Metonymy.docx

1、MetonymyMetonymyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn rhetoric, metonymy (IPA: /mtnmi/) is the use of a word for a concept or object associated with the concept/object originally denoted by the word.Metonymy may be instructively contrasted with metaphor. Both figures involve the substitution of on

2、e term for another. In metaphor, this substitution is based on similarity, while in metonymy, the substitution is based on contiguity.Metaphor example: That man is a pig (using pig instead of unhygienic person. An unhygienic person is like a pig, but there is no contiguity between the two).Metonymy

3、example: The White House supports the bill (using White House instead of President. The President is not like the White House, but there is contiguity between them).It uses closely related subjectsIn cognitive linguistics, metonymy refers to the use of a single characteristic to identify a more comp

4、lex entity and is one of the basic characteristics of cognition. It is common for people to take one well-understood or easy-to-perceive aspect of something and use that aspect to stand either for the thing as a whole or for some other aspect or part of it.Metonymy is attested in cognitive processes

5、 underlying language (e.g. the infants association of the nipple with milk). Objects that appear strongly in a single context emerge as cognitive labels for the whole concept, thus fueling linguistic labels such as sweat to refer to hard work that might produce it.The word metonymy is derived from t

6、he Greek (metnymia) a change of name, from - (meta-) beyond/changed and - (-onymia), a suffix used to name figures of speech, from (onoma), name (OED).Metonymy compared to metaphor in cognitive science and linguisticsMetaphor and metonymy are both figures of speech where one word may be used in plac

7、e of another. However, especially in cognitive science and linguistics, the two figures of speech work very differently. Roman Jakobson argued that they represent two fundamentally different ways of processing language; he noted that different forms of aphasia affected the ability to interpret the t

8、wo figures differently (Jakobson, Roman (2002), Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Disturbances, written at Cambridge, MA, in Linda Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston, On Language, Harvard University Press, ).Metonymy works by the contiguity (association) between two concepts, whereas metaphor

9、 works by the similarity between them. 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

10、 examples using the term fishing help make the distinction better (example drawn from Dirven, 1996). 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 usage and the assoc

11、iations with the ocean and boats, but we understand the phrase in spite of rather than because of the literal meaning of fishing: we know you do not use a fishing rod or net to get pearls and we know that pearls are not, and do not originate from, fish.In contrast, the metaphorical phrase fishing fo

12、r information, transfers the concept of fishing into a new domain. If someone is fishing for information, we do not imagine that he or she is anywhere near the ocean, rather we transfer elements of the action of fishing (waiting, hoping to catch something that cannot be seen) into a new domain (a co

13、nversation). Thus, metonymy works by calling up a domain of usage and an array of associations (in the example above, boats, the ocean, gathering life from the sea) whereas metaphor picks a target set of meanings and transfers them to a new domain of usage.Example: Lend me your earSometimes, metapho

14、r and metonymy can 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. We could imagine the following interpretations:1. Metonymy only: Analyze ear metonymically

15、 first ear means attention (because we use ears to pay attention to someones speech). Now when we hear the phrase lending ear (attention), we stretch the base meaning of lend (to let someone borrow an object) to include the lending of non-material things (attention), but beyond this slight extension

16、 of the verb, no metaphor is at work. 2. Metaphor only: Imagine the whole phrase literally imagine that the speaker literally borrows the listeners ear as a physical object (and presumably the persons head with it). Then the speaker has temporary possession of the listeners ear, so the listener has

17、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. 3. Metaphor and metonymy: First, analyze the verb phrase l

18、end me your ear metaphorically to mean turn your ear in my direction, since we know that literally lending a body is nonsensical. Then, analyze the motion of ears metonymically we associate turning ears with paying attention, which is what the speaker wants the listeners to do. It is difficult to sa

19、y which of the above analyses most closely represents the way a listener interprets the expression, and it is possible that the phrase is analysed in different ways by different listeners, or even by one and the same listener at different times. Regardless, all three analyses yield the same interpre

20、tation; thus, metaphor and metonymy, though quite different in their mechanism, can work together seamlessly. For further analysis of idioms in which metaphor and metonymy work together, including an example very similar to the one given here, see Geeraerts, Dirk (2002), The interaction of metaphor

21、and metonymy in composite expressions, written at Berlin, in Ren Dirven & Ralf Prings, Metaphor and Metonymy in Contrast, Mouton de Gruyter, Retrieved on August 20, 2006.Metonymy in polysemyThe concept of metonymy also informs the nature of polysemy i.e. how the same phonological form (word) has dif

22、ferent semantic mappings (meanings). If the two meanings are unrelated, as in the word pen meaning writing instrument versus enclosure, they are considered homonyms.Within logical polysemies, a large class of mappings can be considered to be a case of metonymic transfer (e.g. chicken for the animal,

23、 as well as its meat; crown for the object, as well as the institution). Other cases where the meaning is polysemous however, may turn out to be more metaphorical, e.g. eye as in the eye of the needle.Metonymy as a rhetorical strategyMetonymy can also refer to the rhetorical strategy of describing s

24、omething indirectly by referring to things around it. For example, in Jane Austens novel Pride and Prejudice, the main character Elizabeths change of heart and love for her suitor, Mr. Darcy, is first revealed when she sees his house:They gradually ascended for half-a-mile, and then found themselves

25、 at the top of a considerable eminence, where the wood ceased, and the eye was instantly caught by Pemberley House, situated on the opposite side of a valley, into which the road with some abruptness wound. It was a large, handsome stone building, standing well on rising ground, and backed by a ridg

26、e of high woody hills; and in front, a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, but without any artificial appearance. Its banks were neither formal nor falsely adorned. Elizabeth was delighted. She had never seen a place for which nature had done more, or where natural beauty had

27、 been so little counteracted by an awkward taste. Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 43.Austen describes the house and Elizabeths admiration for the estate at length as an indirect way of describing her feelings for Mr. Darcy himself. One could attempt to read this as an extended metaphor, bu

28、t such a reading would break down as one tried to find a way to map the elements of her description (rising ground, swollen river) directly to attributes of her suitor. Furthermore, an extended metaphor typically highlights the authors ingenuity by maintaining an unlikely similarity to an unusual de

29、gree of detail.In this description, on the other hand, although there are many elements of the description that we could transfer directly from the grounds to the suitor (natural beauty, lack of artifice), Austen is emphasizing the consistency of the domain of usage rather than stretching to make a

30、fresh comparison: each of the things she describes she associates with Darcy, and in the end we feel that Darcy is as beautiful as the place to which he is compared and that he belongs within it. Metonymy of this kind thus helps define a person or thing through a set of mutually reinforcing associat

31、ions rather than through a comparison. Advertising frequently uses this kind of metonymy, putting a product in close proximity to something desirable in order to make an indirect association that would seem crass if made with a direct comparison.Metonymy and synecdocheSynecdoche, where a specific pa

32、rt of something is used to refer to the whole, is usually understood as a specific kind of metonymy. Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from rather than inclusive of synecdoche. There is a similar problem with the usage of simile and metaphor.When the distinct