Metonymy and Synecdoche (Figurative Language)

Metonymy and Synecdoche

This final article in the series on essential figurative language deals with two terms that students find somewhat difficult to grasp, and often impossible to distinguish from each other. Aside from their difficult spellings and non-intuitive pronunciations, the terms are not even separated from each other unanimously by literary and rhetorical professionals, meaning that students will hear subtly different definitions from various teachers and professors. As in most matters regarding school, remember in this case that, since your teacher or professor is marking you, follow their definition in the work you do for them. This may seem somewhat unfair or unpleasant, but in the end, it will serve you best.

For the purposes of this article, I am going to treat synecdoche as a sub-class of metonymy, though keep in mind that there are those who treat them as completely separate entities, and also those who use the two words interchangeably making no distinction between them whatsoever. Most simply defined, metonymy is the use of a word or phrase in place of another word or phrase to which it is closely related. Like many of the other figures we have discussed, we use this device on a daily basis, to the point where many examples of it cease to seem like figurative language at all, although they are undoubtedly impossible to understand if taken literally. One of the most often used examples occurs in the following sentence: "The White House reported a 45% decrease in spending this year, shocking everyone." Although we hear phrases like this all the time in the news, it is obvious that the White House itself, that building where the federal government makes it primary residence, cannot actually report anything. Note, though, that this is not an example of personification, because no one is actually meaning to suggest that the White House itself is actually making any kind of report, nor speaking. Here, we have used "White House" in place of "the president and his staff," because the White House is so closely associated with these individuals. Note also that there is no metaphor in use here: we are not comparing the White House to the president and his staff, but rather using it as a stand-in for those individuals because of the close connection between them.

Synecdoche is a very similar concept, but a more specific one, substituting a part for the whole, or a whole for the part. Again, an example makes this far more clear: "The captain requests that all hands report to his chambers for further instructions immediately." The key word in this case is "hands," and we can see that it is an example of figurative language by imagining what this would mean if taken literally: the captain wants a group of disembodied hands to meet him? This obviously makes no sense, and we know that the word "hands" is used in place of "crew members," appropriate because on a ship the crew are there to give a hand, and to handle whatever situations may arise. An example of using a whole for the part might be as simple as "the fire department is here!" This seems straightforward since it is so common, but literally this passage is suggesting that the entire department is outside, perhaps even including the administrative offices and all of the related equipment. Obviously, the inclusive phrase "fire department" is being used to refer to the presence of some specific members of the fire department who have arrived to put out a blaze.

If one desires to make a clear distinction between these terms, I believe the following division is the most useful. If, as in the first example dealing with the White House above, the term being used is not an actual part of the thing it is replacing (the White House is not a part of the president and his crew), we have metonymy. If, as in the second and third examples, the word being used is a part of, or contains as a part of itself, the term it is replacing, it is synecdoche.