Significant substitutive figures of speech – linguistic functions and pedagogical implications part 2

Significant substitutive figures of speech – linguistic functions and pedagogical implications

INTRODUCTIONI RATIONALE

I.1 Figures of speech and linguistics

It has been customary to think figurativeness is a linguistic feature exclusive to thelanguage of literature, but it is actually not When you ask somebody to “lend you his/herear” 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 Suchcolorful and vivid expressions are innumerable in colloquial language, which makesfigures of speech a pervasive linguistic phenomenon both in our daily discourse and inwritten language.

Some people may address themselves to the query as to where the study of figuresof 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 Soessentially 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, itis also closely related to discourse analysis and stylistics, especially literary stylistics, sincedifferent forms of literature tend to have different probabilities as to what group of figuresof 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 domainsof linguistics, it comes as no surprise that a linguistic major would become interested inthis phenomenon In addition, figures of speech, as artistic ways of using language, areappealing by nature and their study is rewarding in that it does not only enhance ourunderstanding of the special and effective way in which other people use the language butalso helps to improve our linguistic competence, especially our figurative and literarycompetence

I.2 Figurative competence and communicative competence

The use of figures of speech being so ubiquitous, it is virtually impossible for alanguage learner to communicate successfully in the target language without an adequatecommand 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 mustinclude metaphors, idioms and other figurative language items in order to instill in

language learners a functional communicative competence rather than just a traditionalformal competence Danesi (1995), for instance, argues that second language learners donot reach the fluency level of a native speaker until they have knowledge of “how thatlanguage ‘reflects’ or encodes concepts on the basis of metaphorical reasoning” (p 5) Toput it more simply, researchers in the field imply that figurative competence is “likely tocontribute positively to an overall level of communicative competence” (Littlemore, 2000).Nevertheless, it is observable that this linguistic skill is almost neglected inVietnamese EFL classrooms From the author’s firsthand experience as a college Englishmajor, 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 Itwas evidently “introductory” and would by no means be able to equip students with a fullunderstanding of those few figures of speech used as examples, not to mention an adequatecommand 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 theauthor’s skills courses, there was no place for figures of speech, either

These facts spurred the author of this paper to do research on figures of speech, withthe hope of drawing EFL teachers and course designers’ attention to this particularlyinteresting and useful linguistic phenomenon.

I.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 literarycriticism and has been repeatedly referred to by scholars in various related disciplines (seeBrumfit, 1981; Isenberg, 1990; Lazar, 1994; Aviram, 2004.) Under the strong influence ofChomsky’s generative model, where linguistic competence is put in opposition to linguisticperformance, Culler holds that literature, analogous with language, is also a structuralsystem with its own “grammar” – its own rules and conventions A competent reader ofliterature therefore needs to internalize that “grammar” in order to convert linguisticsequences into literary structures For example, there are special conventions in readingpoetry that readers should be aware of, such as the rule of significance, the rule ofmetaphorical 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 thefull argument, see Culler 1975, p 162)

Among the conventions in literature, rhetorical figures are said to “lie at the basisof interpretation;” therefore, “training in rhetoric” is thought of “as a way of providing thestudent 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 figurativecompetence is an integral element of literary competence, which makes studies of figuresof speech particularly interesting and beneficial to teachers of literature in second andforeign languages.

I.4 Substitutive figures of speech

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

II SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Although it is “impossible to isolate any single or special property of languagewhich 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 inparticular Part of this literariness is formed by the special way in which figures of speechare used While idioms or conventional figures of speech can be treated as separatelinguistic 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 ofspeech 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 investigatethe figures under consideration in literary texts

However, given the limits of this paper, literature would still be too large a corpusto work on Thus, we intend to examine these figures of speech in a special genre ofliterature – poetry – for the following reasons Firstly, poetry is particularly rich infigurative language and can thus provide us with numerous examples of metonymy andsynecdoche (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 assertsthe specificity of literature, its difference from ordinary discourse” (Culler 1975, p 162) –these figures of speech, together with other stylistic features, cause considerabledifficulties 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 leastenjoyed and most feared (Hirvela & Boyle, 1988, p 180) Our study, while analyzing thesefigures of speech in poetry, seeks to find ways to help students to interpret these figureswith less difficulty and more enjoyment In helping them to analyze and appreciate theseaesthetic devices in poetry, we hope to improve their knowledge of conventions in poetryand their literary competence in general.

The last justification for our choice is that this form of literature, though special inmany ways, is essentially an example of language in use Hence, analysis of metonymyand synecdoche in this corpus will undoubtedly help illustrate their linguistic functions andconclusions drawn from the analysis will not only inform poetry readers, teachers andlearners but also language learners on a larger scale There is every reason for us to believethat once students are able to recognize and analyze those figures of speech in poetry, theywill 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.

II AIMSOFTHESTUDY

This study is carried out to serve two main purposes:

1 To explore the linguistic functions of metonymy and synecdoche with a focus onhow these are used in poetry.

2 To give some suggestions on pedagogical issues relating to the teaching of thesefigures of speech in EFL skills classes and literature classes.

III METHODS OF THE STUDY

With its subject matter being linguistic phenomena, this study is basicallyqualitative and descriptive It is an attempt to answer several open-ended questionsregarding functions, aesthetic effects, and pedagogical values of metonymy andsynecdoche These answers are grounded on a system of research methods, namelydocumentation, analysis and synthesis, all of which are used in combination in almostevery chapter of the paper, though each of them prevails in a certain chapter or certainparts of a chapter

In the first part, we review the literature of figures of speech in general and the twofigures of speech of metonymy and synecdoche in particular Afterwards, we analyze theexamples of these figures in some selected poems as illustrations of their functions Basedon conclusions drawn from those analyses, we pinpoint several ways in which foreignlanguage teachers of English can teach these figures of speech to EFL students Overall,the study is partly deductive and partly inductive

IV DESIGNOFTHESTUDY

Apart from the introduction and the conclusion, the study consists of three chapters.Chapter I gives an overview on figures of speech in general and substitutive figuresof speech in particular.

Chapter II, the main part of the paper, focuses on two substitutive figures of speech,synecdoche and metonymy, providing an account of their definitions and linguisticfunctions, with each followed by an analysis of the figure of speech in poetry

Chapter III aims at raising some pedagogical issues concerning the teaching of thesefigures of speech and offers suggestions on applicable activities for use in EFL classrooms.

CHAPTER I

SUBSTITUTIVE FIGURES OF SPEECH I AN OVERVIEW OF FIGURES OF SPEECH

I.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 identifyingone thing with another that has a meaning or connotation familiar to the reader or listener.”There are varieties of slightly different ways in which people define figures of speech, butjust as Quinn puts it, “the simplest definition of a figure of speech is ‘an intended deviationfrom ordinary usage’.” (1982, p 6) According to this definition, there are two criteria foran expression to be distinguished as a figure of speech: first, it is a deviant of ordinarylanguage usage; second, it is used in such a way as to serve a certain purpose of the writeror 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 youknow a deviant when you see one? Quinn does not give direct answers to theseproblematic 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 isthe 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 ofspeech At this stage, the existence of an intention plays a vital role in determining whetherthis is a figure of speech or not If an elementary foreign language learner is the one whowrites 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 ringannouncer’s microphone “We was robbed” on the night of June 21, 1932, we knew that itwas far from being a mistake (Quinn, 1982, p 5) He broke the rule for his own purposesof adding emotion and emphasis to the accusation of injustice

I.2 Why are figures of speech employed?

Figures of speech have traditionally been thought to function primarily as a kind ofadornment or “make-up” used solely for the purpose of adding beauty to the language ofthe literary work Therefore, if there was a line between the form and the content of aliterary work, figures of speech would obviously fit in the formal features and have nothingto do with the content This implies that we can remove them from literary works withoutaffecting their meanings

However, the interwoven and interdependent relationships between form andcontent or meaning are such that it is actually very hard for one to draw a clear linebetween 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 herwith his words It is a feeling that would take a long sentence or even a paragraph todescribe In cases akin to this, one rationale for using figures of speech, as Cacciarisuggests when addressing the question of why speakers use metaphors, is because literallanguage 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 employedfor 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 analternative 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 CornPlanting.” “He made drawings of fish and pigs and cows and they looked like people you

knew I never did know, before, that people could look so much like cows and horses andpigs 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, thefigures 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 morecolorful manner

Commenting on “Philosophy of Style,” Herbert Spencer proves that a principlegoverning our communication is “the principle of economy,” by which he means languageusers normally try to express more meanings with fewer words This principle, asdemonstrated 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 muchmeaning into a small space Second, they save readers’ energy and time by “[bringing theirminds] 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 oneonly calls up a picture And pictures are always easier to remember and recall than abstractconcepts.

I.3 Classification of figures of speech

Rhetoric, in its attempt “to analyse and classify the forms of speech and make theworld of language intelligible” (Barthes, 1967, p 817), named various figures of speechand over the centuries the number has reached many hundred Rhetoricians have alsocategorized 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 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 threecategories: those involving emphasis, association, clarification, and focus; those involvingphysical organization, transition, and disposition or arrangement; and those involvingdecoration 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 theyare useful and convenient for learners.

II SUBSTITUTIVEFIGURESOFSPEECH

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 ofspeech He started by inviting the reader to interpret the bizarre title of the chapter “Reds in theRed” (Quinn, 1982, pp 49-59) Afterwards, he suggested a seemingly endless list of differentreadings of the phrase, each made possible by our substituting these words by associatedwords That is the essence of what is termed “substitutive figures of speech.” They are thefigures 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 obviousdistinction between metaphor and substitutive figures of speech is that while metaphors arebased on similarities between the signified and the signifier, synecdoche and metonymy arebased on their contiguity – their relatedness.

This definition sounds too general because there exist many ways in which words areassociated with each other In Quinn’s system, there are two main types of associationinvolved in substitutive figures of speech: one is based on the grammatical forms of words, the

other on meanings The first type includes enallage, with sub-types 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 figures Metonymies - Meaning related figures

antaptosis anthimeria hendiadyssynecdoche

metonymy metalepsiscatachresis

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

CHAPTER II

SOME SIGNIFICANT SUBSTITUTIVE FIGURES OFSPEECH IN POETRY

I SYNECDOCHE

I.1 Linguistic functions of synecdoche

An adult native speaker of English may not remember how many times in his/herlife he/she has heard expressions such as, “We need to hire some more hands” or “She’sgot 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 figureof all metonymies,” since the relation between the signified and the signifier in this figureis 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 meantto refer to the whole person, object, etc.” – or, in simpler words –, it is a figure in whichthe part is substituted for the whole This is probably the commonest linguistic functionassigned 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 forhigh 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 forstage).” Obviously, in this definition, synecdoche is not only confined to the part-for-wholesubstitution but also involves the whole-for-part substitution What's more, it also includesspecies-for-genus/ genus-for-species, 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 ofsense relations between the tenor (the signified) and the vehicle (the signifier): part-wholerelation and hyponymy In the first relation, one is part of the other and in the secondrelation, one is hyponym of the other – its superordinate (See Figure 1.)

certain species of animal such as dogs or cats Some, after a long time of being used, havebecome ordinary and the initially figurative meaning is 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 thefourth meaning of creature in the same source

It is notable that the part-for-whole substitution can be identified fairly easily for itsunusual 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, forexample, the speaker might aim to emphasize his weakness and his vulnerability, as aliving 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 moreconvenient, or more accurate, presentation of the idea If, instead of saying “a fleetof ten ships,” we say “a fleet of ten “sail,” the picture of a group of vessels at sea ismore readily suggested; and is so because the sails constitute the most conspicuousparts of vessels so circumstanced Whereas the word “ships” would very likelyremind us of vessels in dock Again, to say, “All ‘hands’ to the pumps,” is betterthan to say, “All ‘men’ to the pumps,” as it suggests the men in the special attitudeintended, and so saves effort Bringing “gray ‘hairs’ with sorrow to the grave,” isanother 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 possiblygo well beyond the poet’s initial intentions.

I.2 Synecdoche in poetry

In poetry, synecdoche, especially the part-for-whole substitution, is also used inabundance The reason for this prevalence lies in the nature of poetry, a form of literaturewhich tends to concretize objects and feelings with pictures and details Some of thesynecdoches used in poetry are taken from ordinary language The underlined words inthese lines in the poem “Mr Flood’s Party” by Edwin Arlington Robinson serve as acompelling example:

“Well, Mr Flood, we have not met like thisIn a long time; and many a change has comeTo 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; weask Have you got a minute? when we want to know whether the other person has got alittle 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 closefriends.

The use of synecdoche in poetry, compared to everyday language, is intentional andoften more creative The poem “Barter” by Sara Teasdale provides us with some examples.

Life has loveliness to sell,

All beautiful and splendid things;Blue waves whitened on a cliff,Soaring fire that sways and sings,And children's faces looking up,Holding wonder like a cup.

Life has loveliness to sell;Music like a curve of gold,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;Buy it, and never count the cost!For one white, singing hour of peaceCount many a year of strife well lost;And for a breath of ecstasy,

Give all you have been, or could be.

These are just human body parts, used to represent the people themselves.

Although pointing out where synecdoche is employed poses little difficulty forreaders, 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) wefirst 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 acup.” 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 apicture, or, to be more exact, pictures – pictures of children’s faces we have seen in our ownlives, 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, thesynecdoche effectively articulates the poet’s ideas and feelings about life, and shouldtherefore be regarded as functional rather than simply ornamental

Some people may argue that “children looking up” is sufficient to create a picture andhence 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 thepoem to speak to readers’ minds.

If we repeat the process with line 10, replacing the signifiers by the signified, theline would be, “People that love you, people that hold,” which would not by any meanssound 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 tooabstract 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’spersonal experience and feelings “Eyes that love you” call to our minds images of peoplewe have loved at unforgettable moments in our lives It brings back childhood memories ofour mother’s worried eyes looking at us when we were sick or our father’s loving eyes whenhe kissed us goodnight It may also awaken reminiscences of the deep sad eyes of aboyfriend or girlfriend when we parted from them, or the tearful eyes of a friend when wemet after a long time apart It may as well remind us of the jealous look on our child’s facewhen 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 lovedones, 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 boththe 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 loveand 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 thepurpose of such personification? Does the author really perceive, and want the reader toperceive, 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 onthe 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 theoryabout their functions The reader needs to be aware of the unity of the poem and the author’sintentions 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 express the themeof the poem The substitution in itself is directly relevant to the theme A good examplecan be found in “Mr Flood’s Party” by Edwin Arlington Robinson, which gives a detailedaccount 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, inwhich Mr Flood plays the role of both the addressor and the addressee If we might labelthe two selves of his as Mr Flood One and Mr Flood Two, the conversation can bepresented in a manner similar to that of a screenplay, as follows:

Mr Flood One:

“Well, Mr Flood, we have the harvest moonAgain, 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.”

We had a drop together Welcome home!”Mr Flood Two:

“Well, Mr Flood, if you insist, I might.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 inthe 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 isobviously not in a normal state of mind Some people may conjecture that this man isdrunk – 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 doorsThat many friends had opened long ago.

A drunken man would not be able to feel so sad and look so far into the town, intohis own life and the past Rather, he is so lonely that he has to talk to himself, pretendinghe has a friend to talk to The entire poem observably aims at portraying the dual selvesinside 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

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 aninstrument, a medium, and not the actual agent of the action Concerning this use of bodyparts as substitutive for the whole person in literature, Michael Toolan (1998, p 95)suggests:

[T]he motivations may be various; often an effect of detachment or alienation,between an individual and their physical faculties, is conveyed Or a sense iscreated of the ‘diminished responsibility’ of someone for how their own body isacting.

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 isindicative of Mr Flood’s state of being two persons rather than one person, and henceemphasizes the absolute solitude of a person who is isolated not only from his town, but alsofrom 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 ofsynecdoche 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 elementthat constitutes literariness in the language of poetry It helps to paint pictures, evokereaders’ feelings, express the author’s attitude and in some cases makes a direct indicationof the theme of the poem

II METONYMY

II.1 Linguistic functions of metonymy

Among the substitutive figures of speech, metonymy is probably the most

frequently used and discussed The word itself derives from the Greek word meta – tochange 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 wordclosely related to or suggested by the original, as ‘crown’ for ‘King’ (‘The power ofthe crown was mortally weakened’) or an author for his works (‘I’m studyingShakespeare’)”

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 ofanother 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 thecontainer,” “the effect for the cause,” “raw material for finished object.” However, some ofthe most frequently quoted examples prove that it is in many cases impossible to clarify therelationship between the substituted and the substitute simply by categorizing the pair Thecrown is often employed to refer to a king or a queen, because it is the kind of head coveringthat is exclusively intended for kings and queens, and thus symbolizes the power belongingto those people Yet no one definition of metonymy has ever included the substitution ofclothing or jewelry for the person/people wearing it And our effort would be in vain if weinsisted on naming all kinds of relationships involved in the figure It might be safer andmore convenient to follow the seemingly too general yet more accurate and adequate

definition given by the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary (2003), admitting

that the most important feature of metonymy is the association between the signifier and thesignified

Having said so, we find it necessary to point out the differences between theassociation in metonymy and that in synecdoche While many rhetoricians regardsynecdoche as one type of metonymy, others distinguish the two by excluding the part/wholerelation from the list of various types of association underlying metonymy They argue thatthe signifier and the signified in metonymy are related but must not be physically orcategorically 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 whichcontext 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 ofsynecdoche, 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 manualjobs; we can hold things belonging to us (so that others cannot take them away); and we canalso literally control things with our hands, either directly, with physical strength, orindirectly, by giving orders and directions using gestures

Countless comparable instances can be found in English, with concrete objects

symbolizing not just one but a variety of concepts In “I knew it from my heart,” heartindicates one’s innermost feelings, while the same word in “He won her heart” means love

and affection In such cases, the substitution is based on the symbolic use of the signifier,as Chitra Fernando (1997, p 124) has it: “The heart symbolizes the passions, the affectionsof the soul while the head symbolizes the spirit, the rational intellect.” These

symbolisms also explain the ubiquity of heart and head in the English language, fromidioms such as break someone’s heart, lose one’s heart, steal one’s heart, have a good

head for something and go off one’s head to compound adjectives such as kind-hearted,cold-hearted, heart-broken and level-headed (Fernando, 1997, pp 125-126)

Graphically presented, the relationship between the signifier and the signified inmetonymy and synecdoche can be seen in contrast as follows.

:the signified:the signifier

Fig 2a1

Fig 2a2

Fig 2b1

The U.S President

The

Fig 2 b2: An example of the signified and some possible signifiers in metonymy

II.2 Metonymy in poetry

Despite the assumption that metaphor is the prevailing mode of thought in poetry,while metonymy is used chiefly in prose, it requires little effort to learn that metonymy isalso employed in poetry at a relatively high rate, possibly second only to metaphor As thecognitive linguists view it, metonymy is not merely a matter of words but a matter ofthought We can take the nicknaming of our childhood friends as an example Very often, weuse their most salient features to name them, because, apart from their funny side, thosefeatures are more suggestive of the people than their own given names So it is apparent thatthe inclination and ability to give things new names are common even among us the laymen,not to mention poets, the most conscious and talented users of language.

Many of the metonymies in poems are part of ordinary language They are soconventional that we may not even notice that they are essentially figurative For example,when William Blake (2004, p 78) wrote

I told my love, I told my loveI told her all my heart

So on we worked, and waited for the light,

And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;(Robinson, 2002, p 59)

Unlike the Blake example above, where heart and love cannot be understood literally,a literal reading of meat and bread as specific kinds of food in this example is correct,

though inadequate On the figurative level, we can interpret them as examples of synecdoche

with meat being the hyponym of delicious and expensive foods that the people on the

pavement cannot afford and bread representing the simple foods they have to eat to keep

themselves alive However, the polysemic nature of poetry allows, and in this case requires,us to grasp the meaning of these words on a deeper level In the context of the people waiting

for the light, which can be perceived as a symbol of a better life, of happiness., perhaps the

meat and the bread do not simply refer to food, especially when due attention is paid to the

use of the definite article the before the nouns The implies that the referents are specific:

they are not meat and bread in general but “the meat that people like Richard Cory areenjoying” and “the bread that we are having everyday.” At this point, they can respectively

be conceived as concrete-for-abstract metonymies, in which meat and bread are

correspondingly concretizations of luxuries and comfort accompanying wealth and austeritythat occurs with poverty This leads us to the next possible interpretation of these words:

meat can be perceived as a representative aspect of a good life and bread of a miserable life

These metonymies, however, not only help to illustrate the ideas, making themmore readily understandable to readers In substituting the concepts of wealth and poverty,

or happiness and misery, with meat and bread, the poet gives a significant implication

about people’s views on life and their conceptions of happiness Undoubtedly, people maythink of happiness and wealth in diverse terms: some think of big houses, some of beautifulclothing, and others of expensive pastimes The poet could therefore have chosen many

other things instead of meat His choice indicates that in the narrator’s eyes, a good lifefirst and foremost means good food The we in the poem are so poor they only think of

their basic needs and thus have a very simplistic conception of happiness This implies thatgenerally material poverty at some point can cause spiritual poverty These people’ssimplicity makes them unable to understand Richard Cory’s suicide To some extent, thislack of understanding from people in the town contributes to the tragedy Richard Corysuffers as a person who had to, in Paul Laurence Dunbar’s words, “wear the mask thatgrins and lies.” (Dunbar, 2002, p 72) Had there been anyone among those town folks whocould see what was behind Cory’s kingly facade, possibly he would not have had to put anend to his lonely and empty life Obviously, the concrete-for-abstract metonymies in thispoem communicate much more than they appear at first glance and contribute greatly tothe meaning of the whole poem

The above examples are illustrations of poetry’s tendency to concretize abstractconcepts Nevertheless, the metonymy in the poem “Barter” by Sara Teasdale (1992, p 82)is, by sharp contrast, an abstract-for-concrete substitution Examining the opening line“Life has loveliness to sell,” there is apparently a metaphor or a personification, as some

readers may want to label it, in this line, wherein life is treated as a person, more

specifically, as a seller And what does she sell? Loveliness It is common knowledge that

loveliness is not a thing that can be bought or sold; it is not even a thing Rather, it is an

abstract concept denoting the state of being lovely If we approach the figure as an integralpart of the whole poem, we will see what is really meant by “loveliness.” The second lineoffers a straightforward explanation – “All the beautiful and splendid things” –, and therest of the stanza and the entire second stanza are composed of a series of pictures serving

as concrete examples of these “beautiful and splendid things.” Loveliness is used herein as

a metonym of lovely things – “beautiful and splendid things” – and the metonymy thus cantechnically be described as an abstract-for-concrete substitution.

Why this metonymy? What is the purpose of the abstraction? Repeated at thebeginning of every stanza, the metonym contains the major theme of the poem andundoubtedly deserves a meticulous analysis It might be advisable at this point to projectourselves into the poet’s mind, to seek out the reason for her diction The poet was notthinking about a specific thing or person or event On the contrary, she was in deepmeditation on life – life in its broadest sense – and was trying to arrive at somewhatphilosophical conclusions about it In this context, it is necessary to perceive things inconceptual terms, seeing them in a “stand-for” relation with abstract concepts “Those

beautiful and splendid things” was for that reason encapsulated into one word: loveliness.It is notable here that while beauty is seemingly synonymous with loveliness in thiscontext, it lacks the strong subjectivity that loveliness suggests Although both beautifuland lovely express one’s personal evaluation of something, to a greater or lesser extent, it

seems that if one describes something as lovely, the description is more personal and

emotional than when he or she says it is beautiful Therefore, with the metonym loveliness,

the author not only puts us into a contemplative mood, urging us to seek the meaning oflife at a deep level, but also expresses and instills into the reader an appreciative andcherishing attitude towards life This is the main purpose of “the letter” the author sends“to the world.”

One of the problems in identifying figures of speech in poetry is that some figuremay appear to be another and readers need to learn the rule of unity in literary texts anddetermine the type based on the context The following stanza is an example

Helmet and rifle, pack and overcoat

Marched through a forest Somewhere up ahead

Guns thudded Like the circle of a throatThe night on every side was turning red.

(The Battle, Louis Simpson, 1960, p 713)

The first sentence in the first two lines is unmistakably out of the ordinary Themultiple subjects are inanimate and evidently incapable of moving, let alone marching Thequestion is, however, what part of it is the deviant? Is it the subject or the predicate? Is the

author trying to picture something else, not the “Helmet and rifle, pack and overcoat,” or

is he trying to enliven those non-living things by getting them to march?

An alert reader of literature, with his/her reasoning, can rule out the latterpossibility He/she knows that the focus of description in this sentence is not those thingsworn and carried by the soldiers, but soldiers themselves At first sight, they are

metonymically used to replace the soldiers in almost the same way as crown is employedto substitute for monarch or red shirts for players of a certain football team A closer

exploration may reveal several differences, though First, they are not a conventionalmetonym of soldiers, as the crown is a conventional metonym of a monarch Second, they

are not commonly used to refer to soldiers Helmet and rifle, pack and overcoat, separately

and in other contexts would by no means be indicative of soldiers, or to be more precise,they are not necessarily indicative of soldiers but can be used to refer to various objects,depending on the context However, in this specific context of a poem depicting a battle,

the combination of all four items helmet and rifle, pack and overcoat, which are typicallyworn and carried simultaneously by a soldier in a march, followed by the verb marched

through the forest, is naturally interpretable as referring to soldiers And the novel figure is

therefore not at all mystifying but on the contrary intelligible to a relatively wide range ofreaders, as long as they learn the basic rule of unity in a literary work.

Apart from its originality, the metonymy is also remarkable for its pictorialness, orits ability to create an image in the reader’s mind, which is one quality the trite crown-for-monarch metonymy does not have The metonym, or, strictly speaking, the multiplemetonyms in the first sentence of the poem, help portray the soldiers marching through theforest with their helmets and overcoats on and rifles and packs on their backs Thepolysyndeton in the phrase makes the list of things even longer, emphasizing the fatigue ofthe people who are wearing and carrying these cumbersome and heavy things It is notablethat these things were not chosen at random The author could have listed their boots, sincethey are closest to our legs and feet, which are actually the body parts that help the soldiers

march But he did not Instead, he deliberately chose objects which can be seen from adistance, and more specifically, from behind, so that the picture is closer to reality andhelps the reader see the battle with the character’s eyes, who was supposedly among thesoldiers In other words, the author was attempting to revive the whole scene in which he

was playing a part, and the figure works really well in taking readers there From afar, they

can see it actually looks as if those objects are moving by themselves because readers as

well as the I in the poem cannot see the people behind and inside them

An important task for the reader is to explore how the figure serves as a gateway todifferent interpretations of the poem on a deeper level Why did the author substitute forthe soldiers? There are many other ordinary ways he could have drawn that picture, thesimplest of which is to describe it straightforwardly: “From behind, I could see the soldiersmarching through the forest, wearing helmets and overcoats and carrying rifles and packs.”The difference the actual lines make is that they tell us the narrator in the poem did not see

the soldiers’ faces He did not see them He just saw their covers and burden They were

too well hidden in their thick and weighty “armor.” They all looked the same, withoutfaces, eyes, or names, speechless and almost lifeless Even their movement was notevidence that they were living things They were moving in the same direction and thesame manner, like machines, with their various complicated parts: helmet and rifle, pack

and overcoat The implication is that these young men did not go to the battlefield; rather,they were driven there They did not have soldiers’ hearts and minds They just have

soldiers’ cover, their military equipment

These findings provoke further questions which give the reader even more insight

into the battle: What kind of battle was it where soldiers were used as fighting machines?

What would be the result of the impending battle when the participating soldiers werealready dead inside? And who drove them there? Why did the soldiers have to go to thebattle against their own will? Given the context of the twentieth century, with many warsfought primarily for wealth and power, the poem was probably intended to articulate thepoet’s attitude to an unjust war, but from a humanistic perspective, it can also win theempathy of people worldwide, regardless of their political backgrounds and their priorknowledge of the circumstances in which the poem was written It successfully reveals thefeeling that, at one or another point in any war, the people involved in it all share After all,people are not born to kill one another They are not born to become killing machines.

Therefore, the failure of the men in the poem to feel like real soldiers, their lack of

enthusiasm and determination, are indications of their human nature, rather than ofcowardice or faithlessness to the cause, as some people might judge They were plainly notso savage as to enjoy killing their own kind And when being forced to do so in this war,

they were not themselves any longer They were not living any longer In reality, many of

them, like the soldier boy in the poem “Suicide in the Trenches” by Siegfried Sassoon(1992, p 45), unable to cope with fear and emptiness and loneliness, did kill themselves,putting an end to, not their lives but their existence The metonymy in “The Battle,” neutralas it may sound, does reflect and explain this upsetting truth, which is consistent with whatis conveyed in the last stanza:

Most clearly of that battle I remember

The tiredness in eyes, how hands looked thin,Around a cigarette, and the bright emberWould pulse with all the life there was within.

III CONCLUSIONS

It can be seen that these two figures of speech, metonymy and synecdoche, aresignificant from both linguistic and stylistic points of view As linguistic phenomena, theyare pervasive in the English language, spoken and written alike, and are attested to be notonly a matter of language but also a matter of thought As literary devices, while regardedas secondary in poetry, they prove useful and effective despite their occasional superficialsimplicity, i.e., their being easy to identify The preceding analyses of their occurrences inpoetry, though modest in number due to the space limits of this paper, have indicated thatthe figures, especially the more creative ones, contribute greatly to the characteristic

literariness of the texts, thus giving them a depth specific only to this type of discourse.They paint pictures, wake memories, stir up feelings and provoke inquiries in readers’minds, which in turn urge them to dig deeper and harder into the hidden layers of thepoems, one after another, till the truths, like gems, finally reveal themselves, giving them a

satisfied Ah They are then overwhelmed with a pleasant surprise and an immense

admiration people only have when they witness something beautiful and powerful Theseare the true feelings the author of this paper experienced in the course of reading andanalyzing the sample poems

Such illuminations, however, did not, and often do not, come right after the first orsecond readings One may need to repeat the verses tens or even hundreds of times to him/

her self, answering numerous whys, why nots and hows before reaching an interpretation It

should be kept in mind that when dealing with literature, especially poetry, no answer is

the answer The readings proposed earlier in this chapter likewise are not the only proper

and “scientific” way to interpret those figures Some people may identify with the writer;some may find that she has taken a wrong route or has gone too far at some points It all

depends Each reader may have his/her own choice to finish the poem, as Coulson et al

(2002, p 4) stated, “A poet depends on the effort of a reader; somehow, a reader must‘complete’ what the poet has begun.” What is argued here is that at least the figures have aspiritual and intellectual riches to offer readers, which could multiply in accordance withthe number of readers, and therefore are well worth their effort.

From another position, it is noticeable that those apparently highly personal andsubjective interpretations do have their grounds The analyses basically follow three steps:spotting the deviant, identifying the signified, and most importantly, exploring the effect ofthe figures In some simple cases, the first and the second were done simultaneously Andall of the three steps were carried out based greatly on global readings of the poems as wellas readers’ background knowledge In the last step, one guiding factor was a series ofquestions repeatedly raised in almost every analysis: “Why didn’t the author write it inordinary language?” “Why did the author substitute the signified with this but not thatitem?” “What are the purposes?” Seeking the answers to these questions entailed a greatdeal of work In some instances, attempts were made to paraphrase the lines in ordinarylanguage, or, in other words, to remove the figures from the text; in other instances, thereader proposed choices of words which could have been made in place of the author’s

actual ones Afterwards, the reader juxtaposed and compared the two versions, byinteracting with the authentic versions, getting completely absorbed in them, letting themaffect her feelings and thoughts, and in some cases projected herself into the author’s mindin order to discern the nuances of meanings the figures add to the texts The processinvolved painting mental pictures and activating past experience, which could be factual,personal or literary and making connections between the figure and other details of the

poem At times it was necessary to dive deep down under the whole ‘iceberg’ to see its

structure and how that structure determines the choice of one image or diction By andlarge, the analyses relied largely on the reader’s rational understanding and intellectualcomprehension, though most of them took emotional and linguistic reactions as theirstarting point

CHAPTER III

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONSI POSSIBLE TEACHING CONTEXTS OF SYNECDOCHE AND METONYMY

While the terms synecdoche and metonymy sound foreign to English language

learners in Vietnam, they are included in various curricula for native students SomeEnglish language teachers in Vietnam may argue that these items are irrelevant to theirteaching points, which are primarily concerned with the students’ development incommunicative skills but not knowledge about the language We can nonetheless provethis argument unsound by pointing out the unquestionable relationship between knowledgeand skills, in which knowledge plays the more important, if not decisive role Asdemonstrated in the preceding chapter, both of the figures discussed are so omnipresent inEnglish that proper understanding of them is essential to language learners’ comprehensionof authentic materials and their successful communication in the language

Some other teachers may attribute their failure to include these linguisticphenomena in the curriculum to their students’ inadequate competence They assume thatthose receiving lessons on figures of speech in the English speaking countries areadvanced, both linguistically and cognitively In fact, various Language Arts courseintroductions and lesson plans found online show that the grade levels for which thecourses and lessons are intended vary greatly from primary students upwards Thecurriculum for Language Arts course for grade 4 at Washington County Schools (2002),for example, states one of their objectives as follows: “The learner will be able to analyzehow poets use figures of speech to inspire readers to share emotions.” This indicates thatfigures of speech are regarded as important and accessible even to students at very low-levels In any case, we can always adapt the teaching objectives according to our students’levels and the overall aims of the course

The analyses of the two types of figure of speech above reveal that they aresignificant stylistic features of literature in general and poetry in particular This has twopedagogical implications: First, we can use poetry in teaching metonymy and synecdoche;second, we have to direct our students’ attention to these figures while teaching poetry andother forms of literature, helping them to analyze the contribution of the figures to thevalue of the whole work In the first application, they are an end in themselves; in the

second, they serve as assisting devices for literary interpretation However, both of thelearning outcomes may be achieved simultaneously in one class.

For the reasons above, we assume that the figures should be taught in both skillclasses and literature classes to students of various levels either for their own sake or in co-operation with other teaching points

Teaching these figures of speech is not only indispensable in skill classes andliterature classes but also beneficial to language learners in many other ways Since theyare both based on contiguity between words, they may aid low-level students in learningvocabulary, especially in making connections between their existing knowledge and newitems and in organizing their vocabulary in lexical sets Introducing metonymy andsynecdoche in the classroom “can be an effective way of expanding student vocabulary.Once students learn the literal meaning of particular words, their vocabulary can be greatly

extended if they are then able to use these words figuratively.” (Lazar, 2003, p 1) Finally,

while some people argue that these figurative lexical items can be learned by heart as newlanguage items, it must be admitted that there would be too many of them to memorize.Teaching figures of speech is a good solution to the problem as it makes those itemsmeaningful and memorable, and therefore, saves students’ time and energy and enablesstudents to use them actively

In skills class, “activities incorporating figurative language can provide a usefulspringboard for integrated skills work.” (Lazar, 2003, p 1) In speaking classes, forexample, lessons involving the figures of speech can motivate discussions regardingconnections between certain words or the rationales underlying particular substitutionseither in everyday language or in literature Besides, learning and practicing using idiomsin speaking can be greatly enjoyable, too In reading classes, exploring figures in readingtexts can enhance students’ ability to identify referents and read between the lines Theycan also use these figures while practicing writing, both at sentence and paragraph orcomposition levels Lower-level students can start out substituting one word in a sentencewith an associated word or thinking of situations where they can use some synecdoche-and metonymy-based idioms while stronger students can apply the figures of speech intheir own creative writing