Help me identify a figure of speech?

[octavia]

Hello,

I really hope someone can help me out, I'm trying to remember the exact name of a particular figure of speech, and it's really driving me crazy. The figure consists in using the consequence, result, logical next step, etc. of the 'action' as a way of implying it without having to mention it at all. For instance:

"As she was staring at the halls for the last time [...], her beloved mother's shawl was showing the stains of mascara that she had always [...]" (I'm paraphrasing here)

... instead of saying 'she was crying'.

Thanks.

[BrookieCookie777]

Wow. That's a toughie Octavia. Try the Grammer for Grasshoppers board, too. They tend to be some pretty cool smarty arties over there who might be able to help.

God bless and Welcome To AW!

[octavia]

Thank you!! I'll post it over there; I know myself and I tend to obsess about these kind of things.

[Berry]

Sounds like synecdoche to me: The whole is represented by naming one of its parts.

[Berry]

Oh, and if you want to waste a couple of hours click on this link: http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm

[octavia]

Sounds like synecdoche to me: The whole is represented by naming one of its parts.
Thanks but it's definitely not a synecdoche. Synecdoque has a 'part-whole' criteria. The figure I'm looking for is closer to the Metonymy (when the direct/indirect effect is substituted by the cause), but there's another term for this figure. My head hurts.

[ErylRavenwell]

A denominatio?

[octavia]

What is a denominatio?

[ErylRavenwell]

What is a denominatio?

A metonymy.

See if that link helps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

[octavia]

Yeah, it is a metonymy, I assumed there was another term for this particular class of metonymy--I still do, grr. Thank you for your help. Good night.

[maestrowork]

Wow, all these terms make my head hurt. I only know rhetoric/figure of speech when I see it (or use). I have no idea what they're called.

But is this really a figure of speech, instead of simple "show vs. tell"? (Show the stains instead of telling us "she was crying"?) To me, that's an inference -- a logical deduction.

Looking through the wikipedia definitions, sounds like metalepsis to me: cause and effect. Stains of mascara = running mascara = crying...

[Dawnstorm]

But is this really a figure of speech, instead of simple "show vs. tell"? (Show the stains instead of telling us "she was crying"?) To me, that's an inference -- a logical deduction.

I'd agree with this. Everything in your shawl-sentence can be taken literally. I'd argue it's a literal image used for effect.

[octavia]

Not really, probably that wasn't a good example. The idea is to use events and images that imply that an action has occurred and purposely omit ANY reference to those actions. For instance, in Robbe-Grillet's novel, La Jalousie, the main character/voice/narrator (3rd person) is never mentioned, and neither are his actions or interactions, however, his presence, thoughts, words, actions, etc. are implied by the events and descriptions he narrates. But that's a narrative technique, I assumed there was a particular figure of speech based or equivalent to this technique.

[maestrowork]

I think there's a difference between a specific figure of speech than the kind of narrative technique you mention. To me, it really is show vs. tell or indirection/redirection. I guess there is a particular related figure of speech -- for example, to say something without saying it: apophasis.