Metonymy ( mi-TON-i-mee)[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] The words metonymy and metonym come from the Greek: ?????????, met?nymía, ("a change of name"), from ????, metá, ("after, beyond"), and -??????, -?nymía, a suffix that names figures of speech, from ?????, ónyma or ?????, ónoma, ("name").[3]

The location of a capital 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, or the White House and Capitol Hill for the executive and legislative branches, respectively, of the United States federal government. A place can represent an entire industry: for instance Wall Street is often used metonymically to describe the entire U.S. financial and corporate banking sector.[4] Common nouns and phrases can also be metonyms: red tape can stand for bureaucracy, whether or not that bureaucracy actually uses red tape to bind documents. In Commonwealth realms, The Crown is a metonym for the state in all its aspects.[5]

Metonymy and related figures of speech are common in everyday speech and writing. Synecdoche and metalepsis are considered specific types of metonymy. Polysemy, multiple meanings of a single word or phrase, sometimes results from relations of metonymy. Both metonymy and metaphor involve the substitution of one term for another.[6] 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.[7][8]

American literary theorist Kenneth Burke described metonymy as one of four "master tropes", each a substitute[ambiguous] for respective broader concepts:

He described these tropes and the way they overlap in A Grammar of Motives.[9]

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

Synecdoche, in which a specific part of something is used to refer to the whole, is usually understood as a specific kind of metonymy. Sometimes an absolute distinction is made between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. There is a similar problem with the terms simile and metaphor.

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. Thus, "20,000 hungry mouths to feed" is a synecdoche because mouths (A) are a part of the people (B) referred to. "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.

Similarly, metalepsis is closely related to metonymy, and is sometimes understood as a specific kind of metonymy. 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.[10] For example, in the idiom "lead foot", meaning someone who drives fast, lead is a heavy substance, and a heavy foot on the accelerator pedal would cause a vehicle to go quickly. The use of "lead foot" to describe a person follows the intermediate substitution of "lead" for "heavy".[11] The figure of speech is a "metonymy of a metonymy".[10]

The concept of metonymy also informs the nature of polysemy, i.e. how the same phonological form (word) has different semantic mappings (meanings). If the two meanings are unrelated, as in the word pen meaning both writing instrument and enclosure, they are considered homonyms. Within logical polysemies, a large class of mappings may be considered to be a case of metonymic transfer (e.g. "chicken" for the bird, 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".

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.[12] 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).

Two examples using the term "fishing" help clarify the distinction.[13] 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).


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

  • Containment: When one thing contains another, it can frequently be used metonymically, as when "dish" is used to refer not to a plate but to the food it contains, or as when the name of a building is used to refer to the entity it contains, as when "the White House" or "the Pentagon" are used to refer to the U.S. presidential staff or the military leadership, respectively.
  • A physical item, place, or body part used to refer to a related concept, such as "the bench" for the judicial profession, "stomach" or "belly" for appetite or hunger, "mouth" for speech, various terms for the genitalia for sexual desire or satisfaction of said desire, being "in diapers" for infancy, "palate" for taste, "the altar" or "the aisle" for marriage, "hand" for someone's responsibility for something ("he had a hand in it"), "head" or "brain" for mind or intelligence, or "nose" for concern about someone else's affairs, (as in "keep your nose out of my business"). A reference to Timbuktu, as in "from here to Timbuktu," usually means a place or idea is too far away or mysterious.
  • Tools/Instruments: Often a tool is used to signify the job it does or the person who does the job, as in the phrase "the press" (referring to the printing press), or as in the proverb, "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. For example, in "The book is moving right along," the book refers to the process of writing or publishing.[14]
  • Punctuation marks often stand metonymically for a meaning expressed by the punctuation mark. For example, "He's a big question mark to me" indicates that something is unknown.[15]
  • Synecdoche: 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." An example of this is the Canadian dollar, referred to as the loonie for the image of a bird on the one-dollar coin. The United States one hundred-dollar bill is often referred to as "Bens", "Benjamins" or "Franklins" because it bears the portrait of Benjamin Franklin. 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".
  • Toponyms: A country's capital city or some location within the city is frequently used as a metonymy for the country's government, such as Washington, D.C., in the United States; Ottawa in Canada; Tokyo in Japan; New Delhi in India; Downing Street or Whitehall in the UK; and the Kremlin in Russia. Similarly, other important places, such as Wall Street, Madison Avenue, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Negril, Vegas, and Detroit are commonly used to refer to the industries that are located there (finance, advertising, high technology, entertainment, tourism, gambling, and motor vehicles, respectively). Such usage may persist even when the industries in question have moved elsewhere - for example, Fleet Street continues to be used as a metonymy for the British national press, though it is no longer located in the physical street of that name.

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:

  • Analyze "ear" metonymically first - "ear" means "attention" (because we use ears to pay attention to someone's speech). Now, when we hear the phrase "lending an 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 of the verb, no metaphor is at work.
  • Imagine the whole phrase literally - imagine that the speaker literally borrows the listener's ear as a physical object (and the person's head with it). 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.
  • First, analyze the verb phrase "lend me your ear" metaphorically to mean "turn your ear in my direction," since we know that, literally, lending a body part 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 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.[16]

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."[17]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."[17]

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."[17]Democritus described metonymy by saying, "Metonymy, that is the fact that words and meaning change."[17]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."[17] 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."[17]Cicero viewed metonymy as more of a stylish rhetorical method and described it as being based on words, but motivated by style.

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.[18]

Jakobson's theories were important for Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and others.[19]

See also



  1. ^ "metonymy". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved . 
  2. ^ "Metonymy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". 2012-08-31. Retrieved . 
  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. ^ 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 9027223564. 
  5. ^ Jackson, Michael D (2013), The Crown and Canadian Federalism, Toronto: Dundurn Press, p. 20, ISBN 9781459709898 
  6. ^ Dirven, René; Pörings, Ralf (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-017373-4. 
  7. ^ Wilber, Ken (2000). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Shambhala Publications. ISBN 978-0-8348-2108-8. 
  8. ^ Tompkins, Penny; James Lawley. "Metonymy and Part-Whole Relationships". Retrieved 2012. 
  9. ^ Burke, Kenneth. (1945) A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall Inc. pp. 503-09.
  10. ^ a b Bloom, Harold (2003). A Map of Misreading. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516221-9. 
  11. ^ "metalepsis". Silva Rhetoricae. Retrieved . 
  12. ^ Chandler, Daniel. "Rhetorical Tropes". Semiotics for Beginners. Aberystwyth University. Retrieved 2012. 
  13. ^ Example drawn from Dirven, 1996
  14. ^ Lakoff and Johnson 1999, p. 203
  15. ^ Lakoff and Johnson 1999, p. 245
  16. ^ Geeraerts, Dirk (2002). "The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions". In R. Dirven and R. Pörings. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (PDF). Walter de Gruyter. pp. 435-465. ISBN 978-3-11-017373-4. Retrieved 2013. 
  17. ^ a b c d e f Al-Sharafi, Abdul Gabbar (2004). Textual Metonymy: A Semiotic Approach. 
  18. ^ Jakobson, Roman (1956). "The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles". In Dirven, René; Pörings, Ralf. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (revised ed.). de Gruyter. pp. 41-48. ISBN 9783110173741. Retrieved 2016. 
  19. ^ Dirven, René (2003). "Metonymy and Metaphor: Different Mental Strategies of Conceptualisation". In Dirven, René; Pörings, Ralf. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (revised ed.). de Gruyter. pp. 75-112. ISBN 9783110173741. Retrieved 2016. 


  • Blank, Andreas (1997). Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-093160-0. 
  • Corbett, Edward P.J. (1998) [1971]. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-511542-0. 
  • Dirven, René (1999). "Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Event Schemata". In K.U. Panther and G. Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 275-288. ISBN 978-90-272-2356-2. 
  • Fass, Dan (1997). Processing Metonymy and Metaphor. Ablex. ISBN 978-1-56750-231-2. 
  • Grzega, Joachim (2004). Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (de). ISBN 978-3-8253-5016-1. 
  • Lakoff, George; Johnson, mark (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-05674-3. 
  • Somov, Georgij Yu. (2009). "Metonymy and its manifestation in visual artworks: Case study of late paintings by Bruegel the Elder". Semiotica. 2009 (174): 309-66. doi:10.1515/semi.2009.037. 
  • Smyth, Herbert Weir (1920). Greek Grammar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. p. 680. ISBN 0-674-36250-0. 
  • Warren, Beatrice (2006). Referential Metonymy. Publications of the Royal Society of Letters at Lund. Lund, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell International. ISBN 978-91-22-02148-3. 

Further reading

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



US Cities - Things to Do