Metonymy

Last updated
The Pentagon (pictured), the headquarters building of the United States Department of Defense, is a common metonymy used to refer to the U.S. military and its leadership. The Pentagon US Department of Defense building.jpg
The Pentagon (pictured), the headquarters building of the United States Department of Defense, is a common metonymy used to refer to the U.S. military and its leadership.

Metonymy ( /mɛˈtɒnəmi/ ) [1] is a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that thing or concept. [2]

Contents

Etymology

The words metonymy and metonym come from the Greek μετωνυμία, metōnymía, "a change of name", from μετά, metá, "after, post, beyond", and -ωνυμία, -ōnymía, a suffix that names figures of speech, from ὄνυμα, ónyma or ὄνομα, ónoma, "name". [3]

Background

Metonymy and related figures of speech are common in everyday speech and writing. Synecdoche and metalepsis are considered specific types of metonymy. Polysemy, the capacity for a word or phrase to have multiple meanings, sometimes results from relations of metonymy. Both metonymy and metaphor involve the substitution of one term for another. [4] In metaphor, this substitution is based on some specific analogy between two things, whereas in metonymy the substitution is based on some understood association or contiguity. [5] [6]

American literary theorist Kenneth Burke considers metonymy as one of four "master tropes": metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. He discusses them in particular ways in his book A Grammar of Motives . Whereas Roman Jakobson argued that the fundamental dichotomy in trope was between metaphor and metonymy, Burke argues that the fundamental dichotomy is between irony and synecdoche, which he also describes as the dichotomy between dialectic and representation, or again between reduction and perspective. [7]

In addition to its use in everyday speech, metonymy is a figure of speech in some poetry and in much rhetoric. Greek and Latin scholars of rhetoric made significant contributions to the study of metonymy.

Meaning relationships

Metonymy takes many different forms.

Synecdoche uses a part to refer to the whole, or the whole to refer to the part. [8] [9] [10]

Metalepsis uses a familiar word or a phrase in a new context. [11] For example, "lead foot" may describe a fast driver; lead is heavy, and a heavy foot on the accelerator causes a vehicle to go fast. [12] The figure of speech is a "metonymy of a metonymy". [11]

Many cases of polysemy originate as metonyms: for example "chicken" meaning the meat as well as the animal; "crown" for the object, as well as the institution. [13] [14]

Metaphor and metonymy

Metonymy works by the contiguity (association) between two concepts, whereas the term "metaphor" is based upon their analogous similarity. When people use metonymy, they do not typically wish to transfer qualities from one referent to another as they do with metaphor. [15] There is nothing press-like about reporters or crown-like about a monarch, but "the press" and "the crown" are both common metonyms.

Some uses of figurative language may be understood as both metonymy and metaphor; for example, the relationship between "a crown" and a "king" could be interpreted metaphorically (i.e., the king, like his gold crown, could be seemingly stiff yet ultimately malleable, over-ornate, and consistently immobile). However, in the phrase "lands belonging to the crown", the word "crown" is definitely a metonymy. The reason is that monarchs by and large indeed wear a crown, physically. In other words, there is a pre-existent link between "crown" and "monarchy". On the other hand, when Ghil'ad Zuckermann argues that the Israeli language is a "phoenicuckoo cross with some magpie characteristics", he is definitely using metaphors. [16] :4 There is no physical link between a language and a bird. The reason the metaphors "phoenix" and "cuckoo" are used is that on the one hand hybridic "Israeli" is based on Hebrew, which, like a phoenix, rises from the ashes; and on the other hand, hybridic "Israeli" is based on Yiddish, which like a cuckoo, lays its egg in the nest of another bird, tricking it to believe that it is its own egg. Furthermore, the metaphor "magpie" is employed because, according to Zuckermann, hybridic "Israeli" displays the characteristics of a magpie, "stealing" from languages such as Arabic and English. [16] :4–6

Two examples using the term "fishing" help clarify the distinction. [17] The phrase "to fish pearls" uses metonymy, drawing from "fishing" the idea of taking things from the ocean. What is carried across from "fishing fish" to "fishing pearls" is the domain of metonymy. In contrast, the metaphorical phrase "fishing for information" transfers the concept of fishing into a new domain. If someone is "fishing" for information, we do not imagine that the person is anywhere near the ocean; rather, we transpose elements of the action of fishing (waiting, hoping to catch something that cannot be seen, probing) into a new domain (a conversation). Thus, metaphor works by presenting a target set of meanings and using them to suggest a similarity between items, actions, or events in two domains, whereas metonymy calls up or references a specific domain (here, removing items from the sea).

Sometimes, metaphor and metonymy may both be at work in the same figure of speech, or one could interpret a phrase metaphorically or metonymically. For example, the phrase "lend me your ear" could be analyzed in a number of ways. One could imagine the following interpretations:

It is difficult to say which analysis above most closely represents the way a listener interprets the expression, and it is possible that different listeners analyse the phrase in different ways, or even in different ways at different times. Regardless, all three analyses yield the same interpretation. Thus, metaphor and metonymy, though different in their mechanism, work together seamlessly. [18]

Examples

Here are some broad kinds of relationships where metonymy is frequently used:

Places and institutions

A place is often used as a metonym for a government or other official institutions, for example, Brussels for the institutions of the European Union, The Hague for the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court, Nairobi for the government of Kenya, the White House and Capitol Hill for the executive and legislative branches, respectively, of the United States federal government, or Foggy Bottom for the U.S. State Department. Other names of addresses or locations can become convenient shorthand names in international diplomacy, allowing commentators and insiders to refer impersonally and succinctly to foreign ministries with impressive and imposing names as (for example) the Quai d'Orsay, the Wilhelmstrasse, or the Porte.

A place can represent an entire industry: for instance, Wall Street, used metonymically, can stand for the entire U.S. financial and corporate banking sector. [22] Common nouns and phrases can also be metonyms: "red tape" can stand for bureaucracy, whether or not that bureaucracy uses actual red tape to bind documents. In Commonwealth realms, The Crown is a metonym for the state in all its aspects. [23]

In recent Israeli usage, the term "Balfour" came to refer to the Israeli Prime Minister's residence, located on Balfour Street in Jerusalem, to all the streets around it where demonstrations frequently take place, and also to Prime Minister Bennett and his family who live in the residence. [24]

Rhetoric in ancient history

Western culture studied poetic language and deemed it to be rhetoric. A. Al-Sharafi supports this concept in his book Textual Metonymy, "Greek rhetorical scholarship at one time became entirely poetic scholarship." [25] Philosophers and rhetoricians thought that metaphors were the primary figurative language used in rhetoric. Metaphors served as a better means to attract the audience's attention because the audience had to read between the lines in order to get an understanding of what the speaker was trying to say. Others did not think of metonymy as a good rhetorical method because metonymy did not involve symbolism. Al-Sharafi explains, "This is why they undermined practical and purely referential discourse because it was seen as banal and not containing anything new, strange or shocking." [25]

Greek scholars contributed to the definition of metonymy. For example, Isocrates worked to define the difference between poetic language and non-poetic language by saying that, "Prose writers are handicapped in this regard because their discourse has to conform to the forms and terms used by the citizens and to those arguments which are precise and relevant to the subject-matter." In other words, Isocrates proposes here that metaphor is a distinctive feature of poetic language because it conveys the experience of the world afresh and provides a kind of defamiliarisation in the way the citizens perceive the world. [25] Democritus described metonymy by saying, "Metonymy, that is the fact that words and meaning change." [25] Aristotle discussed different definitions of metaphor, regarding one type as what we know to be metonymy today.

Latin scholars also had an influence on metonymy. The treatise Rhetorica ad Herennium states metonymy as, "the figure which draws from an object closely akin or associated an expression suggesting the object meant, but not called by its own name." [25] The author describes the process of metonymy to us saying that we first figure out what a word means. We then figure out that word's relationship with other words. We understand and then call the word by a name that it is associated with. "Perceived as such then metonymy will be a figure of speech in which there is a process of abstracting a relation of proximity between two words to the extent that one will be used in place of another." [25] Cicero viewed metonymy as more of a stylish rhetorical method and described it as being based on words, but motivated by style.[ citation needed ]

Jakobson, structuralism, and realism

Metonymy became important in French structuralism through the work of Roman Jakobson. In his 1956 essay "The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles", Jakobson relates metonymy to the linguistic practice of [syntagmatic] combination and to the literary practice of realism. He explains:

The primacy of the metaphoric process in the literary schools of Romanticism and symbolism has been repeatedly acknowledged, but it is still insufficiently realized that it is the predominance of metonymy which underlies and actually predetermines the so-called 'realistic' trend, which belongs to an intermediary stage between the decline of Romanticism and the rise of symbolism and is opposed to both. Following the path of contiguous relationships, the realistic author metonymically digresses from the plot to the atmosphere and from the characters to the setting in space and time. He is fond of synecdochic details. In the scene of Anna Karenina's suicide Tolstoy's artistic attention is focused on the heroine's handbag; and in War and Peace the synecdoches "hair on the upper lip" or "bare shoulders" are used by the same writer to stand for the female characters to whom these features belong. [26]

Jakobson's theories were important for Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and others. [27]

Dreams can use metonyms. [28]

Metonyms and art

Metonyms can also be wordless. For example, Roman Jakobson [29] argued that cubist art relied heavily on nonlinguistic metonyms, while surrealist art relied more on metaphors.

Lakoff and Turner [30] argued that all words are metonyms: “Words stand for the concepts they express.” Some artists have used actual words as metonyms in their paintings. For example, Miró’s 1925 painting "Photo: This is the Color of My Dreams" has the word “photo” to represent the image of his dreams. This painting comes from a series of paintings called peintures-poésies (paintings-poems) which reflect Miró's interest in dreams and the subconscious [31] and the relationship of words, images, and thoughts. Picasso, in his 1911 painting "Pipe Rack and Still Life on Table" inserts the word “Ocean” rather than painting an ocean: These paintings by Miró and Picasso are, in a sense, the reverse of a rebus: the word stands for the picture, instead of the picture standing for the word.

See also

Related Research Articles

Metaphor Figure of speech marked by implicit comparison

A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different ideas. Metaphors are often compared with other types of figurative language, such as antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy and simile. One of the most commonly cited examples of a metaphor in English literature comes from the "All the world's a stage" monologue from As You Like It:

George Lakoff American linguist

George Philip Lakoff is an American cognitive linguist and philosopher, best known for his thesis that people's lives are significantly influenced by the conceptual metaphors they use to explain complex phenomena.

Synonym Words or phrases having the same meaning

A synonym is a word, morpheme, or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word, morpheme, or phrase in the same language. For example, the words begin, start, commence, and initiate are all synonyms of one another; they are synonymous. The standard test for synonymy is substitution: one form can be replaced by another in a sentence without changing its meaning. Words are considered synonymous in only one particular sense: for example, long and extended in the context long time or extended time are synonymous, but long cannot be used in the phrase extended family. Synonyms with exactly the same meaning share a seme or denotational sememe, whereas those with inexactly similar meanings share a broader denotational or connotational sememe and thus overlap within a semantic field. The former are sometimes called cognitive synonyms and the latter, near-synonyms, plesionyms or poecilonyms.

In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another. An example of this is the understanding of quantity in terms of directionality or the understanding of time in terms of money.

Figure of speech Change of the expected pattern of words

A figure of speech or rhetorical figure is a word or phrase that entails an intentional deviation from ordinary language use in order to produce a rhetorical effect. Figures of speech are traditionally classified into schemes, which vary the ordinary sequence or pattern of words, and tropes, where words are made to carry a meaning other than what they ordinarily signify.

Synecdoche Use of a term for a part of something to refer to the whole or vice versa

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa.

Literal and figurative language is a distinction within some fields of language analysis, in particular stylistics, rhetoric, and semantics.

In rhetoric, a rhetorical device, persuasive device, or stylistic device is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading them towards considering a topic from a perspective, using language designed to encourage or provoke an emotional display of a given perspective or action. Rhetorical devices evoke an emotional response in the audience through use of language, but that is not their primary purpose. Rather, by doing so, they seek to make a position or argument more compelling than it would otherwise be.

In literature and writing, stylistically elements are the use of any of a variety of techniques to give an auxiliary meaning, ideas, or feeling to the literalism or written.

Endophora refers to the phenomenon of expressions that derive their reference from something within the surrounding text (endophors).

Semantic change is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.

Owing to its origin in ancient Greece and Rome, English rhetorical theory frequently employs Greek and Latin words as terms of art. This page explains commonly used rhetorical terms in alphabetical order. The brief definitions here are intended to serve as a quick reference rather than an in-depth discussion. For more information, click the terms.

A literary trope is the use of figurative language, via word, phrase or an image, for artistic effect such as using a figure of speech. The word trope has also come to be used for describing commonly recurring literary and rhetorical devices, motifs or clichés in creative works.

Differentiation in semantics is defined by Löbner (2002) as a meaning shift reached by "adding concepts to the original concepts". His example is James Joyce is hard to understand, where understand is differentiated from "perceiving the meaning" to "interpret the text meaning".

<i>Metaphors We Live By</i> 1980 book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

Metaphors We Live By is a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published in 1980. The book suggests metaphor is a tool that enables people to use what they know about their direct physical and social experiences to understand more abstract things like work, time, mental activity and feelings.

Metaphoric criticism is one school of rhetorical analysis used in English and speech communication studies. Scholars employing metaphoric criticism analyze texts by locating metaphors within texts and evaluating those metaphors in an effort to better understand ways in which authors appeal to their audiences.

In cognitive linguistics, the invariance principle is a simple attempt to explain similarities and differences between how an idea is understood in "ordinary" usage, and how it is understood when used as a conceptual metaphor.

In linguistics, the conduit metaphor is a dominant class of figurative expressions used when discussing communication itself (metalanguage). It operates whenever people speak or write as if they "insert" their mental contents into "containers" whose contents are then "extracted" by listeners and readers. Thus, language is viewed as a "conduit" conveying mental content between people.

Metaphorand metonymy are two fundamental opposite poles along which a discourse with human language is developed. It has been argued that the two poles of similarity and contiguity are fundamental ones along which the human brain is structured; in the study of human language the two poles have been called metaphor and metonymy, while in the study of the unconscious they have been called condensation and displacement. In linguistics, they are connected to the paradigmatic and syntagmatic poles.

References

Notes

  1. "metonymy". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2017-06-17.
  2. "Metonymy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-webster.com. 2012-08-31. Retrieved 2013-08-13.
  3. Welsh, Alfred Hux; James Mickleborough Greenwood (1893). Studies in English Grammar: A Comprehensive Course for Grammar Schools, High Schools, and Academies. New York City: Silver Burdett. p.  222.
  4. Dirven, René; Pörings, Ralf (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN   978-3-11-017373-4.
  5. Wilber, Ken (2000). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality . Shambhala Publications. ISBN   978-0-8348-2108-8.
  6. Tompkins, Penny; James Lawley. "Metonymy and Part-Whole Relationships". www.cleanlanguage.co.uk. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  7. Burke, Kenneth. (1945) A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall Inc. pp. 503–09.
  8. Dubois, Jacques; Mu, Groupe; Edeline, Francis; Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie (1981). A General Rhetoric. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN   978-0-8018-2326-8.
  9. Shaheen, Aaron (2020-06-25). Great War Prostheses in American Literature and Culture. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-885778-5.
  10. "Metonymy - Examples and Definition of Metonymy". Literary Devices. 2020-08-12. Retrieved 2021-03-22.
  11. 1 2 Bloom, Harold (2003). A Map of Misreading. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-516221-9.
  12. "metalepsis". Silva Rhetoricae. Archived from the original on 2013-08-16. Retrieved 2013-12-05.
  13. Panther, Klaus-Uwe; Radden, Günter (1999-01-01). Metonymy in Language and Thought. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN   978-90-272-2356-2.
  14. Conference, Rhetoric Society of America; Smith, Michelle Christine; Warnick, Barbara (2010). The Responsibilities of Rhetoric. Waveland Press. ISBN   978-1-57766-623-3.
  15. Chandler, Daniel. "Rhetorical Tropes". Semiotics for Beginners. Aberystwyth University. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  16. 1 2 Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2020). Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199812790.
  17. Example drawn from Dirven, 1996
  18. Geeraerts, Dirk (2002). "The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions" (PDF). In R. Dirven and R. Pörings (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 435–465. ISBN   978-3-11-017373-4 . Retrieved 30 November 2013.
  19. Blechner, M. J. (2018) The Mindbrain and Dreams. New York: Routledge.
  20. Lakoff and Johnson 1999, p. 203
  21. Lakoff and Johnson 1999, p. 245
  22. Gibbs Jr., Raymond W. (1999). "Speaking and Thinking with Metonymy", in Pattern and Process: A Whiteheadian Perspective on Linguistics, ed. Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 61–76. ISBN   978-9027223562.
  23. Jackson, Michael D (2013), The Crown and Canadian Federalism, Toronto: Dundurn Press, p. 20, ISBN   9781459709898
  24. "Thousands protest at Balfour, call on police not to repeat 'terror'" - a news item in The Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2020.
  25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Al-Sharafi, Abdul Gabbar (2004). Textual Metonymy: A Semiotic Approach.
  26. Jakobson, Roman (1956). "The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles". In Dirven, René; Pörings, Ralf (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (revised ed.). de Gruyter. pp. 41–48. ISBN   9783110173741 . Retrieved 14 May 2016.
  27. Dirven, René (2003). "Metonymy and Metaphor: Different Mental Strategies of Conceptualisation". In Dirven, René; Pörings, Ralf (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (revised ed.). de Gruyter. pp. 75–112. ISBN   9783110173741 . Retrieved 14 May 2016.
  28. Blechner, M. J. (2018) The Mindbrain and Dreams: An Exploration of Thinking, Dreaming, and Artistic Creation. New York: Routledge.
  29. Jakobson, R. (1971) Selected Writings: Word and Language, Vol 2. The Hague: Mouton.
  30. Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. (1989) More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  31. Rowell, M. (1976) Joan Miró: Peinture – Poésie. Paris: Éditions de la différence.

Bibliography

Further reading