This post is part of a series on rhetorical devices. For other posts in the series, please click this link. For a comprehensive, step-by-step overview of how to write a speech outline, please see this post.
Device: Syllepsis
Origin: From the Greek σύλληψις (sillipsis) meaning to take together.
In plain English: When one word—often a verb—is used in two different ways, or applied to two different things.
Effect:
- It’s a clever play on words that surprises and thus catches our attention.
Notes:
- In its simplest form, syllepsis is a pun.
- According to Mark Forsyth in The Elements of Eloquence, the advantages of syllepsis are also its failings. “Syllepsis makes the reader astonished and go back to check what the word was and how it’s working now. It’s terribly witty, but it’s terribly witty in a look-at-me-aren’t-I-witty sort of way. There’s a sense in which it’s a cheap thrill.”
- It is closely related to zeugma.
Examples:
“Vegetarianism is harmless enough, though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness.”
— Sir Robert Hutchinson, Address to the British Medical Association, 1930
———
“It’s a small apartment. I’ve barely enough room to lay my hat and a few friends.”
— Dorothy Parker
———
— Anti-war slogan associated with the American counter-culture in the 1960s
———
— The Rolling Stones, Honky Tonk Woman
———
— Alanis Morissette, Head Over Feet
———
— Margaret Atwood, Rules for Writers, The Guardian, 22 February 2010
6 Replies to “Rhetorical Devices: Syllepsis”
I’m not sure if “She blew my nose and then she blew my mind” is a syllepsis.
A more plausible candidate is: “She blew my nose and then my mind.”
Thanks for the comment, but I respectfully disagree. It is a classic example of syllepsis—specifically, a type of zeugma. The double use of the verb “blew” across two very different objects (nose vs. mind) creates the clever, jarring effect typical of syllepsis. The repetition of the verb does not negate the syllepsis.
According to a Brigham Young University website, syllepsis is a form of ellipsis. Because the sentence “She blew my nose and then she blew my mind” does not involve ellipsis and because I was influenced by the kind of thinking exemplified by the Brigham Young website (thinking which strikes me as fairly widespread), I thought that the sentence in question did not involve syllepsis. (I think that Mark Forsyth’s associating syllepsis with conciseness is predicated on his thinking that syllepsis is a form of ellipsis.)
Because linguist Arnold Zwicky associates both syllepsis and zeugma with ellipsis, he proposes that the Rolling Stones sentence (which does not involve ellipsis) be called a zeugmoid. I sympathise with this proposal.
Thanks for the comment and your take, Alex. With respect, I disagree.
Syllepsis might be related to ellipsis (because both involve omission in different ways) but the ways in which they function are different.
Ellipsis involves omitting words that can be understood from context, usually to avoid repetition. For example: “I like coffee and she [likes] tea.” Everyone understands that the omitted word is “likes”.
Syllepsis, on the other hand, is a figure of speech where one word (usually a verb) is used with two other words, but in different senses, one literal and one figurative. The word applies grammatically to both, but the meanings are quite different. But no words are omitted.
So, “She blew my nose and then she blew my mind” is a syllepsis. The verb “blew” is used twice with different objects: “blew my nose” (literal – clearing nasal passages) and “blew my mind” (figurative – amazed or impressed me).
I suspect you can’t get no satisfaction from my previous response then!