khóa luận tốt nghiệp nanhgf ngôn ngữ anh

1

Part A: INTRODUCTION
1) Rationale
1.1 Figures of speech and linguistics
It has been customary to think figurativeness is a linguistic feature exclusive
to the language of literature, but it is actually not. When you ask somebody to
“lend you his/her ear” or “give you a hand,” obviously you do not mean you are in
need of those body parts. You are just using some figures of speech to express your
need of attention and help. Such colorful and vivid expressions are innumerable in
colloquial language, which makes figures of speech a pervasive linguistic
phenomenon both in our daily discourse and in written language.
Some people may address themselves to the query as to where the study of
figures of speech should be in the family of linguistic studies. Figurative language,
by definition, is the language we use to mean something other than the literal
meaning of the words. So essentially the study of figurative language concerns the
meaning and use of language, which are respectively the subject matter of
semantics and pragmatics. Apart from that, it is also closely related to discourse
analysis and stylistics, especially literary stylistics, since different forms of
literature tend to have different probabilities as to what group of figures of speech
to be used and/or to what extent and at what levels they should be used.
Given these interrelations between the study of figures of speech and other
domains of linguistics, it comes as no surprise that a linguistic major would
become interested in this phenomenon. In addition, figures of speech, as artistic
ways of using language, are appealing by nature and their study is rewarding in
that it does not only enhance our understanding of the special and effective way in
which other people use the language but also helps to improve our linguistic
competence, especially our figurative and literary competence.


2

1.2 Figurative competence and communicative competence
The use of figures of speech being so ubiquitous, it is virtually impossible
for a language learner to communicate successfully in the target language without
an adequate command of them. Second and foreign language researchers have
coined the term “figurative competence” to denote this special ability. Some of
them, including Danesi (1992, 1995) and Johnson and Rosano (1993), hold that
second language curricula must include metaphors, idioms and other figurative
language items in order to instill in language learners a functional communicative
competence rather than just a traditional formal competence. Danesi (1995), for
instance, argues that second language learners do not reach the fluency level of a
native speaker until they have knowledge of “how that language ‘reflects’ or
encodes concepts on the basis of metaphorical reasoning” (p. 5). To put it more
simply, researchers in the field imply that figurative competence is “likely to
contribute positively to an overall level of communicative competence”
(Littlemore, 2000).
Nevertheless, it is observable that this linguistic skill is almost neglected in
Vietnamese EFL classrooms. From the author’s firsthand experience as a college
English major, throughout her academic years, only once were figures of speech
discussed, as part of an account of Lexical meaning, a chapter in the book An
Introduction to Semantics. This part covers less than four pages of the textbook,
without a single accompanying activity. It was evidently “introductory” and would
by no means be able to equip students with a full understanding of those few
figures of speech used as examples, not to mention an adequate command of
figurative language in general. Their sole purpose, as stated in the preface (Nguyen
Hoa, 1998, p. 2), is simply “to equip the student with an overview of” semantics,
which has traditionally been regarded as a highly “knowledge-centered” course. In
the author’s skills courses, there was no place for figures of speech, either.

3

These facts spurred the author of this paper to do research on figures of
speech, with the hope of drawing EFL teachers and course designers’ attention to
this particularly interesting and useful linguistic phenomenon.
1.3 Figurative competence and literary competence
The term literary competence was first introduced in the book Structuralist
Poetics by Jonathan Culler in 1975 (p.114). It soon became the central concept of
structural literary criticism and has been repeatedly referred to by scholars in
various related disciplines ( Brumfit, 1981; Isenberg, 1990; Lazar, 1994; Aviram,
2004.) Under the strong influence of Chomsky’s generative model, where
linguistic competence is put in opposition to linguistic performance, Culler holds
that literature, analogous with language, is also a structural system with its own
“grammar” – its own rules and conventions. A competent reader of literature
therefore needs to internalize that “grammar” in order to convert linguistic
sequences into literary structures. For example, there are special conventions in
reading poetry that readers should be aware of, such as the rule of significance, the
rule of metaphorical coherence, the rule of totality, the rule of thematic unity, the
convention of genre, and other poetic traditions regarding the use of certain
symbols and images. (For the full argument, see Culler 1975, p. 162)
Among the conventions in literature, rhetorical figures are said to “lie at the
basis of interpretation;” therefore, “training in rhetoric” is thought of “as a way of
providing the student with a set of formal models which he can use in interpreting
literary works” (Culler, 1975, pp. 179-80). This naturally leads to the conclusion
that figurative competence is an integral element of literary competence, which
makes studies of figures of speech particularly interesting and beneficial to
teachers of literature in second and foreign languages.


4

1.4 Substitutive figures of speech
Rhetoricians have catalogued more than 250 figures of speech and reasons of space
do not permit us to discuss all of them. While many scholars working in the field
go along with Jakobson (1963) and Ruegg (1979) that of the many tropes and
figures ... none proved so popular as the pair metaphor and metonymy (Ruegg,
1979, p. 141), it must be admitted that “over the years, metonymy has received
much less attention than metaphor in the literature” (Carita Paradis, 2003, p. 1).
While metaphor has been investigated from many perspectives, metonymy has
been mentioned mainly in the province of cognitive linguistics (see Barcelona
(eds.), 2000; Panther & Radden (eds.), 1999; Dirven & Pörings (eds.), 2002).
However, observation indicates that metonymy, as a rhetorical figure, along with
synecdoche, deserves much more attention and research than what it has received
so far; hence the focus of this paper on functions of these substitutive figures of
speech.

2. Aims of the study
This study is carried out to serve two main purposes:
1. To explore the linguistic functions of metonymy and synecdoche with a focus on
how these are used in poetry.
2. To give some suggestions on pedagogical issues relating to the teaching of these
figures of speech in EFL skills classes and literature classes.
3. Scope of the study
Although it is “impossible to isolate any single or special property of language
which is exclusive to a literary work,” the fact is that in literature “language is used
in ways which can be distinguished as literary” (Brumfit & Carter, 1986, p. 6). And
it is this very literariness that creates trouble for readers in general and language
learners in particular. Part of this literariness is formed by the special way in which
figures of speech are used. While idioms or conventional figures of speech can be

5

treated as separate linguistic items and their meanings can be deduced based on
contexts, in reading literature, determining what a writer or a poet is referring to or
implying when he/she uses a figure of speech is often not as easy. The reason is
that it is his/her own figure of speech, one the reader might have never heard or
seen before. This explains our inclination to investigate the figures under
consideration in literary texts.
However, given the limits of this paper, literature would still be too large a
corpus to work on. Thus, we intend to examine these figures of speech in a special
genre of literature – poetry – for the following reasons. Firstly, poetry is
particularly rich in figurative language and can thus provide us with numerous
examples of metonymy and synecdoche (although they are believed to function
primarily in prose). A second reason, and probably the most important one, is that
in poetry – “the form that most clearly asserts the specificity of literature, its
difference from ordinary discourse” (Culler 1975, p. 162) – these figures of speech,
together with other stylistic features, cause considerable difficulties for EFL
readers and students alike. A survey carried out by Hirvela and Boyle (1988) on
students’ attitudes towards literature genres reveals that poetry is the genre least
enjoyed and most feared (Hirvela & Boyle, 1988, p. 180). Our study, while
analyzing these figures of speech in poetry, seeks to find ways to help students to
interpret these figures with less difficulty and more enjoyment. In helping them to
analyze and appreciate these aesthetic devices in poetry, we hope to improve their
knowledge of conventions in poetry and their literary competence in general.
The last justification for our choice is that this form of literature, though special in
many ways, is essentially an example of language in use. Hence, analysis of
metonymy and synecdoche in this corpus will undoubtedly help illustrate their
linguistic functions and conclusions drawn from the analysis will not only inform
poetry readers, teachers and learners but also language learners on a larger scale.

6

There is every reason for us to believe that once students are able to recognize and
analyze those figures of speech in poetry, they will be able to recognize and
analyze the figures in texts of other types. At the same time, the analysis will give
us a better understanding of poetry in terms of stylistics.
4. Research questions
The thesis will answer the following questions:
1) What are figures of speech?
2) Why are figures of speech employed?
3) What are funtions of the substitutive figures of speech?
4) What is the classification of figures of speech?
5. METHODS OF THE STUDY
With its subject matter being linguistic phenomena, this study is basically
qualitative and descriptive. It is an attempt to answer several open-ended questions
regarding functions, aesthetic effects, and pedagogical values of metonymy and
synecdoche. These answers are grounded on a system of research methods, namely
documentation, analysis and synthesis, all of which are used in combination in
almost every chapter of the paper, though each of them prevails in a certain chapter
or certain parts of a chapter.
In the first part, we review the literature of figures of speech in general and
the two figures of speech of metonymy and synecdoche in particular. Afterwards,
we analyze the examples of these figures in some selected poems as illustrations of
their functions. Based on conclusions drawn from those analyses, we pinpoint
several ways in which foreign language teachers of English can teach these figures
of speech to EFL students. Overall, the study is partly deductive and partly
inductive.

7

6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Apart from the introduction and the conclusion, the study consists of three
chapters.
Chapter 1 gives an overview on figures of speech in general and substitutive
figures of speech in particular.
Chapter 2, the main part of the paper, focuses on two substitutive figures of
speech, synecdoche and metonymy, providing an account of their definitions and
linguistic functions, with each followed by an analysis of the figure of speech in
poetry.
Chapter 3 aims at raising some pedagogical issues concerning the teaching
of these figures of speech and offers suggestions on applicable activities for use in
EFL classrooms.

Part B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. AN OVERVIEW OF FIGURES OF SPEECH
1.1 What are figures of speech?
Answering this question, The Cambridge Advanced Learners’ Dictionary
(2003) proposes the following definition: “an expression which uses words to
mean something different from their ordinary meaning.” Along the same lines, The
Oxford Advanced Learners’ Encyclopedic Dictionary (1992) describes a figure of
speech as a “word or phrase used for vivid or dramatic effect and not literally.” The
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2003)’s full definition reads, “A form
of expression (as a simile or metaphor) used to convey meaning or heighten effect
often by comparing or identifying one thing with another that has a meaning or
connotation familiar to the reader or listener.” There are varieties of slightly

8

different ways in which people define figures of speech, but just as Quinn puts it,
“the simplest definition of a figure of speech is ‘an intended deviation from
ordinary usage’.” (1982, p. 6). According to this definition, there are two criteria
for an expression to be distinguished as a figure of speech: first, it is a deviant of
ordinary language usage; second, it is used in such a way as to serve a certain
purpose of the writer or speaker.
These definitions and criteria might evoke a chain of questions: What is the
“ordinary”, or “literal” use of language? Must an intention be conscious? How do
you know a deviant when you see one? Quinn does not give direct answers to these
problematic queries, but his analysis of the ordinary and extraordinary ways to use
the coordinator and convincingly proves the existence of a system of ordinary
usage of language, which we call “grammar.” Take the agreement between subject
and verb in a finite clause as an example: When we say, “We were robbed,” we use
were because it is the rule that we goes with were, because were is the ordinary
way to conjugate the verb to be in the past tense for that person. But if we say, “We
was robbed,” then was is employed against the grammatical rule and therefore
must be treated either as an error or a figure of speech. At this stage, the existence
of an intention plays a vital role in determining whether this is a figure of speech or
not. If an elementary foreign language learner is the one who writes the sentence,
in a test, for instance, then we can certainly conclude that it is a mistake. But when
Joe Jacobs, a professional prize fight manager, shouted into the ring announcer’s
microphone “We was robbed” on the night of June 21, 1932, we knew that it was
far from being a mistake. (Quinn, 1982, p. 5) He broke the rule for his own
purposes of adding emotion and emphasis to the accusation of injustice.
1.2 Why are figures of speech employed?
Figures of speech have traditionally been thought to function primarily as a
kind of adornment or “make-up” used solely for the purpose of adding beauty to

9

the language of the literary work. Therefore, if there was a line between the form
and the content of a literary work, figures of speech would obviously fit in the
formal features and have nothing to do with the content. This implies that we can
remove them from literary works without affecting their meanings.
However, the interwoven and interdependent relationships between form and
content or meaning are such that it is actually very hard for one to draw a clear line
between the two. Even if one is persistent in separating the two, he/she is still
unable to prove the foregoing claim valid in all cases. Many figures of speech,
especially tropes, do help to create some aspects of meaning that an allegedly
equivalent non-figurative phrase cannot convey. An example of this is the
catachresis in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Instead of “I will say angry words to her,” he
writes “I will speak daggers to her.” (Cited in Harris, 2002). The catachresis here
not only helps to express the meaning in a more vivid way, but also forms part of
the meaning. Daggers communicates much more than angry words. It expresses
the speaker’s hatred and fury to such a point that he almost wants to stab her with
his words. It is a feeling that would take a long sentence or even a paragraph to
describe. In cases akin to this, one rationale for using figures of speech, as Cacciari
suggests when addressing the question of why speakers use metaphors, is because
literal language is not very good at expressing the complexity of perceptual
experience (Katz, Cacciari, Gibbs, &Turner, 1998). To put it more simply, figures
of speech are employed for their capability to speak the unspeakable.
The same is not always true with other figures of speech, though. In most
cases, particularly when the figure in question is one other than a trope, there is
often an alternative mode to express the meaning. For instance, Sherwood
Anderson may have well omitted the “ands” in italics in the following sentences in
the short story “The Corn Planting.” “He made drawings of fish and pigs and cows

and they looked like people you knew. I never did know, before, that people could


10

look so much like cows and horses and pigs and fish.” He could have replaced
these with commas if he had obeyed the “anding” rules. The removal of the
polysyndeton in this situation, however, deprives the sentences of “the sense of an
ever lengthening catalogue of roughly equal members” (Quinn, 1982, p. 11), but at
least the denotative meaning remains the same. In analogous instances, the figures
of speech create an emphasis, amplify a meaning, draw a comparison or contrast,
make a rhetorical point, or, generally speaking, express an idea in a novel and more
colorful manner.
Commenting on “Philosophy of Style,” Herbert Spencer proves that a
principle governing our communication is “the principle of economy,” by which he
means language users normally try to express more meanings with fewer words.
This principle, as demonstrated in his analysis, applies for the use of words,
sentences, and figures of speech. Their efficiency can be seen from two angles.
First, they help speakers to pack much meaning into a small space. Second,
they save readers’ energy and time by “[bringing their minds] more easily to the
desired conception” (Spencer, 1852). For example, perceiving the Pentagon would
take much less time than perceiving U.S. Defense Department. While the second
phrase activates in hearers’ minds the complex political system, the first one only
calls up a picture. And pictures are always easier to remember and recall than
abstract concepts.
1.3 Classification of figures of speech
Rhetoric, in its attempt “to analyse and classify the forms of speech and
make the world of language intelligible” (Barthes, 1967, p. 817), named various
figures of speech and over the centuries the number has reached many hundred.
Rhetoricians have also categorized these figures of speech basing on different sets

of criteria. Scholars of classical Western rhetoric have divided figures of speech
into two main categories: tropes and schemes, with the former being figures of


11

speech with an unexpected twist in the meaning of words, the latter figures that
deal with word order, syntax, letters and sounds of words.
Others further classify them into smaller groups. Robert Harris (2002), for
example, writes “[More than 60] rhetorical devices presented here generally fall
into three categories: those involving emphasis, association, clarification, and
focus; those involving physical organization, transition, and disposition or
arrangement; and those involving decoration and variety.” Rick Sutcliffe (2004) in
his “Figures of Speech Dictionary” yields definitions of 100 figures of speech and
puts them into six categories: figures of grammar, meaning, comparison,
parenthesis, repetition, and rhetoric.
The classifiers of these figures of speech, however, admit, “More often the
effects of a particular device are multiple, and a single one may operate in several
categories” (Harris, 1980). The classifications above are therefore, theoretically
relative though they are useful and convenient for learners.
2. SUBSTITUTIVE FIGURES OF SPEECH
In his book Figures of Speech – Sixty Ways to Turn a Phrase, Arthur Quinn
(1982) spared an entire chapter to discuss a group of figures of speech called
substitutive figures of speech. He started by inviting the reader to interpret the bizarre
title of the chapter “Reds in the Red” (Quinn, 1982, pp. 49-59). Afterwards, he
suggested a seemingly endless list of different readings of the phrase, each made
possible by our substituting these words by associated words. That is the essence of
what is termed “substitutive figures of speech.” They are the figures of speech which
substitute one word or object for another by virtue of their association, that is, a word
for an idea, or a concrete/sensory phrase for an abstraction. An obvious distinction

between metaphor and substitutive figures of speech is that while metaphors are based
on similarities between the signified and the signifier, synecdoche and metonymy are
based on their contiguity – their relatedness.


12

This definition sounds too general because there exist many ways in which
words are associated with each other. In Quinn’s system, there are two main types of
association involved in substitutive figures of speech: one is based on the grammatical
forms of words, the other on meanings. The first type includes enallage, with subtypes antaptosis, anthimeria, and hendiadys, which substitutes one grammatical form
for another. The second type is metonymies, with one word being “substituted for
another of identical form and related meaning” (Quinn, 1982, p. 52). It is noteworthy
that the term metonymies in its plural form is employed herein as an umbrella term
rather than as a separate figure of speech. Under that umbrella term, there are
synecdoche, metonymy – in the singular form –, catachresis, and metalepsis, the first
two of which will be discussed in detail as the main focus of this paper.
Substitutive figures of speech
Enallage - Grammar-related

Metonymies - Meaning related figures

figures
antaptosi anthimeri

hendiady synecdoch metonym

metalepsi catachresi

s

s

s

a

e

y

Table 1: Substitutive figures of speech examined in the study.

s


13

CHAPTER 2: SOME SIGNIFICANT SUBSTITUTIVE FIGURES
OF SPEECH IN POETRY
2.1SYNECDOCHE
2.1.1 Linguistic functions of synecdoche
An adult native speaker of English may not remember how many times in
his/her life he/she has heard expressions such as, “We need to hire some more
hands” or “She’s got new wheels,” which do not literally refer to a hand or a set of
wheels. Instead, they stand for the whole person or object – hand for the whole
person and wheels for the whole car. These are the commonest examples of
synecdoche, “the most basic rhetorical figure” (Culler, 1975, p. 180) and the
simplest and probably “most useful of all metonymies” (Quinn, 1982, p. 56).
Quinn is certainly correct when he says synecdoche is “the least problematic

figure of all metonymies,” since the relation between the signified and the signifier
in this figure is rather obvious. Although dictionary entries differ slightly in the
wording of their definitions, they are unanimous in that the relation is basically
part-to-whole. In The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic Dictionary (1992),
synecdoche is defined as a “figure of speech in which a reference to a part or
aspect of a person, object, etc, is meant to refer to the whole person, object, etc.” –
or, in simpler words –, it is a figure in which the part is substituted for the whole.
This is probably the commonest linguistic function assigned to synecdoche and
also the one included in most, if not all, of the definitions. Other dictionaries,
however, consider this definition inadequate. Synecdoche, according to them,
encompasses a wider denotation. The Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate
Dictionary (2003)’s entry for synecdoche, for instance, is “a figure of speech by
which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part
(as society for high society), the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin),


14

the genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for
the thing made (as boards for stage).” Obviously, in this definition, synecdoche is
not only confined to the part-for-whole substitution but also involves the wholefor-part substitution. What's more, it also includes species-for-genus/ genus-forspecies, or, as termed by other people, member-for-group/ group-for-member
relations.
Then in the light of structural semantics, this figure of speech involves two
types of sense relations between the tenor (the signified) and the vehicle (the
signifier): part-whole relation and hyponymy. In the first relation, one is part of the
other and in the second relation, one is hyponym of the other – its superordinate.
(See Figure 1.)
(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1: The relations between the signified

(d)

and the signifiers

in four

cases of synecdoche.
(a) part-for-whole

(c) hyponym for superordinate

(b) whole-for-part

(d) superordinate for hyponym

Both types of synecdoche are pervasive in the English language. We use
roofs to refer to houses, hands for workers and heads for cattle, threads for clothes,
and wheels for cars. In other cases, we use police to refer to certain police officers,
and animal for a certain species of animal such as dogs or cats. Some, after a long
time of being used, have become ordinary and the initially figurative meaning is


15

now treated as literal and even included in the dictionary definition. For instance,

the ninth entry of the noun wheel in Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary
(2003) reads: “(plural), (slang): a wheeled vehicle; especially: automobile”. In yet
another example, a human being is listed as the fourth meaning of creature in the
same source.
It is notable that the part-for-whole substitution can be identified fairly easily
for its unusual usage of language, whereas a whole-for-part substitution often
requires a more serious examination of the context to be detected. Without a
specific context, the creature in “The creature was dying” can be treated as
completely literal and ordinary, as we do not know to what it refers. Even if the
context lets us know that creature refers to a certain animal or human being, the
substitution does not strike us as too strange, because by nature, an animal or
human being is a creature. The primary purpose of this type of synecdoche is
probably to highlight the characteristics the signified has in common with other
members of the same group. When referring to a human being as a creature, for
example, the speaker might aim to emphasize his weakness and his vulnerability,
as a living thing subject to changes of the environment and natural forces.
As regards the purpose of the part-for-whole substitutions, Herbert Spencer (1852),
with specific examples, gives a thorough and persuasive explanation:
The advantage sometimes gained by putting a part for the whole, is due to
the more convenient, or more accurate, presentation of the idea. If, instead of
saying “a fleet of ten ships,” we say “a fleet of ten “sail,” the picture of a group of
vessels at sea is more readily suggested; and is so because the sails constitute the
most conspicuous parts of vessels so circumstanced. Whereas the word “ships”
would very likely remind us of vessels in dock. Again, to say, “All ‘hands’ to the
pumps,” is better than to say, “All ‘men’ to the pumps,” as it suggests the men in


16

the special attitude intended, and so saves effort. Bringing “gray ‘hairs’ with

sorrow to the grave,” is another expression, the effect of which has the same cause.
This is probably true in most cases of synecdoche in everyday language. However,
when employed by poets, the figure may have other artful effects, some of which
possibly go well beyond the poet’s initial intentions.
2.1.2 Synecdoche in poetry
In poetry, synecdoche, especially the part-for-whole substitution, is also used
in abundance. The reason for this prevalence lies in the nature of poetry, a form of
literature which tends to concretize objects and feelings with pictures and details.
Some of the synecdoches used in poetry are taken from ordinary language. The
underlined words in these lines in the poem “Mr. Flood’s Party” by Edwin
Arlington Robinson serve as a compelling example:
“Well, Mr. Flood, we have not met like this
In a long time; and many a change has come
To both of us, I fear, since last it was
We had a drop together. Welcome home!”
(Robinson, 2002, p. 62)
The phrase is reminiscent of various similar expressions we use in our daily
discourse. We say Please drop me a line when we want someone to write us a
letter; we ask Have you got a minute? when we want to know whether the other
person has got a little free time to spare. In this case, a drop is used as a
substitutive for some wine or alcohol, adding an implication that we haven’t had a
drink together for so long, and thus intensifying the period of time they had been
apart. The use of drop with its informality also indicates fellowship between the
two people and helps us to imagine them as close friends.


17

The use of synecdoche in poetry, compared to everyday language, is
intentional and often more creative. The poem “Barter” by Sara Teasdale provides

us with some examples.
BARTER
1

Life has loveliness to sell,
All beautiful and splendid things;
Blue waves whitened on a cliff,
Soaring fire that sways and sings,

5

And children's faces looking up,
Holding wonder like a cup.

Life has loveliness to sell;
Music like a curve of gold,
10

Scent of pine trees in the rain,
Eyes that love you, arms that hold,
And, for the Spirit's still delight,
Holy thoughts that star the night.

Give all you have for loveliness;
15

Buy it, and never count the cost!
For one white, singing hour of peace
Count many a year of strife well lost;
And for a breath of ecstasy,

18

Give all you have been, or could be.
(Teasdale, 1992, p. 82)
It is evident that the poem is larded with a variety of figures of speech; but
let us focus on synecdoche only. One can effortlessly spot examples of the figure in
lines 5-6 and 10. The faces, eyes and arms in those lines are obviously not the real
actors of the actions. The faces themselves cannot look up; the eyes them selves are
just eyes – they are not capable of loving or hating anyone; and it is not the arms
that hold but the whole person. These are just human body parts, used to represent
the people themselves.
Although pointing out where synecdoche is employed poses little difficulty
for readers, analyzing the effects of the figures might be much more problematic,
clearly and deeply as they may feel that the “deviants” are beautiful. Following
Dickinson’s advice that “Perception of an object costs / Precise the object’s loss,”
(Dickinson, 2002, p. 50) we first try depriving the lines of their synecdoche,
paraphrasing them in ordinary language, hoping to figure out the effects of the
“deviant.”
Without the figures, lines 6-7 would read “Children looking up, holding
wonder like a cup.” Setting aside the changes in the rhythm and rhyme and taking
into account the changes in meaning alone, we feel a substantial loss resulting from
the removal of the word faces. What is taken away with that word is not simply an
ornamental element of the line. It is a picture, or, to be more exact, pictures –
pictures of children’s faces we have seen in our own lives, with their delicate skin
and plump cheeks, their innocent eyes wide open with delighted surprise. What can
be more beautiful than that? Simple as it is, that one word faces, with its power, is
capable of persuading us to believe in the truth that the poem is telling us, that “Life
has loveliness to sell.” So in helping us to visualize these pictures in our minds, the

19

synecdoche effectively articulates the poet’s ideas and feelings about life, and should
therefore be regarded as functional rather than simply ornamental.
Some people may argue that “children looking up” is sufficient to create a
picture and hence the author need not have replaced them with “children’s faces
looking up.” However, without the word faces, the picture generated by the line is
but a shape, a figure, a silhouette. It would miss many lines and colors, which are
essential to the beauty of the picture. Particularly, it would fail to paint the children’s
eyes – a significant image in the center of the face, making the soul of the picture.
The word faces, therefore, can be said to serve as a lens, bringing a well-chosen part
of the picture into focus and thus successfully helping the poem to speak to readers’
minds.
If we repeat the process with line 10, replacing the signifiers by the
signified, the line would be, “People that love you, people that hold,” which would
not by any means sound poetic. In terms of content, the line would be much poorer
as it fails to show us “the beautiful and splendid things” life offers. Love in itself is
precious, but it is much too abstract to be sold, bought or possessed by anyone.
People are not something you can own either. They are conscious beings who
never completely belong to anyone, and they are in constant change. The majority
of readers might therefore think that these items should not be included in this list
of beautiful and splendid things we can buy from life.
By contrast, “Eyes that love you, arms that hold” has an aesthetically different
effect. Resembling examples of personification, the synecdoches are evocative of
the reader’s personal experience and feelings. “Eyes that love you” call to our minds
images of people we have loved at unforgettable moments in our lives. It brings
back childhood memories of our mother’s worried eyes looking at us when we were
sick or our father’s loving eyes when he kissed us goodnight. It may also awaken

reminiscences of the deep sad eyes of a boyfriend or girlfriend when we parted from


20

them, or the tearful eyes of a friend when we met after a long time apart. It may as
well remind us of the jealous look on our child’s face when she/he saw us holding
another child. Those eyes, with all their sadness and happiness, worries and jealousy,
communicate a great deal more than the three words I love you! They are the
realization of love, not unlike those warm, passionate, or protective hugs of our
loved ones, which are similarly brought to our minds by the phrase “arms that hold.”
More importantly, unlike love and people and even more so than looks and hugs,
eyes and arms are concrete, visible and touchable, and therefore seem closer to
buyable and sellable items. Although we cannot actually own them, at least we can
keep pictures and feelings of them in our minds. The concretization produced by the
figure at this point helps create a unity in both the content and form of the poem.
Regarding this example, some readers would perceive “Eyes that love you,
arms that hold” as cases of personification rather than synecdoche, which implies
that the verbs love and hold are the deviants used for the purpose of attributing
human traits to inanimate objects, in this case body parts. The argument looks
plausible on the surface. But what is the purpose of such personification? Does the
author really perceive, and want the reader to perceive, those body parts as being
human? Clearly not. A critical reader should search for a more logical analysis of the
images. The correct recognition of eyes and arms as the out-of-the-ordinary
elements and the images as applications of synecdoche shed a different light on the
poem, opening doorways to more accurate and insightful interpretations of the
figures. Identifying a figure of speech requires more than just a mechanical
application of theory about their functions. The reader needs to be aware of the unity
of the poem and the author’s intentions as well.
In the “Barter” examples above, synecdoche helps to paint pictures in readers’

minds, by which means readers are invited to interact with the poem to arrive at the
theme. However, in other cases, the figure does not always rely on imagery to


21

express the theme of the poem. The substitution in itself is directly relevant to the
theme. A good example can be found in “Mr. Flood’s Party” by Edwin Arlington
Robinson, which gives a detailed account of a party whose participants are actually
the two selves within one person, Mr. Eben Flood. Reading the whole poem, one
can see that it is built around a conversation, in which Mr. Flood plays the role of
both the addressor and the addressee. If we might label the two selves of his as Mr.
Flood One and Mr. Flood Two, the conversation can be presented in a manner
similar to that of a screenplay, as follows:
Mr. Flood One:
“Well, Mr. Flood, we have the harvest moon
Again, and we may not have many more;
The bird is on the wing, the poet says,
And you and I have said it here before.
Drink to the bird.”
Mr. Flood Two:
“Well, Mr. Flood,
Since you propose it, I believe I will.”
Mr. Flood One:
“Well, Mr. Flood, we have not met like this
In a long time; and many a change has come
To both of us, I fear, since last it was
We had a drop together. Welcome home!”
Mr. Flood Two:
“Well, Mr. Flood, if you insist, I might.

22

Mr. Flood One:
“Only a very little, Mr. Flood -For auld langsyne. No more, sir; that will do.”
It is clear that Mr. Flood is talking to the second self inside him. The last
words in the conversation even picture him pouring wine for the other Flood, who
then stops him, seeing that the amount of wine is already sufficient. What a strange
sight! The man is obviously not in a normal state of mind. Some people may
conjecture that this man is drunk – too drunk to realize that he is alone. The
deduction seems to be supported by a detail in the last stanza “He shook his head,
and was again alone.” Notwithstanding, the last lines of the poem indicate that he
is not only drunk (or possibly not drunk at all):
He shook his head, and was again alone
There was not much that was ahead of him,
And there was nothing in the town below -Where strangers would have shut the many doors
That many friends had opened long ago.
A drunken man would not be able to feel so sad and look so far into the
town, into his own life and the past. Rather, he is so lonely that he has to talk to
himself, pretending he has a friend to talk to. The entire poem observably aims at
portraying the dual selves inside the character, and thus makes an effort to avoid
specifying the doer of the actions. Synecdoche, at this point, fits just right to serve
the purpose.
“For auld lang syne.” The weary throat gave out,
The last word wavered; the song being done...


23

The weary throat gave out is employed instead of Mr. Eben Flood sang
wearily. Some people may argue that it is the throat that emitted the sound but it is
just an instrument, a medium, and not the actual agent of the action. Concerning
this use of body parts as substitutive for the whole person in literature, Michael
Toolan (1998, p. 95) suggests:
The motivations may be various; often an effect of detachment or alienation,
between an individual and their physical faculties, is conveyed. Or a sense is
created of the ‘diminished responsibility’ of someone for how their own body is
acting.
The figure in the example above seems to be exactly a case where the
intended effect is to create a sense of detachment between the actual doer and his
body part. The weary throat gave out entails that it is not Mr. Flood who sang; he did
not sing to himself; on the contrary, he, or, as the author might have described, his
ears, had been listening to that voice. This is indicative of Mr. Flood’s state of being
two persons rather than one person, and hence emphasizes the absolute solitude of a
person who is isolated not only from his town, but also from humanity in general.
Everyone is a stranger to him. The only friend he could talk to is, so bitterly, his own
self.
The analysis reveals that part-for-whole substitution is the most common
type of synecdoche in poetry. While some of them are taken from everyday
language, others are highly creative. Though simple and easy to identify,
synecdoche is an important element that constitutes literariness in the language of
poetry. It helps to paint pictures, evoke readers’ feelings, express the author’s
attitude and in some cases makes a direct indication of the theme of the poem.
2.2 METONYMY
2.2.1Linguistic functions of metonymy


24

Among the substitutive figures of speech, metonymy is probably the most
frequently used and discussed. The word itself derives from the Greek word meta –
to change and onyma – a name. One of the first figures of speech ever named,
metonymy, parallel with many linguistic concepts, has been variously defined. The
Encyclopedia Britannica (2004), for example, defines metonymy as follows:
“figure of speech in which the name of an object or concept is replaced with a
word closely related to or suggested by the original, as ‘crown’ for ‘King’ (‘The
power of the crown was mortally weakened’) or an author for his works (‘I’m
studying Shakespeare’)”.
The Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary (2003) yields a slightly
different definition: “[a] figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one
thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated (as
crown in “lands belonging to the crown”).”
Some scholars attempt to define metonymy by listing the relationship between
the signifier and the signified in this figure of speech. Quinn (1982, p. 52), for
example, maintains that metonymy is a figure of speech which “substitutes the
contained for the container,” “the effect for the cause,” “raw material for finished
object.” However, some of the most frequently quoted examples prove that it is in
many cases impossible to clarify the relationship between the substituted and the
substitute simply by categorizing the pair. The crown is often employed to refer to a
king or a queen, because it is the kind of head covering that is exclusively intended
for kings and queens, and thus symbolizes the power belonging to those people. Yet
no one definition of metonymy has ever included the substitution of clothing or
jewelry for the person/people wearing it. And our effort would be in vain if we
insisted on naming all kinds of relationships involved in the figure. It might be safer
and more convenient to follow the seemingly too general yet more accurate and
adequate definition given by the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary


25

(2003), admitting that the most important feature of metonymy is the association
between the signifier and the signified.
Having said so, we find it necessary to point out the differences between the
association in metonymy and that in synecdoche. While many rhetoricians regard
synecdoche as one type of metonymy, others distinguish the two by excluding the
part/whole relation from the list of various types of association underlying
metonymy. They argue that the signifier and the signified in metonymy are related
but must not be physically or categorically part of each other. In some commonly
used examples of metonymy, when the press uses Washington to refer to the U.S.
government, or Downing Street to refer to the Prime Minister of Britain, the target
domains are obviously not part of the source domains. They are not, as may seem at
first sight, the contained to the container, either. Actually, Washington and Downing
Street are just the places where the signifieds are based and have thus been perceived
and used as metonyms of the signified.
Apart from unquestionable cases such as these, there are confusing cases in
which context plays an important role in determining the relation between the
signified and the signifier. When someone says, “We need to hire 20 hands
altogether,” it is a case of synecdoche, because in this context the only reasonable
interpretation of hands is workers. However, the same body part can be used to
present a number of abstract concepts in various instances of metonymy. It can
substitute for help, as in “Can you give me a hand?” or control/ supervision, as in
“They left the matter in her hands,” or personal possession, as in “The document
fell in the hands of the enemy,” just to name a few. The ground or rationale for these
substitutions is that we can do so many things with our hands: We can do manual
jobs; we can hold things belonging to us (so that others cannot take them away); and
we can also literally control things with our hands, either directly, with physical
strength, or indirectly, by giving orders and directions using gestures.