User:KBB24/sandbox

Metonymy can be further explained using the concept of an enthymeme (a syllogism without the statement of the minor premise). Without the syllogism’s minor premise being stated outright, we can assume the connection between the major premise and the conclusion of an enthymeme using logic and cultural understanding of the way things relate to each other. Enthymeme concludes that one thing is related to another without saying why, and is especially relevant to metonymy in the cases where the conclusion is expected to be understood because of cultural context. Bredin tells readers that metonymy depends completely on the “conventionally known and accepted” way that objects relate to each other. Bredin uses the example of a racecar driver nicknamed “Wheels." When a syllogism is created, it connects a statement with its conclusion using an intermediate concept that is implied. Similarly, metonymy connects two objects with an implied intermediate concept.

Bredin uses the example of a racecar driver nicknamed “Wheels." The concept that equivocates to the implied minor premise in an enthymeme is the concept of “the car”. The wheels are part of the car that the racecar driver uses. This connection is obvious because people are familiar with cars, their parts, and the function of a racecar driver. It relates the two objects (“wheels” and “racecar driver”) by labeling one as the other (labeling the “racecar driver” “Wheels” as a nickname) and implies the obvious concept (“the car”) between the two without stating it outright.