Metonymy and related figures of speech are common in everyday speech and writing. Greek and Latin scholars of rhetoric made significant contributions to the study of metonymy. Unsourced material may roman jakobson on realism in art pdf challenged and removed. Sometimes an absolute distinction is made between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche.

When the distinction is made, it is the following: when “A” is used to refer to “B”, it is a synecdoche if A is a component of B or if B is a component of A, and a metonym if A is commonly associated with B but not part of its whole or a whole of its part. Australia votes” is also a synecdoche because Australia is a whole of which the people who voted are a part. On the other hand, “The White House said” is metonymy, but not synecdoche, for the president and his staff, because, although the White House is associated with the president and his staff, the building is not a part of the people. Metalepsis is a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase from figurative speech is used in a new context.

The new figure of speech refers to an existing one. The use of “lead foot” to describe a person follows the intermediate substitution of “lead” for “heavy”. The figure of speech is a “metonymy of a metonymy”. Other cases where the meaning is polysemous, however, may turn out to be more metaphorical, e. When people use metonymy, they do not typically wish to transfer qualities from one referent to another as they do with metaphor. There is nothing press-like about reporters or crown-like about a monarch, but “the press” and “the crown” are both common metonyms. Two examples using the term “fishing” help clarify the distinction.

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. Sometimes, metaphor and metonymy may both be at work in the same figure of speech, or one could interpret a phrase metaphorically or metonymically. Then the speaker has temporary possession of the listener’s ear, so the listener has granted the speaker temporary control over what the listener hears. We then interpret the phrase “lend me your ear” metaphorically to mean that the speaker wants the listener to grant the speaker temporary control over what the listener hears. It is difficult to say which analyses 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. Timbuktu,” usually means a place or idea is too far away or mysterious. The pen is mightier than the sword. Product for process: This is a type of metonymy where the product of the activity stands for the activity itself.

Punctuation marks often stand metonymically for a meaning expressed by the punctuation mark. A part of something is often used for the whole, as when people refer to “head” of cattle or assistants are referred to as “hands. Also, the whole of something is used for a part, as when people refer to a municipal employee as “the council” or police officers as “the law”. Greek rhetorical scholarship at one time became entirely poetic scholarship. 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. Greek scholars contributed to the definition of metonymy. 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. Metonymy, that is the fact that words and meaning change. Latin scholars also had an influence on metonymy.

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.

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. New York: Prentice Hall Inc. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions”. Lakoff and Johnson 1999, p.