Explanation
Syllepsis links a single expression to several constituents even though it does not fit each one in the same grammatical or semantic way. In grammatical syllepsis, agreement may follow only one of several controllers; in semantic use, the shared word requires different senses. Historical terminology overlaps with zeugma and traditions draw the boundary differently. Every analysis must therefore state its definition. The conceptual movement follows the shared expression into each relation, determines the fit required there, and examines whether the resulting inequality functions as compression, wit, norm violation, or regular construction.
Movement of thought
1. The single overt expression and all constituents depending on it are identified. 2. Grammatical features and required semantic reading are established for each relation. 3. Mismatches in agreement, construction, and meaning are described separately. 4. Historical norm, genre, and context determine whether the tension is rhetorically marked. 5. The chosen distinction from zeugma is stated explicitly and applied consistently.
Scientific use case
Rhetoric, history of grammar, stylistics, and translation studies examine syllepsis at the boundary of agreement and polysemy. Because terminology varies, evidence and definitional choice must be documented separately.
Example
One shared verb first combines with a concrete object and then with an abstract obligation, requiring two different readings. Its single overt form keeps both relations visibly joined.
Counterexample
Ordinary coordination with one verb used in the same form and meaning is not syllepsis. Regular notional agreement should also not count as a figure when the language licenses it without perceptible tension.
Distinction
Distinguish syllepsis from zeugma only within an explicit terminology because the traditions overlap. In a narrower use, syllepsis often foregrounds grammatical mismatch and zeugma semantically unequal attachments.
Effect on thought and perception
Syllepsis compresses several syntactic or semantic relations into one form. Unequal fit can create surprise, humour, and heightened attention to grammatical expectation.
Resonance
One expression reaches simultaneously into two different relations and changes conceptually in each. Its visible unity sustains a double grammatical or semantic tension.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Syllepse“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-134-026. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-134-026The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Bullinger documents two uses of Syllepsis in his 1898 classification. On p.296 the operation combines different senses in a single occurrence of an expression. On p.701 he treats agreement guided by the intended idea rather than solely by grammatical form, and relates that discussion to zeugma. These are distinct diagnostic problems, even though they share a historical heading. The broad Atlas profile must specify whether a particular instance concerns semantic divergence, grammatical concord or both. The passages support that distinction but do not yet establish a separate concept for this ID against the neighbouring Syllepsis profile. The current English label Syllepse also remains an editorial question: it is not the heading used in this inspected witness. This revision neither treats the two spellings as proof of different concepts nor silently changes the canonical lemma.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Run separate tests for grammar and meaning. In the original example “He lost the key and his patience”, the syntax remains serviceable while the verb receives different readings. This is not, by itself, a disagreement in grammatical concord. The two Atlas IDs require an explicit editorial distinction before their overlapping scope can be presented as settled.