The Queen's English - A Strange Word and Stranger Yet Movie

A word, synecdoche, has come into our consciousness via Hollywood, as a recent movie bears it as its title. I have yet to find anyone who knew of its existence, much less its definition.

First, its pronunciation: si-NEK-duh-kee.

Its definition is as intriguing as its existence is rare.

Merriam-Webster defines it (a noun) as "A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sails for fifty ships); the whole for a part (as society for high society); the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin); 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)."

Other illustrations:

A part refers to whole: hands for sailors; set-of-wheels for car; 50 head for 50 cows; white hair for an elderly person; press for newspaper.

Whole Refers to a Part: head for brain ("use your head!"); Delaware (the legislature of Delaware) has passed a law on the subject; body for just the trunk of a body.

Species Refers to its Genus: Hoover for vacuum cleaner; castle for home; bread for food; Judas for traitor; Xerox for Copier; Kleenex for facial tissue. (Companies such as Hoover and Xerox become very distressed when their trademarked product names become generic nouns, even though it's something of a compliment.) They fear they will lose their tradename rights.)

Material Refers to Object: copper for penny; plastic for credit card; pigskin for football; lead for bullet; "hardwood for gym floor".

Now the ultimate challenge: Work it into a sentence. Incidentally, the word is nearly synonymous with metonymy (that'll help!).

As to the movie: It showed promise with a bevy of good actors, but how it ran on, and on, and on, all the time becoming denser. Sad to report.

Finally, on different topics, a couple of observations from the Philadelphia Weekly:

We often read, "An innocent bystander was injured." PW observes, a "Is there such a thing as a guilty bystander?" ("Bystander" implies non-involvement or innocence.)

Another: "The accident victim was rushed to a nearby hospital." When is the last time they took a victim to a distant hospital?

The point of these observations is that they illustrate both redundancy (superfluous or needless repetition) and clich� (trite phrase or hackneyed situation). Though neither phrase is grammatically incorrect, each can be evidence of laziness and pomposity. Be on-guard in your speech and writing to minimize the use of both. Lean is better!

-- Ken Butera

Home / Attorneys / Practice Area / Newsletters / Contact Us