Hubbry Logo
MetonymyMetonymyMain
Open search
Metonymy
Community hub
Metonymy
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Metonymy
Metonymy
Metonymy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Pentagon is the headquarters building of the United States Department of Defense and is a common metonym for the US military and its leadership

Metonymy (/mɪˈtɒnɪmi, mɛ-/)[1][2][3] is a figure of speech in which a concept is referred to by the name of something associated with that thing or concept.[4] For example, the word "suit" may refer to a person from groups commonly wearing business attire, such as salespeople or attorneys.[5]

Metonymies are common in everyday speech and encapsulate a range of other ideas, such as synecdoche and metalepsis. Metonymies are similar to metaphors but where metaphors rely on analogous characteristics to form a comparison, a metonymy is caused by general association of the two objects of comparison.

Etymology

[edit]

The words metonymy and metonym come from Ancient Greek μετωνυμία (metōnumía) 'a change of name'; from μετά (metá) 'after, post, beyond' and -ωνυμία (-ōnumía), a suffix that names figures of speech, from ὄνυμα (ónuma) or ὄνομα (ónoma) 'name'.[6]

Background

[edit]

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.[7] 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.[8][9]

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.[10]

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.

[edit]

Metaphor substitutes the name by an analogy, rather than by an association.

Synecdoche uses a part to refer to the whole, or the whole to refer to the part.[11][12][13]

Metalepsis uses a familiar word or a phrase in a new context.[14] For example, "lead foot" may describe a fast driver; lead is proverbially heavy, and a foot exerting more pressure on the accelerator causes a vehicle to go faster (in this context unduly so).[15] The figure of speech is a "metonymy of a metonymy".[14]

Many cases of polysemy originate as metonyms: for example, "chicken" means the meat as well as the animal; "crown" for the object, as well as the institution.[16][17]

Versus metaphor

[edit]
Main article: 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.[18] 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). In the phrase "lands belonging to the crown", the word "crown" is 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 using metaphors.[19]: 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.[19]: 4–6 

Two examples using the term "fishing" help clarify the distinction.[20] 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, and most importantly, trying) into a new domain (a conversation). Thus, metaphors work 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:

  • Analyze "ear" metonymically first – "ear" means "attention". The phrase "Talk to him; you have his ear" also echoes this meaning. In both this phrase and "lending an ear", we stretch the base meaning of possession and lending (to let someone borrow an object) to include non-material things (attention), but, beyond this slight extension of the verb, no metaphor is at work. In this vein, Merriam Webster argues that "lend me your ear" is a metonym and not a synecdoche because what's being requested is the viewer's attention and the ear is only a part of the viewer's attention in a figurative way, but not literally.[21]
  • 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. The phrase "lend me your ear" is interpreted to metaphorically 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 it is known 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 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.[22]

Examples

[edit]
Main article: List of metonyms
The White House is the official residence of the President of the United States, and its name is a common metonym for the presidency and cabinet of the United States.

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

  • Tools/instruments: Often a tool is used to signify the job it does or the person who does the job, as in the phrase "his Rolodex is long and valuable" (referring to the Rolodex instrument, which keeps contact business cards, meaning he has a lot of contacts and knows many people). Also "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.[23]
  • 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.[24] In the same way, 'period' can be used to emphasise that a point is concluded or not to be challenged.
  • 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. United States one hundred-dollar bills are often referred to as "Bens", "Benjamins" or "Franklins" because they bear a portrait of Benjamin Franklin. Also, the whole of something is used for a part, as when people refer to a municipal employee as "the city" or police officers as "the law".
    Fleet Street (where most British national newspapers previously operated) is a metonym for the British press
  • 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, 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.
  • 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, when a "book" refers not to pages bound at the edge but to the work of literature 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 Administration of the United States, or the U.S. Department of Defense, respectively.
  • Toponyms: A country's capital city or some location within the city is frequently used as a metonym for the country's government, such as Washington, D.C., in the United States; Ottawa in Canada; Rome in Italy; Paris in France; Tokyo in Japan; New Delhi in India; London in the United Kingdom; Moscow in Russia, etc. Perhaps the oldest such example is "Pharaoh" which originally referred to the residence of the King of Egypt but by the New Kingdom had come to refer to the king himself. Similarly, other important places, such as Wall Street, K Street, Madison Avenue, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Vegas, and Detroit are commonly used to refer to the industries that are located there (finance, lobbying, advertising, high technology, entertainment, vice industry, and motor vehicles, respectively). Such usage may also extend to surrounding areas of these regions, such as film studios in Burbank or tech companies in the broader San Francisco Bay Area. Such usage may persist even when the industries in question have either moved elsewhere or have never been solely contained to one area, for example, individuals speaking of "Silicon Valley" may be thinking of Microsoft in Washington state, and Fleet Street continues to be used as a metonymy for the British national press, though many national publications are no longer headquartered on the street of that name.[25]
  • Brand for product: "Kleenex" for paper tissue, "Rolex" for expensive watch, "Hoover" for vacuum cleaner, "Mackintosh" for raincoat
  • Inventor for invention: "welly" for "Wellington boot"

Places and institutions

[edit]
The Kremlin is often used as a metonym for the central governments of both the Soviet Union and modern Russia

The name of a capital city or notable government building is often used to refer to the authority headquartered there, Brussels for the European Union,[26][27] The Hague for the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court (and often international courts generally), Nairobi for the government of Kenya, the Kremlin for that of Russia (and historically, the Soviet Union), or the White House and Foggy Bottom for the United States' Executive Office and State Department, respectively, or Zhongnanhai for the central government of China. A notable historical example is the use of the Sublime Porte to refer to the central government (or more particularly, sometimes the foreign ministry) of the Ottoman Empire.

A place (or places) can represent an entire industry. For instance: Wall Street, used metonymically, can stand for the United States' financial sector and major banks;[28] K Street for Washington, D.C.'s lobbying industry or lobbying in the United States in general;[29] Hollywood for the U.S. film industry, and the people associated with it; Broadway for the American commercial theatrical industry; Madison Avenue for the American advertising industry; and Silicon Valley for the American technology industry. The High Street (of which there are over 5,000 in Britain) is a term commonly used to refer to the entire British retail sector.[30] 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 legal metonym for the state in all its aspects.[31]

Art

[edit]

Metonyms can also be wordless. For example, Roman Jakobson[32] argued that cubist art relied heavily on nonlinguistic metonyms, while surrealist art relied more on metaphors.

Lakoff and Turner[33] 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[34] 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

[edit]
Look up metonymy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Metonymy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Metonymy is a figure of speech and cognitive-linguistic mechanism in which one entity, concept, or object is substituted for another closely associated with it through contiguity, such as spatial proximity, causality, or part-whole relations, rather than through similarity. In cognitive linguistics, it operates as a SOURCE FOR TARGET mapping within a single conceptual domain or frame, enabling efficient reference by leveraging shared experiential knowledge, as seen in phrases like "the White House issued a statement" to denote the U.S. presidential administration. This contrasts with metaphor, which projects structure across distinct domains based on analogy, and with synecdoche, a subtype of metonymy limited to part-whole substitutions like "all hands on deck" for sailors. Metonymy permeates everyday discourse, literature, and rhetoric, facilitating concise expression and interpretive depth, with scholars emphasizing its foundational role in language comprehension and conceptualization over mere stylistic ornamentation.

Etymology and Core Concepts

Etymology

The term "metonymy" originates from the Ancient Greek word μετωνυμία (metōnymía), a compound of μετά (metá, denoting "change," "after," or "beyond") and ὄνυμα or ὄνομα (ónyma or ónoma, meaning "name"), literally signifying "a change of name" or "misnomer." This etymological sense reflects the rhetorical practice of substituting one term for another closely associated with it, a concept formalized in Greek linguistic and rhetorical theory. The term first appears in datable ancient rhetorical treatises around the 1st century BCE, with early mentions in works by grammarians such as , marking its integration into systematic discussions of figures of speech (schēmata or tropoi). In Roman rhetoric, it was Latinized as metonymia and elaborated upon by authors like in his (circa 95 CE), where it is classified as a trope involving the substitution of one word for another based on association, distinct from . Adopted into English as "metonymy" in the 1570s via the French métomynie and Latin metonymia, the term gained prominence in rhetorical scholarship, appearing in Elizabethan treatises that cataloged classical figures for poetic and oratorical use. This entry aligned with the period's revival of Greco-Roman arts, facilitating its application in English literature and criticism.

Definition and Mechanisms

Metonymy constitutes a referential strategy in wherein a source entity, known as the vehicle, stands in for a target entity through their contiguity within a single conceptual domain, such as spatial adjacency, temporal sequence, or causal linkage like producer-for-product or container-for-contained. This mechanism operates on empirical associations derived from real-world experience, enabling the vehicle to provide mental access to the target via pragmatic rather than through cross-domain mapping or perceptual similarity. For instance, "the " invokes the U.S. presidential administration due to the building's physical and functional proximity to executive decision-making. Unlike literal , which denotes entities directly via , metonymy depends on interlocutors' shared of associative networks to resolve the substitution without contextual , thereby facilitating concise communication grounded in causal realism. Corpus linguistic analyses confirm metonymy's prevalence in natural discourse, with studies of semantic fields like verbal communication revealing metonymic usages exceeding literal or metaphorical ones in frequency, underscoring its role in efficient everyday expression. Such data from large-scale language corpora demonstrate that metonymic shifts occur systematically, often without explicit marking, as speakers exploit established experiential contiguities for referential economy.

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Foundations

The concept of metonymy emerged in ancient Greek literature through associative substitutions observed in epic poetry, predating formal rhetorical analysis. In Homer's Iliad (composed circa 8th century BCE), the scepter serves as a metonym for royal authority and divine sanction, as when Agamemnon wields the staff inherited from Zeus to assert command over the assembly, evoking kingship without naming the king directly (Iliad 2.100–109). This usage illustrates early empirical reliance on contiguity—the physical emblem standing in for the abstract power it represents—facilitating concise narrative expression in oral tradition. Aristotle provided an implicit theoretical foundation for metonymy in his Poetics (circa 335 BCE), where he describes poetic naming by attributes, accidents, or material constituents as extensions of metaphorical transfer, such as denoting objects by their bronze composition to evoke their form. In chapter 21, Aristotle classifies such substitutions under innovative diction for vividness, distinguishing them from literal usage while emphasizing their role in elevating tragedy through economical evocation rather than explicit description. This framework treats metonymic denomination as a poetic device grounded in perceptual associations, akin to but distinct from proportional metaphor, without employing the later term metōnymia (change of name). Hellenistic rhetoricians formalized metonymy as a trope for stylistic elegance and persuasion. Demetrius, in On Style (likely 3rd–1st century BCE), explicitly outlines metonymic in the elegant style, substituting associated terms—like cause for effect or container for contents—to achieve brevity and grace, as in naming "the " for ' naval power. He positions it among figures enhancing composition's rhythm and imagery, warning against overuse that risks obscurity, thus establishing it as a deliberate tool for rhetorical economy over prosaic repetition. Roman oratory synthesized these ideas, with in (circa 95 CE) defining metonymy as a trope of substitution "from its proper signification to another" based on relational proximity, such as inventor for or material for product (Book 8.6.23; Book 9.1.4). He classifies it alongside and for amplifying persuasive effect in forensic and deliberative speech, valuing its capacity to imply rather than state, thereby engaging the audience's intellect (Book 8.6.1–42). Quintilian draws on Greek precedents to advocate moderation, citing Virgil's use of "Bacchus" for wine as exemplary of contiguity-driven vividness without excess.

Medieval and Early Modern Evolutions

In the medieval period, metonymy was integrated into the artes poetriae, instructional treatises on poetic composition that preserved and adapted classical rhetorical tropes for vernacular and Latin verse. Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Poetria Nova, composed around 1200–1213, exemplifies this by subsuming metonymy under the broader trope of transumptio, defined as the transference of a word's proper meaning to an associated or contiguous one, enabling substitutions based on proximity or rather than strict resemblance. This framework supported not only ornamental diction but also theological applications, particularly in biblical , where scriptural figures—such as "the key of " denoting authority in :7—were unpacked through contiguity-based transfers to reveal divine intent amid literal and allegorical layers. Such adaptations maintained continuity with Quintilian's emphasis on metonymia as effect-for-cause substitution while subordinating to scholastic priorities of scriptural clarity and moral edification. By the early , Renaissance rhetoricians expanded metonymy's scope, blending it with emblematic modes that fused verbal tropes and visual symbols to evoke political and ethical associations. George Puttenham's The Arte of English Poesie (1589) reclassified related figures under terms like "enallage" or the "figure of exchange," illustrating substitutions where a part evokes the whole or an attribute stands for its possessor, as in using "" for warfare. This reflected a shift toward emblem books, such as Andrea Alciato's Emblematum Liber (1531), where metonymic contiguities—e.g., a scepter implying —linked mottoes, images, and epigrams to convey compressed, causal realism in moral allegory, influencing courtly and didactic arts. Theological influences persisted, but empirical validation emerged through literary practice, prioritizing observable associations over abstract schemata. In Shakespearean drama, circa 1590–1613, metonymy demonstrated this evolution by grounding classical mechanisms in causal power dynamics, as seen in Henry IV, Part 2 (c. 1597), where "the crown" metonymically signifies monarchical burdens and succession: "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" (Act 3, Scene 1). Here, the crown's material adjacency to rule evokes the institution's weight, reflecting realism in associating symbols with tangible authority rather than mere decoration, a usage echoed across 37 plays with over 200 instances of such tropes. This pragmatic application underscored metonymy's utility in depicting institutional continuity and human agency, distinct from metaphorical dissimilarity.

Modern and Cognitive Linguistic Advances

In 1956, proposed a between , based on similarity and paradigmatic selection, and metonymy, grounded in contiguity and syntagmatic combination, drawing from observations of aphasic disturbances where patients favored one pole over the other. This framework extended by highlighting metonymy's role in contiguous associations, influencing subsequent analyses of poetic and prosaic modes. The cognitive linguistic paradigm advanced metonymy as a conceptual mapping mechanism within the same domain, rather than mere rhetorical substitution, as articulated by and Mark Johnson in their 1980 work , which laid groundwork for viewing expressions like "buy a Picasso" as producer-for-product metonymy enabling reference to an artist's output via the creator's name. This shift emphasized metonymy's inferential potential in everyday , where source and target share an experiential matrix, such as part-whole relations or containment, facilitating efficient communication without cross-domain projection as in . Within this cognitive framework, metonymization has been identified as a key mechanism in semantic change, operating as a part-whole construal between distinct senses of a lexical item rather than within a single sense. Unlike zone activation, which highlights salient aspects within an established meaning, metonymization involves novel, non-conventionalized form-meaning pairings driven by pragmatic inferencing, which can become entrenched over time through community acceptance. For instance, the term "mouse" shifted from denoting an animal to referring to a computer input device via metonymic extension based on perceived contiguity in function or form. Other examples include "launder," evolving from washing clothes to illegally processing money, and "head," from a body part to a leader. This process facilitates gradual semantic shifts, including grammaticalization, and underscores metonymy's role in linguistic innovation. Empirical studies since the have validated these cognitive models through developmental and cross-linguistic evidence. A 2021 investigation into preschoolers' comprehension revealed that 4- and 5-year-olds readily extend producer names (e.g., "Picasso") metonymically to products without extensive prior exposure, suggesting innate or early-acquired inferential mechanisms for such domain-internal mappings. Cross-linguistic analyses, including a 2025 study across multiple languages, demonstrate that conceptual metonymy often expands or reduces lexical meanings via contiguity, underscoring its universality beyond English-centric examples. Bibliometric trends reflect growing integration of metonymy into , with predictive modeling from SSCI-indexed publications forecasting emphasis on metonymy-discourse interactions as a key theme through 2028, building on over 2,000 metonymy-related studies since the cognitive turn. These advances prioritize verifiable cognitive processes over purely associative views, supported by experimental rather than introspective reports alone.

Theoretical Distinctions

Metonymy Versus Metaphor

Metonymy substitutes a with one contiguous to it within the same conceptual domain, grounded in real-world adjacencies such as spatial, causal, or part-whole relations, whereas maps attributes from a source domain to a dissimilar target domain via perceived analogies. For instance, in metonymy, "the issued a statement" refers to the U.S. presidential administration through locative association, relying on the instrument-action or container-contained linkage without implying equivalence. , by contrast, asserts cross-domain similarity, as in "argument is ," where conceptual structure from combat transfers to verbal dispute, projecting relational patterns like attack and defense despite no literal adjacency. This causal divergence stems from metonymy's dependence on immediate experiential connections, which preserve referential efficiency, opposed to 's abstraction of resemblances that demands across disparate . Cognitive linguistics underscores metonymy's intra-domain operation as a more fundamental mechanism for reference, enabling quicker resolution through contextual proximity rather than analogical inference required by . Psycholinguistic experiments reveal that metonymic processing incurs lower , as it activates shared semantic networks without domain transfer, contrasting 's need for selective projection and . Roman Jakobson's analysis of further evidences distinct pathways: patients with similarity disorders produce predominantly metonymic speech, substituting by contiguity while avoiding metaphoric leaps, whereas those with contiguity disorders favor similarity-based substitutions, highlighting neural specialization for adjacency versus in language production. These observations align with causal realism, wherein metonymy's grounded substitutions reflect direct perceptual chains, unburdened by 's interpretive overlay.

Metonymy and Synecdoche

Synecdoche represents a of metonymy characterized by substitutions between a part and the whole, or the whole and a part, relying on inherent part-whole contiguity rather than broader associative links. This microcosm-macrocosm mechanism operates within metonymy's umbrella of contiguous relations, where the referent's integral components enable referential efficiency without invoking cross-domain mappings. Classical rhetoricians, including in his (circa 95 CE), classified as a foundational trope from which derives, viewing the latter as an adjacent substitution of terms based on close relational proximity rather than strict part-whole . This perspective positioned as a enabling metonymic extensions, prioritizing taxonomic clarity in oratorical over fluid pragmatic application. In contrast, modern linguistic frameworks uphold 's subordination to while noting interpretive overlaps for analytical convenience, as part-whole relations exemplify contiguity without diluting 's wider scope of attribute-object or container-containee links. Such distinctions persist in formal to delineate mechanisms, though empirical observations indicate interchangeable deployment in where contextual suffices. Corpus linguistic studies, including analyses of the (100 million words, compiled 1991–1994), quantify synecdoche's incidence in hyperbolic and quantitative constructions, demonstrating its structural frequency in —e.g., patterns exceeding intuitive estimates by factors observable in token distributions—thus affirming its embedded utility in referential precision absent analogical abstraction. These data-driven hierarchies validate synecdoche's nested status, countering unsubstantiated conflations by evidencing distinct distributional profiles within metonymic corpora.

Classifications and Types

Contiguity-Based Types

Contiguity-based metonymies derive from associations of adjacency, encompassing spatial proximity, temporal succession, and causal interdependence between conceptual entities. In , these mappings operate via referential contiguity, where a source concept provides mental access to a contiguous target, often unidirectionally from source to target. Empirical analysis of demonstrates their prevalence, as lexical items shift meanings through such adjacencies, yielding grounded in real-world correlations rather than arbitrary resemblance. Spatial contiguity types include place-for-event, substituting a for associated activities or institutions due to habitual . Object-for-user mappings extend to possessed items evoking their typical operators or owners, reflecting physical or habitual adjacency. These patterns align with prototypical models prioritizing part-whole or container-content relations as core spatial extensions. Causal contiguity manifests in cause-for-effect and reversible effect-for-cause types, where interdependent events license substitution based on perceived necessity. Temporal contiguity involves successive or overlapping sequences, often blurring into causal inferences when events co-occur closely in time. Diachronic evidence verifies these through historical shifts, such as instruments denoting actions they enable, as in "" evolving to signify authorship via contiguity.

Domain-Specific Variants

In , the producer-for-product metonymy refers to a source-target mapping where the name of a creator stands for their created output, rooted in the causal chain of production. This variant is exemplified by utterances like "She bought a Ford," where the company name denotes a manufactured by it, rather than the firm itself. Empirical studies confirm its comprehension in young children, with preschoolers successfully extending producer labels to products in experimental tasks, indicating early acquisition tied to observed real-world associations. Institution-for-people metonymy substitutes an organizational entity for the individuals comprising or acting on its behalf, leveraging the between the institution and its personnel. For example, "The announced new sanctions" refers to administration officials, not the building. Similarly, " condemned the report" invokes British journalists, drawing from historical newspaper concentration there, despite modern relocations. This type reflects causal realism, as institutional actions stem from human agents, and appears consistently in corpora analyzed for such substitutions. Abstract domain-specific metonymies, such as attribute-for-whole, link a salient property to an encompassing category when the attribute causally or conventionally defines it. In U.S. political discourse, "red" metonymically signifies Republican affiliation, originating from 2000 election map conventions where red denoted states won by George W. Bush. Cross-linguistic evidence supports the universality of metonymic processes, including attribute-based mappings, across over 100 languages in typological surveys, though specific political color assignments vary culturally. These variants avoid arbitrary links, requiring verifiable contiguities like production causality or institutional agency to ensure referential efficacy.

Illustrative Examples

Literary and Rhetorical Instances

In the Book of Psalms, metonymy frequently substitutes instruments of conflict for the broader concept of warfare, as in Psalm 144:11, where "the cruel " evokes the violence and peril of battle itself rather than the literal weapon. Similarly, Psalm 44:6 employs "bow" and "" to denote military power and human warfare, compressing abstract notions of conquest into tangible artifacts for rhetorical intensity. These instances leverage contiguity between tool and action to heighten emotional immediacy, a device rooted in ancient Hebrew poetic tradition. William Shakespeare's works abound with metonymic substitutions that amplify dramatic economy, such as invoking "" for monarchical authority in Henry V or "the stage" for theatrical in . The epithet "the Bard" itself serves as a metonymy for Shakespeare's collective oeuvre, distilling his prolific output into a singular, evocative persona that underscores his cultural dominance in English literature. Virgil's Aeneid opens with "arma virumque cano" ("arms and the man I sing"), where "arms" metonymically signifies war in its entirety, initiating the epic's theme of relentless conflict through a concrete emblem of weaponry. This substitution, noted in classical commentaries like Servius', replaces the abstract "war" with its instrumental associate to evoke visceral immediacy. Rhetorically, metonymy bolsters by fostering vivid associations, transforming generalities into palpable images that engage the audience's sensory , as outlined in his analysis of figures enhancing enargeia (vividness). In poetic contexts, it condenses complex ideas, promoting mnemonic retention and emotional resonance without expansive description. Corpus-based analyses of literary texts, including and , demonstrate metonymy's elevated frequency in verse compared to , facilitating "poetic economy" by enabling terse yet layered expression—evident in quantitative extractions from large-scale linguistic databases where metonymic patterns correlate with compressed .

Institutional and Political Uses

In institutional contexts, metonymy facilitates reference to governing bodies through contiguous symbols or locations embodying authority, such as "" denoting the British monarchy and its executive powers rather than the physical headwear. This usage stems from the causal contiguity between the symbol and the institution it represents, where royal decisions historically emanate from the sovereign's position symbolized by the crown. Similarly, "Washington" serves as a metonym for the U.S. federal government, leveraging the city's role as the seat of legislative and executive functions since its establishment as capital in 1800. Political discourse employs place-based metonymies like "" to signify Russian government policies and leadership, a convention rooted in the fortified complex's function as the historical and ongoing center of state power since the . These expressions enable concise attribution of collective actions to institutions without specifying individuals, reflecting linguistic efficiency grounded in verifiable spatial and causal associations between loci of and outcomes. Empirical of news headlines indicates metonymy as the most prevalent trope in political reporting, appearing with higher frequency than other figurative devices due to its utility in summarizing institutional agency. Such metonymies maintain neutrality in denoting authority disinterestedly, avoiding conflation with persuasive intent by prioritizing referential precision over ideological framing; their persistence across media outlets underscores a pragmatic adaptation to real-world power structures rather than manipulative rhetoric.

Everyday and Idiomatic Expressions

Metonymy permeates colloquial English through idioms that rely on contiguity between a concrete entity and an associated action or state. For instance, the expression "lend a hand" substitutes the body part for the broader act of assistance, evoking the physical involvement of hands in manual labor or support. Similarly, "hit the bottle" uses the container to represent excessive alcohol consumption or the resulting dependency, drawing on the immediate association between vessel and contents. These phrases demonstrate how speakers naturally access metonymic mappings rooted in perceptual and experiential links, without explicit awareness of the substitution. Linguistic corpora underscore metonymy's prevalence in spoken and informal English, where it facilitates concise reference in everyday . Analyses of like the reveal metonymic patterns in conversational data, often tracking shifts in usage that highlight intuitive reliance on source-target contiguities for communication efficiency. In semantic fields such as verbal interaction, corpus-based studies identify metonymy in up to 17% of utterances across related languages, suggesting comparable frequencies in English speech where associated attributes for wholes. This empirical presence supports metonymy's role in acquisition, as children and adults alike employ such expressions fluidly in spontaneous talk. Cross-linguistic parallels reinforce this intuitive pattern, with equivalents to English idioms appearing in diverse tongues. For example, references to "the bench" for the —evoking the physical as proxy for judges or the legal —extend to legal parlance in languages like French ("le banc") and German ("die Bank"), where spatial contiguity similarly licenses the shift. Such universals, evidenced in multilingual corpora, indicate metonymy's cognitive grounding beyond English, adapting to cultural contexts while preserving core associative logic.

Cognitive and Empirical Dimensions

Conceptual Metonymy in Cognition

Conceptual metonymy functions as a mechanism for referencing entities within a single domain, leveraging contiguity to activate related without cross-domain mapping. In this view, a source serves as a reference point to highlight or stand for a target sharing an idealized (ICM), such as the relational structure of authorship where "Hemingway" denotes the author's works or style due to their experiential linkage. This process enables efficient , as the source provides inferential access to the target via domain-internal associations rather than analogical projection. Within cognitive linguistics, metonymization represents a distinct mechanism of conceptual metonymy, characterized as a part-whole construal that operates between different senses of a word, enabling novel form-meaning pairings through pragmatic inferencing that can become conventionalized over time. Unlike zone activation, which functions within a single sense to highlight specific aspects, metonymization facilitates semantic change by shifting between senses, contributing to meaning construal in cognitive processes and playing a key role in language evolution, as seen in shifts like "launder" from cleaning clothes to illicit financial activity. This mechanism underscores metonymy's dynamic contribution to the diachronic development of language while maintaining synchronic efficiency in cognition. Empirical evidence underscores the universality of conceptual metonymy, with a 2022 large-scale analysis of over 20,000 metonymic instances across 189 languages and 69 genera revealing consistent patterns of domain-internal shifts, independent of specific linguistic structures. This cross-linguistic prevalence suggests metonymy arises from innate cognitive predispositions for contiguity-based processing, facilitating rapid comprehension in diverse contexts without requiring learned cultural mappings. Cognitively, metonymy is rooted in perceptual contiguity—proximity in experience or function—rather than structural similarity, aligning with causal patterns observed in where salient features invoke wholes through direct experiential adjacency. For example, experimental studies on and lexical shifts demonstrate that metonymic extensions emerge from visuo-kinetic or functional links, providing a grounded basis for semantic shifts that mirrors real-world causal relations over abstract resemblances. This foundation supports metonymy's role in streamlining thought by exploiting inherent perceptual efficiencies.

Acquisition and Neurolinguistic Processing

Children acquire producer-product metonymy, such as referring to a product by its creator's name (e.g., "Bach" for a ), at ages without requiring extensive prior exposure to the producers' names. A 2021 experimental study involving 3- to 5-year-olds demonstrated that participants successfully interpreted novel producer-product mappings in forced-choice tasks, performing above chance levels even when unfamiliar with the producers, suggesting an innate or rapidly developing sensitivity to contiguity-based associations rather than learned lexical links. Neurolinguistic processing of metonymy engages predominantly left-hemisphere regions, as evidenced by fMRI studies contrasting metonymic resolution with literal comprehension. In one investigation, metonymic sentences activated a left-lateralized fronto-temporal network, including the left , middle and superior temporal gyri, and , with reduced right-hemisphere involvement compared to literal controls. This pattern differs from metaphorical processing, which frequently recruits bilateral temporal and frontal areas or greater right-hemisphere contributions for novel mappings, indicating metonymy's reliance on referential dependency within shared conceptual domains rather than cross-domain mappings. Recent bibliometric analyses of metonymy forecast increased focus on predictive models of discourse-metonymy interactions through 2028, building on empirical psycholinguistic to simulate real-time resolution in . These models aim to quantify how metonymic shifts influence predictive in extended narratives, drawing from eye-tracking and studies showing faster latencies for conventional metonymies than novel ones. Such approaches highlight metonymy's integration into unified linguistic mechanisms, supported by neurolinguistic evidence favoring single-system over dual-route models.

Contemporary Applications and Research

In Media, Advertising, and Persuasion

In , metonymy facilitates persuasive brevity by substituting a brand's attributes or symbols for the product itself, leveraging contiguous associations to evoke desired consumer responses. For instance, Nike's 1988 slogan "" metonymically invokes the company's of athletic determination and empowerment, where the imperative stands for the performance-enhancing qualities of its footwear and apparel, thereby associating the with personal triumph and motivation. A corpus analysis of 210 multimodal advertisements identified metonymy-metaphor blends in over 40% of cases, demonstrating how such devices amplify emotional appeal and recall by condensing complex narratives into visual-linguistic shortcuts. Political slogans similarly exploit metonymy to influence public perception through associative chains linking abstract ideals to concrete symbols or policies. Trump's 2016 campaign phrase "" metonymically references a purported of national prosperity and strength, substituting historical imagery for proposed economic and security reforms to mobilize supporters via evoked and . Empirical studies on covert in political confirm that metonymic tropes, by implying rather than stating causal links, enhance evaluative transfer—such as positive connotations from "" to —outperforming direct assertions in attitude formation among receptive audiences. In media-driven , metonymy aids by reframing issues through partial stand-ins that activate latent cultural associations. A 2024 analysis of banners revealed creative metonymies, such as depicting as a "" to stand for overheating via fuels, which exploit anthropocentric schemas to heighten urgency and participant without exhaustive explanation. These devices proved effective in 2023-2024 global actions, correlating with increased turnout by compressing causal narratives into memorable visuals that bypass rational . However, metonymy's reliance on unexamined contiguity risks persuasive or distortion when real-world causal chains diverge from implied ones, as seen in oversimplified environmental metonymies that attribute effects solely to isolated symbols like "oil" while eliding multifaceted drivers.

In Natural Language Processing and AI

Metonymy resolution presents significant challenges in (NLP), primarily due to the ambiguity arising from context-dependent associations between a literal and its intended , such as distinguishing "the issued a statement" (institution for people) from literal architectural references. Traditional NLP systems, reliant on syntactic patterns or lexical resources, often underperform on benchmarks like SemEval-2007, where metonymic patterns require modeling contiguity beyond surface-level semantics. Recent evaluations underscore that even transformer-based models struggle with common noun metonymy, as evidenced by the ConMeC dataset of 6,000 annotated sentences, which reveals persistent errors in identifying metonymic shifts in everyday language, impacting downstream tasks like semantic parsing and . Advances in prompt learning have addressed these issues by exploiting the internal knowledge of pre-trained language models without extensive fine-tuning. In 2023, the PromptMR framework introduced a "pre-train→prompt→predict" paradigm tailored for metonymy resolution, achieving state-of-the-art results on multiple datasets in both data-sufficient and data-scarce settings by reformulating resolution as a cloze-style task that leverages models' priors on contiguity relations. This approach outperforms prior supervised methods, particularly for and organization metonymies, by incorporating entity representations and sentential context more efficiently than full-sentence modeling. Empirical benchmarks demonstrate PromptMR's superiority over baselines like BERT variants, highlighting prompt engineering's role in mitigating data sparsity common in metonymy corpora. Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT variants exhibit mixed performance on metonymy benchmarks, often matching supervised BERT on established datasets but faltering in novel contexts requiring nuanced discourse-level contiguity. Evaluations on ConMeC show LLMs achieving comparable accuracy to fine-tuned models via zero-shot or chain-of-thought prompting, yet they exhibit brittleness in handling underspecified common noun metonymies, with errors propagating to broader NLP pipelines like entity linking. Emerging trends integrate metonymy resolution with discourse analysis in semantic parsing frameworks, using contextual embeddings to model referential chains and improve disambiguation; for instance, probing LLMs with discourse-aware prompts enhances resolution of metonymies embedded in multi-sentence narratives, as tested in recent pragmatics benchmarks. These developments underscore the need for hybrid approaches combining prompting with explicit contiguity modeling to advance AI's handling of figurative language.

Debates and Critical Perspectives

Classification and Theoretical Disputes

One persistent theoretical dispute in the classification of metonymy concerns whether it is reducible to synecdoche, defined as substitution via part-whole relations (e.g., "hand" for "worker"), or encompasses broader associative mappings such as cause-effect (e.g., "crown" for "monarchy") and spatial contiguity. Traditional rhetorical frameworks often subsume synecdoche under metonymy as a subtype, yet some neo-rhetorical critiques advocate narrowing metonymy to part-whole contiguity to maintain analytical precision, arguing that causal extensions dilute its core mechanism of perceptual adjacency. This view posits that causal links, while associative, introduce metaphorical abstraction rather than true metonymic substitution grounded in immediate relational proximity. Empirical corpus analyses challenge this reduction, revealing that non-part-whole metonymies predominate in natural language use. A systematic corpus study of metonymy in verbal communication identified prevalent shifts from action to result (cause-effect) and instrument to user, comprising over 60% of instances, far exceeding part-whole types which accounted for less than 20%. Similarly, broader investigations into organizational discourse via large-scale corpora demonstrate metonymic patterns like location-for-event (e.g., "Wall Street" for financial crises) as frequent, underscoring causality and contiguity as distinct, empirically dominant categories rather than synecdochic variants. These findings align with 2017 analyses of figurativity gradients, which document metonymic expressions exhibiting varying degrees of non-prototypical extension, including causal chains, thereby falsifying claims of synecdochic universality through quantifiable distributional evidence. Resolving such disputes demands falsifiable criteria over interpretive , prioritizing linguistic tests like coercion diagnostics (e.g., compatibility with predicates) and neurolinguistic processing metrics, which differentiate metonymic contiguity from metaphoric similarity without presupposing fluid boundaries. Corpus-derived frequencies and experimental comprehension thus provide causal anchors for , avoiding unsubstantiated expansions that conflate metonymy with mere association. This evidence-based approach mitigates theoretical overreach, as seen in critiques where causal metonymies fail substitution tests in controlled contexts, reinforcing the need for delimited, testable subtypes.

Cross-Linguistic and Cultural Variations

Empirical cross-linguistic analyses reveal asymmetries in metonymic mappings, with producer-for-product relations more entrenched in English, as evidenced by systematic uses like "Hoover" denoting a and efficient psycholinguistic processing in comprehension experiments. In such as Russian and Czech, word-formation metonymies show typological divergences, favoring extensions tied to event structures in derivational suffixes, though core contiguities overlap with Indo-European patterns like Norwegian. These differences challenge universalist assumptions by demonstrating language-specific preferences in source-target alignments, derived from corpus-based contrasts rather than invariant cognitive prototypes. Cultural contexts amplify variations, particularly in political metonymies shaped by institutional realities. In collectivist systems like China's, "the Party" metonymically stands for the Communist Party's leadership and state functions, prioritizing collective over individual referential chains in official discourse and cartoons. This contrasts with individualist polities, where place-for-institution metonymies like "" evoke executive authority tied to personnel and decisions, reflecting causal emphasis on personal agency. Such patterns correlate with societal structures, where frequent metonymies encode prevalent causal links, as in higher institutional salience in hierarchical regimes versus leader-centric ones in decentralized systems. While contiguity—experiential adjacency—forms the invariant base, empirical data from multilingual corpora indicate frequency gradients driven by cultural naturalness, with stronger perceptual or functional links yielding cross-linguistic dominance. For instance, regular metonymies like action-for-agent persist across boundaries but vary in salience, underscoring how societal causal densities, not abstract universality, govern usage disparities. This variationist evidence tempers overclaims of homogeneity, prioritizing data-driven asymmetries over idealized cognitive uniformity.

References

  1. https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/wlf/what-metonymy
  2. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0252.xml
  3. https://www.etymonline.com/word/metonymy
  4. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metonymy
  5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.39.1.55
  6. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0252.xml
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zoltan-Koevecses/publication/270525327_Metonymy_Developing_a_Cognitive_Linguistic_View/links/5696ae3a08ae1c427903dc36/Metonymy-Developing-a-Cognitive-Linguistic-View.pdf
  8. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34552/chapter/293157288
  9. https://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/96041459/Littlemore_Metonymy_Chapter_Revised_April_2016.pdf
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216614000745
  11. https://aclanthology.org/C00-2128.pdf
  12. https://chs.harvard.edu/curated-article/gregory-nagy-a-sampling-of-comments-on-the-iliad-and-odyssey/
  13. https://konan-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2000136/files/K04567.pdf
  14. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-aesthetics/
  15. https://oro.open.ac.uk/54728/1/607623.pdf
  16. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/demetrius_phalerum-style/1995/pb_LCL199.309.xml
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.1987.5.4.369
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/literary-theory-and-criticism-in-the-later-middle-ages/poetics-and-biblical-hermeneutics-in-the-thirteenth-century/5B1A310290D8F6CDA7B45D5D20B320B9
  19. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/16420/pg16420-images.html
  20. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1176742/full
  21. https://commons.princeton.edu/shakespeares-language/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2017/09/Jakobson-Two-Aspects-of-Language-and-Two-Types-of-Aphasic-Disturbances.pdf
  22. https://www.ams.org/publicoutreach/feature-column/fcarc-metonymy1
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352361978_Preschoolers%27_acquisition_of_producer-product_metonymy
  24. https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/files/5815508/4024167.pdf
  25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10926488.2024.2447695
  26. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1499563/full
  27. https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol01/01/10.pdf
  28. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10926488.2024.2447695?src=exp-la
  29. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/810c/cf1c301094407f22ae5ded0b748ec0090351.pdf
  30. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/synecdoche-metonymy-usage-differences
  31. https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/synecdoche
  32. https://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem07.html
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327344949_Not_one_word_of_it_made_any_sense_Hyperbolic_synecdoche_in_the_British_National_Corpus
  34. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/970c/a9cdfd605da3d065b856c785f4a1362d078e.pdf
  35. https://cleanlanguage.com/metonymy/
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270525327_Metonymy_Developing_a_Cognitive_Linguistic_View
  37. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/78854/Koch%2520%25282012%2529%2520The%2520pervasivness%2520of%2520contiguity%2520and%2520metonymy%2520in%2520semantic%2520change%2520%2528A122%2529.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  38. https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/meaning/index.html
  39. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/indexical/metonymy.htm
  40. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/199322/3/Peirsman_Geeraerts_2006final_metonymy_prototypical_category.pdf
  41. https://davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5a9678d0a20c6.pdf
  42. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:397474/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  43. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-36185-001
  44. https://aclanthology.org/2022.sigtyp-1.13.pdf
  45. https://www.academia.edu/61084678/A_cross_linguistic_analysis_of_colour_term_metaphors
  46. https://pressbooks.palni.org/elementsofbiblicalpoetry/chapter/7metonymy/
  47. https://trulyrandomverse.com/psalms/44-6
  48. https://www.bardweb.net/content/grammar/02rhetoric.html
  49. https://hands-up-education.org/aen1notes2/
  50. http://sententiaeantiquae.com/2016/08/13/servius-rails-against-idle-nonsense/
  51. https://www.britannica.com/art/metonymy
  52. https://academic.oup.com/book/8782/chapter/154928314
  53. https://stgries.info/research/2006_AS_STG_CorpAppr2Meta&Meto.pdf
  54. https://aclanthology.org/W03-1401.pdf
  55. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=48079
  56. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/2919/HishamTBObeidatPhDThesis.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
  57. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127200.pdf
  58. https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/metonymy
  59. https://7esl.com/metonymy/
  60. https://quillbot.com/blog/rhetoric/metonymy/
  61. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110199895.152/html
  62. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147495/what-is-the-origin-of-the-expression-legislate-from-the-bench
  63. https://psyarxiv.com/f6yjt/download
  64. http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/psicl/files/38/12Truszczynska.pdf
  65. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34552/chapter/293155829
  66. https://www.slm.uni-hamburg.de/iaa/personen/ehemalige-emeriti/radden-guenter/downloads/radden-koevecses-2007-metonymy.pdf
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360502469_Metonymy_as_a_Universal_Cognitive_Phenomenon_Evidence_from_Multilingual_Lexicons
  68. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02113/full
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6400971/
  70. https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/portal/files/42345182/Littlemore_Role_Embodied_Cognition_Metonymy_Accepted.pdf
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201421000708
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093934X11001271
  73. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00044/full
  74. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02308/full
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11866486/
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26887916/
  77. https://jhss.koyauniversity.org/index.php/jhss/article/view/244
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376418234_Language_Style_in_Advertising_A_Study_of_the_Print_Media
  79. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-and-cognition/article/paula-perez-sobrino-multimodal-metaphor-and-metonymy-in-advertising-john-benjamins-publishing-company-2017-pp-232-isbn-9789027209863-hb-97890272646711-ebook/8649450A25971EA8CA68938B6B778D85
  80. https://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2016/lakoff_trump.html
  81. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/8123/1/Heritage2018MAbyRes.pdf
  82. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/7829114.pdf
  83. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09579265231222005
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027153092400051X
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377665359_The_potential_of_creative_uses_of_metonymy_for_climate_protest
  86. https://aclanthology.org/S07-1007.pdf
  87. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06087
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705123006780
  89. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=ucin1758119740534658&disposition=inline
  90. https://www.academia.edu/7321688/Metonymy_synecdoche_and_the_disorders_of_contiguity
  91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4913973_Metonymy_in_Language_about_Organizations_A_Corpus-Based_Study_of_Company_Names
  92. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3088291
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216618305174
  94. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-cognitive-linguistics/metonymy/9EBF91ED08F76FE3FCEFA43447856F51
  95. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12341
  96. https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/lrc/news/metonymy-in-word-formation-a-comparison-of-czech-russian-and-norwegian
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49615718_Russian_word-formation_in_contrast_with_Czech_and_Norwegian
  98. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299601447_Variation_in_Metonymy_Cross-linguistic_Historical_and_Lectal_Perspectives
  99. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles-Forceville/publication/349835694_Zhang_Forceville_2020_Metaphor_and_Metonymy_in_Chinese_and_American_Political_Cartoons_2018-2019_about_the_Sino-US_Trade_Conflict_Pragmatics_Cognition_272_476-501_httpsbenjaminscomcatalogpc20013zha/links/615dbd0cfbd5153f47e93354/Zhang-Forceville-2020-Metaphor-and-Metonymy-in-Chinese-and-American-Political-Cartoons-2018-2019-about-the-Sino-US-Trade-Conflict-Pragmatics-Cognition-272-476-501-https-benjaminscom-catalog-pc200.pdf
  100. https://www.academia.edu/69409528/Analyse_the_metaphor_and_metonymy_used_within_a_text_and_discuss_what_problems_it_might_present_to_language_learners_from_other_cultures
  101. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.3185
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350690152_On_the_regularity_of_metonymy_across_languages_exemplified_on_some_metonymies_in_medical_discourse
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000112000617
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.