The US Senate will make linguistics history today. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell actually brought to the floor a bill based on a linguistic trope called "metonymy." The bill also makes history by trying to censure an ad. But the most "damning" part of the censure is not what is in the ad, but what is in the heads of people who use the metonymy trope.
Here's an example of how metonymy works. It is a mental operation. If you say, "The US invasion toppled Saddam Hussein," you mean it toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The Leader stands for the Institution he or she leads. In a frame containing both a leader of a government and the government, the Leader can stand for the Government.
This metonymy works for generals as well. A general in uniform reporting to Congress can be seen simply as himself. But if you use the Leader-for-Institution metonymy, you can see the general as standing for the entire armed forces. Thus, an attack on the general can be seen, if you use the metonymy, as an attack on the entire military. The use of the metonymy isn't automatic in this case. People can use it or not. If not, an attack on the general is just an attack on the general.
The Republicans' own use of this metonymy is coming up in the Senate today. It is in a Republican bill to censure the use of the metonymy -- by the Republicans themselves!
If this seems strange, it is. But here is the situation.
MoveOn.org published their "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad last week, pointing out deceptions by the general that would result in keeping the troops in Iraq, keeping them in danger of maiming or death. The general's deception, MoveOn indirectly pointed out, would result in harm to the troops, and so Petraeus' deception amounted to a betrayal of his own men, as well as a betrayal of the trust of the American people. Paul Begala, a moderate Democrat recently expressed his agreement with MoveOn. MoveOn did not say anything against the troops. On the contrary, MoveOn expressed concern for the safety of the troops.
Ari Fleisher's Freedom's Watch -- the White House's swift-boating group -- used the metonymy in an attack on MoveOn. Bradley A. Blakeman, president of Freedom's Watch, said "To question the character and patriotism of brave men and women who combat terrorism everyday is too much, it's in poor taste and it will not go unchallenged." MoveOn's questioning of the character and patriotism of a general caught in a deception adversely affecting the lives of his own troops was, via the Freedom's Watch metonymy, turned in to an attack on the troops. Who used the metonymy? Not MoveOn, but the Republicans attacking MoveOn.
Now the scene moves to the US Senate. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has introduced a bill saying the following:
To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.
It goes on to condemn MoveOn as the source of the "attacks." Now how did "and all the members of the United States Armed Forces" get in there? By metonymy! A metonymy used not by MoveOn, but by Senator Cornyn himself! The bill is actually condemning the people who wrote and introduced it, Cornyn and Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
This is indeed a red-letter day for the Senate. All linguists, English teachers, communications experts, and students of language nationwide should hereafter celebrate September 20 as Metonymy Day. Indeed, I recommend that some member of the Senate introduce that declaration into an amendment to some bill or other.