Metonymy

The difference between metaphor and metonymy lies in the following. In metaphor there two conceptual domains and one can be understood in terms of another. Using traditional point of view, metaphors are based on the mental process of comparison. Metonymy involves one conceptual domain as the mapping or connection of two things is done within the same domain. The relations between the two things are quite obvious both to the speaker and to the listener. Traditional rhetoric defines metonymy as a figure of speech wherein the name of one entity is used to refer to another entity that is contiguous to it [37].

According to Lakoff’s theory, like metaphor, metonymy has a conceptual basis that is easily seen in the similarity between various metonymic expressions.

Washington has started negotiating with Moscow.

The White house isn’t saying anything.

Wall Street is in panic.

Hollywood is putting out terrible movies.

Paris has dropped hemlines this year.

How metonymy works.

As in the case with metaphor there are also different approaches to this question.

As Lakoff and Johnson stated, the above mentioned examples do not occur one by one, but reflect the general cognitive principle of metonymy where people use one well-understood aspect of something to stand it for the thing as a whole or some other aspect of it [64]. Thus all the above expressions relate to the general principle when by which a place may stand for the institution situated in that place. Thus, Hollywood stands for the motion picture industry located at that place.

Lakoff & Johnson claim that there are various metonymic models in our conceptual system that underlie the use of many kinds of similar substitutions such as object used stands for the user (the sax has the flu today), the place for the event (let’s not let Iraq become another Vietnam), part for the whole correlation (We don’t hire long hairs), etc.

Raymond W.Gibbs, JR. suggests that common ground (i.e. the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, etc. shared by speakers and listeners) plays an exact role in making sense of tropes and metonymy in particular.

He suggests the following examples to explain the idea. With the sentence While I was taking his picture, Steve did a Napoleon for his camera (according to the experimental research) people usually experience little problem in understanding, especially if they have specific knowledge of a person or fact referred to (in this case the famous painting of Napoleon). While in the sentence I met a girl at the Coffee House who did an Elizabeth Taylor while I was talking to her the problem in interpreting is that listeners do not recognize which piece of information, or in this case which salient act of Elizabeth Taylor’s, constitutes part of the common ground between themselves and the speakers [24].

One more relevant case is stated as a question at the very beginning of this paper. Why is it possible to say “Hemingway is unique and interesting. I like him (meaning definitely his works), but the phrase “Mary was tasty (meaning by Mary the cheesecake that Mary made) is absolutely absurd?

Many of metonymic models such as (part stands for the whole, object used for user, the place for the event, the maker for the thing made, etc.) depend on conventional cultural associations, which reflect the general principle that a thing may stand for what it is conventionally associated with [116]. This principle limits to only certain relationships between entities. Not any product can be referred to by the name of the person who created the product. One thing is when we speak of a distinctive value of a work of art which is due to the unique genius of the individual who created it and the members of a certain cultural community have specific knowledge of the person referred to. Quite a different case is with Mary mixing and processing ingredients to make her cake. Here we cannot trace, by any means, the same relationship between a cake and the person who baked it. This explains the absurdness of the phrase “Mary was tasty” (meaning the cake that Mary made) [37].