The Immersion Stage in Summary
Feature 7: Metonymy
Defi nition and Analysis Method
I presented an outline of the rhetorical trope metonymy in the context of the semiotic level of connotation or myth. My defi nition of metonymy includes both the specifi c concept of metonymy (substitution accord- ing to contiguity) and synecdoche (whole for part and part for whole substitution). My analysis strategy for metonymic expressions was fi rstly to identify all instances of metonymy within my data sets. In this pro- cess of identifi cation, I used for support and terminology the sum- mary lists and categorisations of metonyms found in, amongst others, Chandler (2007), Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Cornelissen (2008) and
Radden, Köpcke, Berg, and Siemund (2007), placing metonyms in groups such as ORGANISATION FOR MEMBER, CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED and so on. As well as using the guidelines off ered in these works, I also followed the general principle outlined by Dirven (2002) that metonymic expressions can often be recognised by the use of an inanimate subject with a verb usually requiring an animate subject. Dirven gives as examples the verbs “mean” or “use”, and there are many usages of this type in my own data, for example “Th e US Census Bureau recently declared
…” (Canwest News Service, 27.4.2012). In discussing the functions of metonyms, I took into account that metonymic expressions select an aspect of the entity described for attention, and in doing this necessarily disregard other aspects of the entity that might have been selected.
Findings from the BP Data
Table 10.1 shows the fall of the occurrence of metonyms from 9.7 per 000 words in 2010 to 3.2 instances per 000 words in 2012. I follow the convention of referring to metonyms in the format “X FOR Y” and in capitals.
Th e pattern of metonymy in the 2010 data is relatively straightforward.
Metonymic expressions (which can be words or phrases) occur nearly ten times for every 000 words, as Table 10.1 shows. By far the major- ity of metonymic expressions in 2010 are those that use an organisation
Table 10.1 The occurrence of metonyms in the 2010–12 BP texts
2010 2011 2012 [BP] ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS 36 23 4 [OTHER] ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS 33 15 9 MACHINE FOR CREW 13 0 0 INSTRUMENT FOR PRODUCER 1 7 2 CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED 2 0 0 ORGANISATION FOR INDEX 0 1 0 PLACE FOR PERSON/PEOPLE 0 3 3 Other metonymic expressions 3 3 3 Extended metonyms 0 0 2
Total 88 52 23
Total per 000 words 9.7 7.4 3.2
name to indicate a person or persons, namely, ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS. Th ese expressions typically include a verb that would nor- mally require a human subject, for example, in this data extract:
British energy giant BP said Tuesday that fi rst-quarter profi ts rocketed on higher oil prices but admitted that the news was overshadowed by last week’s tragic accident at a rig in the Gulf of Mexico. (Agence France Presse, 27.4.2010)
Unsurprisingly, the most common organisation used in this way is BP, whose corporate comments and actions are central to the story. Other organisations frequently used metonymically are the Coast Guard and rig-owner Transocean. Using the metonymy ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS can have diff erent kinds of eff ect. Cornelissen (2008) makes the point that metonymy is used in this way primarily for convenience.
However, he goes on to argue (2008: 90) that using the company name with a verb normally requiring an animate subject supports the wide- spread metaphor by which the company is seen as a person .
While the initial motivation for the metonymy may have been primarily referential as shorthand for a relative clause, the use of this kind of metonymy also cues a metaphorical image of a company as a person or human being.
According to this thinking, by using metonymy in constructions such as
“ BP said it is committed to doing everything in its power” the company
“is imbued with a certain ‘corporate personality’ or ‘corporate identity’”
(2008: 90). Cornelissen presents this observation neutrally. However, I would argue that it is generally to a company’s advantage to represent itself as a single entity. In particular in the case of a crisis situation, it is considered crucial that the company “speaks with one voice” and acts as one with a single aim and purpose (Burt, 2012). In this sense, the conve- nience of using “BP said” rather than naming a person whose identity is not relevant might serve the additional purpose of contributing towards a positive sense of a unifi ed entity.
Th e corollary of this observation is to conceive the ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS metonymy as obscuring agency. In the 2010 situation where the question of fault, blame and responsibility was at issue but as yet unexpressed, the use of the designation “BP”, with all the weight of its brand values and corporate identity, has a diff erent role in meaning- making than “Doug Suttles, chief operating offi cer of BP Exploration and Production”. In this way, when “BP” is used metonymically for actors within the company, it works both to represent an existing reality, by indexing all the pre-existing associations readers have with the organ- isation, and to construct reality, by representing the company as a human being. Th is applies also to the other organisations used metonymically within the data set.
In the case of BP, however, there was a departure from the typical pub- lic relations model. CEO Tony Hayward decided to step out from behind the metonym “BP” and become the public face of the crisis. Many of the 2010 texts include quotations from Hayward personally, from press conferences, press releases and direct from the shores near the oil spill. As Bergin (2011: 166) writes:
Th is constituted Hayward’s third big PR mistake: he had decided to front the response eff ort himself. If not the most fatal, it was certainly the most public of his mistakes in handling the crisis. As the CEO of a rival would later tell him, “You stopped being the CEO and slipped into chief operat- ing offi cer mode.”
Because of this, it is possible that the frequency of occurrence of BP as ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS is lower than it might have been in a business crisis where key fi gures seek to present comments as emanat- ing from the company as an organisation rather than as being the words of particular individuals.
Th e use of metonymic expressions drops from 9.7 per 000 words in 2010 to 7.4 in 2011, with some marked shifts in type of metonym. Th e fall in absolute numbers of metonyms is due to the fact that the metonym type ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS drops by more than half: the 2011 texts do not feature as many quotations from BP or other organ- isations as was the case in 2010, meaning that it is less common that
the organisation stands in whole-for-part relation for the spokesperson.
Where this type of usage does occur, it is more likely to be in relation to the 2011 Quarter 1 results, than the Deepwater Horizon events them- selves, as in the following example:
After BP PLC reported Wednesday that net profi ts rose 16 percent in the fi rst quarter, company offi cials acknowledged the company has applied for permits to restart drilling in the Gulf. (Th e Associated Press, 27.4.2011, my emphasis)
Th e category ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS covered a limited number of organisations in 2010, focusing on direct participants. In 2011, this group of metonyms refers to a wider spread of organisations, including the US government, the Obama administration, Research and Markets (a publisher) and Shell. Th is observation accords with the frag- mentation of types of actor in the data. Similarly, metonymic usages of the type PLACE FOR PERSON appear to show a movement of interest from the core location of the events in the Gulf to further afi eld, referring in 2011 to Florida, the White House, and “sister states”.
Th e category INSTRUMENT FOR PRODUCER appears more sig- nifi cantly in 2011 than in 2010, and relates largely to reports and legal documents, in constructions such as the following:
Coast Guard report slams Transocean over Deepwater Horizon. (SNL Daily Gas Report, 27.4.2011, my emphasis)
Th e Times editorial seems to ignore the applicable legal background. (SNL Daily Gas Report, 27.4.2011 , my emphasis)
Th e legal remedy that promises to give Florida the maximum recovery in the shortest time is the federal Oil Pollution Act, which makes BP and any other responsible party strictly and fully liable for such harm. (Tampa Bay Times (Florida), 27.4.2011, my emphasis)
Th ese are typical examples of inanimate entities associated with verbs that call for an animate subject, but they also exemplify the process of representation I mentioned earlier in my discussion of intertexts, by which reports and documentation of various kinds, instead of direct par- ticipants, are called upon to witness and make meaning of the events.
By 2012, very few metonymic expressions are used. It is under- standable that BP would feature far less frequently in the construction ORGANISATION FOR MEMBERS than it did in 2010. What is inter- esting is that it has not been replaced by the use of any other organisations in this whole-for-part way, and this refl ects the limited role that organ- isational statements of any kind are now playing in the BP story. PLACE FOR PERSON has stayed at about the same level, albeit low. Th e instances featured in the 2012 data set are “the State [estimates]”, “the city [is catch- ing up]” and “the City [expects]”, refl ecting the longer- term implications of the eff ects of the spill not on directly aff ected areas but those aff ected indirectly. Here the metonymic references are to North Dakota (state) and Williston, North Dakota (city) and London’s fi nancial centre (the City).
Th e category INSTRUMENT FOR PRODUCER is lower in 2012 than 2011, but, as in the previous year, helps demonstrate the increasing role of reporting texts mentioned in 2011 in the phrases “social media [has taken corporate responsibility]” and “the report [guides people]”.
In Summary
Key changes in the use of metonymy can be summarised as follows:
1. A drop in metonymic expressions over the timespan of the data, due largely to the decrease in the form BP FOR MEMBERS.
2. Metonymic expressions become more likely to be used in the contexts:
• INSTRUMENT FOR USER, especially in 2011 to refer to reports of various kinds.
• PLACE FOR PERSON where the places are increasingly distant from the Gulf States.
Th e fi ndings of the metonymy analysis provided additional evidence for the distancing of the story from its original sources on a number of dimensions—distance from BP, reliance on written accounts and the spa- tial distance of the geographical locations mentioned.