185), namely that metonymy is a 'device for meaning elaboration where the source of a metonymic relation is expanded into a more complex conceptual structure that "contains‟ the content of the source'. In Cornelia Parker's Negative of Words (silver residue accumulated from engraving words) 1996 she has moved the centre of attention from the silver engraving to a peripheral element - the metal shavings, thus drawing attention to what is lost in the creation of words. Part-whole relations (metal shavings and title making semantic connections between the physical entity (pile of silver shavings) and its imagined (absent-but-known) other part or whole.
Cornelia Parker The Negative of Whispers, ( Ear plugs made with fluff gathered in the Whispering Gallery, St
Paul’s Cathedral, London), 1997
Whispering Gallery - circular seats in the Cathedral dome which if you whisper to the stone wall your voice travels around the dome and can be heard by someone on the opposite side, far away, sounding as if you were sitting beside them. The dust is gathered over time, and the earplugs block out the whispers. Again, Parker has moved attention away from the magnificent dome to a peripheral element - the accumulated dust - which she uses to create ear plugs to silence the whispers.
St Paul's Cathedral, London. Built circa 1700
Back to previous slide...
Another type of same domain contiguity relations is found in:
SETS and SERIES
Bernd and Hilla Becher Water Towers 1980 (detail)
You'll never see just one Becher photograph exhibited on its own.
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
SYNECDOCHE (CATEGORY RELATIONS) SETS AND SERIES “We wanted to provide a viewpoint or rather a grammar for people to understand and compare different structures.” — Bernd Becher. The cognitive process is one of discerning difference between these same-category entities. This is a visual comparison or we could widen it to a 'perceptual comparison', as these sorts of category-internal comparisons exist in all of our lives: museum collections, wine tasting, scientific experiments, etc. So here, something different is going on. This is obviously a category relation (genus-species) and the identification of discernable differences between same category elements, have the effect, that with a non-specific but uniquely optimum number of elements together, there comes a point where the differences between these same category items, becomes foregrounded and expands meaning from a lesser category to a wider category of relations, generated potentially new or unforeseeable meanings.
Butter bean (species-genus relations)
But is this a phenomenon of art? I don't think so. So lets test this idea with an ordinary butter bean, from a can of beans. I suggest that we can glance at it, recognise it as a bean and probably think no more about it. We are familiar with the category of BEANS of which the BUTTER BEAN is one type, in a species-genus relation. However, if I show you 25 beans ... Next slide...
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.
Now we become aware of comparing one against another - moving back and forth. Gradually, the differences become interesting - colour, shape, size - and it is out of this awareness of difference that associations are made with, for example, medical references (foetus, ovaries, ..) and this is the point where the lesser category of bean expands into the wider category of 'start of life'. It might not have required as many as twenty-five beans to trigger the mental shift to ‘the beginnings of life’, but there is no question that increasing the quantity of beans generated an attentional shift or cognitive movement into a wider, but related, domain. '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 uses the metaphor of 'domain' or 'frame' for the artwork: Helix® (circle drawing template)
Ceal Floyer, Helix, 2002,
Transition type of same-domain relation based on contiguity:
AD HOC CATEGORIES
To create an ad hoc category of 'things that fit into a Helix circle drawing template'. The objects inserted are ubiquitous items found in her locality, making the artwork a kind of self-portrait. Simultaneously, the grouping is reminiscent of a town or city landscape - again, locating her in the world.
Ceal Floyer, Helix, 2001, 2002, 2002 (2) and 2003
We can read this groupings in a number of ways: as the category: 'things that fit into a Helix template circle' as a part-whole relation with the artist (a study of everyday things that surround her) as a metaphor for an urban landscape. Each incarnation of Helix represents the artist in a specific location at a specific time.
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.
Linguist put the 'cat among the pigeons' SETO, K.-I. Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche. In: PATHER, K. U. & RADDEN, G. (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia. John Benjamins. 1999. 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) NEXT SLIDE...
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.
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
I argue that both metonymy and synecdoche include physical and semantic relations 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)
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
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. As a caveat I would say that there aren't clear boundaries between metonymy and synecdoche, nor would be find it desirable for there to be. We (human's) enjoy ambiguity, but that does not undermine the distinction between how we think and perceive part-whole relations and think and perceive category relations.
End
Susan Ryland University for the Creative Arts (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
END Reference list and questions
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.
