Lars Eighner's Homepage Writers' Workshop FAQ: Q. What is the difference between zeugma and syllepsis?

Q. What is the difference between zeugma and syllepsis?

Q. Modern American dictionaries allow "zeugma" to have two sense which Fowler distinguished. These are Fowler's definitions (and also his examples).

Syllepsis:

The figure in which a word or phrase applies in DIFFERENT senses to another part of the sentence.

Examples: Miss Bolo went home in a flood of tears and a sedan chair. He lost his hat and his temper.

Zeugma:

The figure (or perhaps an error) in which a word or phrase appears to apply to two or more other parts of the sentence, but cannot properly refer to at least one of them.

Examples: (On being informed of an attack in which the native bearers were killed and the luggage looted) "What? Killed the boys and the luggage?" "with weeping eyes and hearts"

In syllepsis, both expressions would be perfectly correct and unimpressive if in separate sentences: She went home in a flood of tears and She went home in a sedan chair are both perfectly normal sentences. What makes the syllepsis is joining them so that "went home in" has to change senses radically within the same sentence. She went home in a flood of tears and a sedan chair requires "a flood of tears" to be taken figuratively and "a sedan chair" to be taken literally. "In" means to be physically located within, and that is the sense it has with "a sedan chair." But also it can refer to circumstances on a more abstract level as it does with "a flood of tears."

The effect of syllepsis is usually humorous. The sudden change of sense seems to appeal to whatever sense appreciates double meanings such as puns. Syllepsis is appropriate to humor and satire and to any writing in a light, ironic tone.

Zeugma generally will be taken as an error, although it is sometimes used as a figure in poetry. In the first example ("What? Killed the boys and the luggage?"), the raiders have killed the bearers and looted the luggage. They did not kill the luggage. In the second ("with weeping eyes and hearts"), we suppose what is meant is "with weeping eyes and saddened hearts." The hearts do not weep.

In some cases it will not be clear whether zeugma is intentional or not. For example: "She wore bargain-basement clothes and diamonds." Does this imply that there is such a thing as bargain-basement diamonds? Or did she wear diamonds from Tiffany's with bargain-basement gowns? So we need to be alert to zeugma as a possible error. A careful writer would recognize the zeugma, decide which meaning he or she wanted, and then express the idea in a new, unambiguous sentence.

When used intentionally, as in the response to raiders' attack, zeugma indicates the speaker is shocked almost to the point of incoherence. Likewise, when zeugma occurs in poetry it seems to imply some emotion so powerful as to transcend syntax. This seems to be the intention of "with weeping eyes and hearts."