1、Antonomasia (換稱)In rhetoric, antonomasia is the substitution of any epithet or phrase with a proper name; the reverse process is also sometimes called antonomasia. The word derives from the Greek word antonomazein meaning “to name differently“. A frequent instance of antonomasia in the Late Middle A
2、ges and early Renaissance was the use of the term, “the Philosopher,“ to refer to Aristotle. A more recent example of the other form of antonomasia was the use in 1930s journalism of “Solons“ for “the legislators“, after the semi-legendary Solon, lawgiver of Athens.Another frequently encountered exa
3、mple is the phrase “Im no Croesus“, meaning “Im not a very rich person“.More examples: “Pelides“ or “the son of Peleus“ for Achilles. “the Stagirite“ for Aristotle. “the author of Paradise Lost“ for Milton. “the little corporal“ for Napoleon I. “Macedonias madman“ for Alexander the Great. “Urbi“ for
4、 To Rome. “The Iron Duke“ for the Duke of Wellington. “The Bard“ for William Shakespeare. “The Magpies“ for Newcastle United. “Old Blue Eyes“ for Frank Sinatra. “The Scottish play“ for Macbeth. “an Einstein“ for an intelligent person. “a Daniel“ for a wise judge. Zeugma (軛式修飾法)Zeugma (from the Greek
5、 word “, meaning “yoke“) is a figure of speech describing the joining of two or more parts of a sentence with a common verb or noun. A zeugma employs both ellipsis, the omission of words which are easily understood, and parallelism, the balance of several words or phrases. The result is a series of
6、similar phrases joined or yoked together by a common and implied noun or verb. In a modern sense, the zeugma has been classified as a synonym for syllepsis, a particular kind of zeugma, although there is a clear distinction between the two in classical treatises written on the subject. Henry Peacham
7、 praises the “delight of the ear” in the use of the zeugma in rhetoric, but stresses to avoid “too many clauses.” The zeugma is categorized according to the location and part of speech of the governing word.Pun (雙關語)A pun (also known as paronomasia) is a figure of speech which consists of a delibera
8、te confusion of similar words within a phrase or phrases for rhetorical effect, whether humorous or serious. A pun can rely on the assumed equivalency of multiple similar words (homonymy), of different shades of meaning of one word (polysemy), or of a literal meaning with a metaphor. Bad puns are so
9、metimes called “cheesy“. Walter Redfern (in Puns, Blackwell, London, 1984) succinctly said: “To pun is to treat homonyms as synonyms.“ For example, a pun is used in the sentence “There is nothing punny about bad puns.“ The pun takes place in the deliberate confusion of the implied word “funny“ by th
10、e substitution of the word “punny“, a homophone of “funny“. In order to be able to pun effectively it is necessary that a language must include homonyms which may readily be misrepresented as synonyms. Languages with complex gender or case structures tend not to facilitate this, although puns can be
11、 constructed in all languages with varying degrees of difficulty; that is, puns are said to be easy to construct in languages such as Chinese or English, but rarer in Russian.Oxymoron (矛盾修飾法 )An oxymoron (plural oxymora) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. Oxymoron
12、is a Greek term derived from oxy (“sharp“) and moros (“dull“). Thus the word oxymoron is itself an oxymoron. Oxymora are a proper subset of the expressions called contradictions in terms. What distinguishes oxymora from other paradoxes and contradictions is that they are used intentionally, for rhet
13、orical effect, and the contradiction is only apparent, as the combination of terms provides a novel expression of some concept, such as “cruel to be kind“. The most common form of oxymoron involves an adjective-noun combination. For example, the following line from Tennysons Idylls of the King contains two oxymora: “And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true“ Oxymora can also be wooden irons in that they are in violation of the Principle of contradiction which asserts that nothing can be thought if it contains contradictory characteristics, predicates, attributes, or qualities.
