client-generated adjacency by metonomy - what might it contribute to the models ?

[Martin Römer]

Reading about metonomy, synecdoche, metaphor and tropes again, it just struck me how metonomy and synecdoche seem to contain a strong element of adjacency, in contrast to metaphor which employs two very different domains.

According to the definition in the German Wikipedia article on tropes, metonomy (and synecdoche as a sub-category) are characterised as "boundary-shifting tropes" whereas metaphor (and irony) being "leaping tropes", i.e. a metonomy use of "the White House ..." works because "the White House" is very adjacent to "the current US president".

Just started to wonder how noticing (suspected) metonomies in the client's words might inform the facilitators model, and how one might ask cleanly about that kind of metonomic adjacency.

So say a client said: "I want my employer to treat me with more respect." and we know he is working in a big company, there should be a "reason" why he didn't say "... my boss ..." or "... my colleagues ..." or "... my reports ..." or even "I feel very restricted by the inhuman, mechanic process rules in the company."

So if the above mentioned statement was an (initial) outcome statement, keeping in mind that it contained a metonomy (employer instead of something else) and watching how it developed (AE question and potential changes later) might be useful for the facilitator. Or uncleanly, is there a pattern of e.g. avoidance in the client's thinking of the "problem/outcome domain" ? In the mentioned example it could be even a pattern of avoidance in the company's communication culture.

And still uncleanly, what other "patterns" apart from avoidance could be connected with metonomy use ?

Taking that idea a step further, could the use of a explicit symbol or a explicit metaphor in an outcome statement also inform our model of the client's model, only in this case not by the use of adjacency but by the use of a "separate second domain" ? I.e. might it indicate something like "that is difficult to describe" or "there are so many details" or "I do not know the details" ?

[phil]

Yes I guess adjacency is a strong element in metonymy. Bearing in mind other subjects in the recent Module 6 with Wendy, Penny and James, as well as adjacency how might scale be relevant to metonymy too?

"I want my employer to treat me with more respect."

...keeping in mind that it contained a metonomy (employer instead of something else)

'Employer' in this case might just be a label/pronoun replacing the name of the speaker's specific employer.

And still uncleanly, what other "patterns" apart from avoidance could be connected with metonomy use ?

Taking that idea a step further, could the use of a explicit symbol or a explicit metaphor in an outcome statement also inform our model of the client's model, only in this case not by the use of adjacency but by the use of a "separate second domain" ? I.e. might it indicate something like "that is difficult to describe" or "there are so many details" or "I do not know the details" ?

Could you say more about what you mean by a 'separate second domain'?

Spotting patterns and wondering about what it means when a client uses particular habitual ways of representing their stuff is a natural behaviour to engage in as a modeller. In a clean modelling process, interpretations are not passed back to the client but are checked out cleanly (Anything else about..?, What kind of..?, Is there a relationship between..?, etc). How many times have I been glad that the process prevented me from offering my interpretation when later I discovered that I would have been completely wrong because I didn't have all the information?

Martin. how about putting in a definition of metonomy for those of us who love the sound of it but can't remember exactly what it is? :)

Phil

[Penny Tompkins]

Hi Martin & Phil,

I have been interested in metonymy since I discovered what it was, and how to identify it. But I have to say, despite years of trying, I have yet to find a way of using my knowldege of metonymy in Symbolic Modelling.

In, Metaphor, A practical Introduction p143-148 (Highly recommended) Zoltan Kovecses suggests that "in metonomy we use one entity, or thing, to indicate, or to provide mental access to, another entity. We try to direct attention to an entity through another entity related to it. In other words, instead of mentioning the second entity directly, we provide mental access to it through another entity. e.g.

I'm reading Shakespeare.
America doesn't want another Peral harbor.
Washington is negotiating with Mascow.
We need a better glove at first base.

The words in italics do not refer to the 'things' they would refer to in other nonmetonymic applications, such as:

Shakespeare was a literary genius.
We traveled to Perl Harbor last year.
Washington is the capital of the United Staes.
The glove sis too tight for me."

For me, they key part of Kovecses' definition is "through another entity related to it." This relationship has to be obvious, and I think, it is often (always?) one of 'contiguity'.

Also, Kovecsses says "The main function of metonymy seems to be to provide mental, cognitive access to a target entity that is less readily or easily available; typically a more concrete or salient vehicle entity is used to give or gain access to a more abstract or less salient target entity within the same domain."

This contrasts with metaphor, where one entity refers to another in a second and differnt domain.

This is I have time for at the moment. More later.

James Lawley

[phil]

con·tig·u·ous (http://javascript<b></b>:play('C0600400'))adj. 1. Sharing an edge or boundary; touching.
2. Neighboring; adjacent.
3. a. Connecting without a break: the 48 contiguous states.
b. Connected in time; uninterrupted: served two contiguous terms in office.

Using people's own words

One of the reasons using another person's words back to them (in moderation!) is so effective for building trust is that it shows that we are contiguous, we are with them, next door, 'sharing an edge or boundary', not trying to be them but close enough to hear - and listen.

Backtracking

Contiguity is useful to bear in mind when directing the client's attention away from one area of attention and back towards another previously-mentioned area. It's easier to take several small steps than a giant leap (unless you're Neil Armstrong I suppose - but he had help...). Well, not necessarily easier but the client knows where they are.

e.g.:

Imagine you are a client, just asked what you would like to have happen and you reply:

"WhatI need is to get in control of myself but I don't know where to stop. Whenever the challenge arises I intend to beat it but I never do so. So then I get fed upwith myself and tell myself off and down I go"

Facilitator replies:

"And down you go, fed up with yourself when you never beat the challenge. And you don't know where to stop and when what you need is to get in control of yourself, what kind of get in control is that?"

Compare that to being asked:

"And down you go and when down you go, what kind of get in control is that?"

I'm not saying I would always go for steps over a leap (there may be useful information for the client in considering an adjacency they have never considered before). I think it is generally preferable though unless one has a strong client-centred reason for leaping.