Talk:Metonymy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tag: |
|||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk page header}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=high|class=start}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|||
{{WPLIT}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archives}} |
|||
== Simpler Introduction == |
== Simpler Introduction == |
||
I think the introduction has too much jargon and should be narrower and more direct. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OhDoTell|OhDoTell]] ([[User talk:OhDoTell|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OhDoTell|contribs]]) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I think the introduction has too much jargon and should be narrower and more direct. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OhDoTell|OhDoTell]] ([[User talk:OhDoTell|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OhDoTell|contribs]]) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:This concern appears to have been addressed. I was quite impressed with the simple opening sentences, especially with the non-traditional-Wiki example, using Hollywood. Some good thinking, there. [[User:Leptus Froggi|Leptus Froggi]] ([[User talk:Leptus Froggi|talk]]) 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Entree == |
|||
I think this is a poor example. For a start, in this article it refers to 'main course' (as 'dish'). However, this is Americanised and, indeed, contrary to what the link says if you follow it. Either remove the example or tag it as 'American usage'. |
|||
: Okay -- changed it to "course (in dining)". [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
== Question == |
|||
What is "Oslo" for "Oslo Peace Accords" or "Texas" for "University of Texas [athletics]" considered? Simply abbreviation? Thanks ~ [[User:Dpr|Dpr]] 08:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:This is a Metonymy. You are using "Oslo" to mean the peace accords, not because Oslo is a particularly peaceful place but because the Accords are associated with the city. |
|||
:I've also heard people use "metonymy" to refer to the use of one word to refer to another with which it commonly occurs, regardless of the relationship of the referents. For example, when I was in high school people would say "that's statutory" to refer to questionable older/younger relationship, referring to statutory rape (even though the word "statutory" itself has nothing to do with rape or age or relationships). I'm not sure however it this second use is widely accepted. |
|||
:Of course, it's also an abbreviation![[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] 10:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Actually, I wouldn't call this abbreviation or metonymy. I'd call it elision. Abbreviation means to shorten a word or phrase; i.e. Miss from Mistress. Elision is the omission of a sound or syllable in speech. The word 'rape' is not spoken but understood. How is describing a relationship as being 'statutory' metonymic? You said you 'heard' that using one word to refer to another (word) with which it commonly occurs is metonymic, regardless of the relationship of the referents. Where di you 'hear' that? It doesn't make sense. The common co-occurence of words is known as collocation and has nothing to do with metonymy. Brian |
|||
Right, Brian, which is why the definition as it now stands is just wrong. The key isn't the association of the ''words'', it's the association of the ''meanings'' of the words. The perfect example of metonymy that I was given in high school was "The paths of glory lead but unto the grave." Grave is metonymy for death. But there's no particularly strong association between the words "grave" and "death". Rather between the ideas/concepts/meanings of grave and death. |
|||
== Suggestion for lead == |
|||
Very good article, indeed. In reading it I had one suggestion. I'd like to see a very simple example of the term as it's used rhetorically. My suggestion would be to use, "The press" or "The Media" to indicate news reporting, as in, "The media was there to cover the fire," or, "''The press'' reported extensively the merger of Aol and Time Warner." Of course, many such easy to understand examples are possible. Tallyho, [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== P.C.Plod == |
|||
The name '''P.C.Plod''' for a British [[policeman]] started as the name of a character in the [[Noddy]] stories, but it became slang for any ordinary real British policeman. Can this be classed as '''metonymy'''? [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 06:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Not the best example == |
== Not the best example == |
||
| Line 35: | Line 16: | ||
<blockquote>On the other hand, asking for "All hands on deck" is a synecdoche because hands (A) are actually a part of the men (B) to whom they refer.</blockquote> |
<blockquote>On the other hand, asking for "All hands on deck" is a synecdoche because hands (A) are actually a part of the men (B) to whom they refer.</blockquote> |
||
Dictionary.com defines "hand" as, among other things, "[o]ne who is part of a group or crew" [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hand]. Since the example above is not referring to the crew's hands, but rather to the crewmen themselves, is that really an example of synechdoche (or, for that matter, metonymy) at all? I suppose calling it synechdoche would be valid if that is how that usage of "hand" came about, but in that case the etymology should be noted. Thoughts? --[[User:Bdesham|bdesham]] |
Dictionary.com defines "hand" as, among other things, "[o]ne who is part of a group or crew" [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hand]. Since the example above is not referring to the crew's hands, but rather to the crewmen themselves, is that really an example of synechdoche (or, for that matter, metonymy) at all? I suppose calling it synechdoche would be valid if that is how that usage of "hand" came about, but in that case the etymology should be noted. Thoughts? --[[User:Bdesham|bdesham]] [[User talk:Bdesham|<span style="color:#007f00;">★</span>]] 20:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
:The fact that "hand" refers to the crewmen and not the crewmen's actual hands is what makes it an example of synecdoche. This is in fact the canonical example of synecdoche; referring to the worker as "the hand" is to refer to the whole as the part. It's such a common usage that it even found its way into the dictionary, as you note. [[User:Fumblebruschi|Fumblebruschi]] 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
:The fact that "hand" refers to the crewmen and not the crewmen's actual hands is what makes it an example of synecdoche. This is in fact the canonical example of synecdoche; referring to the worker as "the hand" is to refer to the whole as the part. It's such a common usage that it even found its way into the dictionary, as you note. [[User:Fumblebruschi|Fumblebruschi]] 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
::Agreed. See also: [http://m-w.com/dictionary/plow plow] or [http://m-w.com/dictionary/sail sail].--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] 03:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
::Agreed. See also: [http://m-w.com/dictionary/plow plow] or [http://m-w.com/dictionary/sail sail].--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] 03:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
| Line 51: | Line 31: | ||
:::I don't agree. Oysters are shellfish. If you are pulling shellfish out of the ocean, then you are fishing. What you're fishing for is oysters; what you hope to get from the oysters is pearls; therefore, by metonymy, you might say that you are "fishing for pearls." [[User:Fumblebruschi|Fumblebruschi]] 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
:::I don't agree. Oysters are shellfish. If you are pulling shellfish out of the ocean, then you are fishing. What you're fishing for is oysters; what you hope to get from the oysters is pearls; therefore, by metonymy, you might say that you are "fishing for pearls." [[User:Fumblebruschi|Fumblebruschi]] 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::I agree with [[User:Fumblebruschi|Fumblebruschi]]. If I said I were fishing for trout or fishing for salmon I would clearly NOT be employing metonym. I would just be using the word "fishing" literally. The fact that fishing trout, salmon and oysters all require "getting things out of the ocean" is not grounds for establishing metonymy. Furthermore, if the claim is that getting pearls out of the ocean is ''similar'' to getting fish out the ocean, then you are making a comparison by similarity or analogy NOT making reference to a contiguity. |
|||
Right! It's especially clear that there's a problem in this passage: "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 fact, since oysters are shellfish, we know that pearls do, indeed, originate from fish. JM <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.239.1.231|132.239.1.231]] ([[User talk:132.239.1.231|talk]]) 09:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::Just because the analogy is in the same domain (the ocean), does not mean that it is a metonym. For instance the expressions "to catch a wave" and "to catch a fish" are not related metonymically even if both can occur in the domain of the ocean. Rather, "to catch a wave" transfers the idea that fishing is hard and requires both skill and luck to the domain of surfing, an activity which is otherwise quite disimilar from fishing even if both require getting wet. In fact, I would argue that fishing for fish, fishing for pearls and catching waves are most likely ''separated'' by the ocean, not joined. To state otherwise is like arguing that "to climb a mountain" and "to climb the stairs" are related metonymically because they both occur in the domain of three dimensional space. |
|||
== Example needs punctuation? == |
|||
::::The passage is confusing, it should be revised. --[[User:Quaquaquaqua|Quaquaquaqua]] ([[User talk:Quaquaquaqua|talk]]) 04:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC) |
|||
"When the distinction is made, it is the following: if A is used to refer to B, it is a synecdoche if A is a part of B and a metonymy if A is commonly associated with B but not a part of it." |
|||
Right! It's especially clear that there's a problem in this passage: "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 fact, since oysters are shellfish, we know that pearls do, indeed, originate from fish. JM <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.239.1.231|132.239.1.231]] ([[User talk:132.239.1.231|talk]]) 09:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
If divided into sections it looks like this: |
|||
"When the distinction is made, it is the following:<BR> |
|||
if A is used to refer to B,<BR> |
|||
it is a synecdoche if A is a part of B<BR> |
|||
and a metonymy if A is commonly associated with B but not a part of it." |
|||
I don't understand it. Is something missing, and if so what? |
|||
[[User:Webhat|Webhat]] 08:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmm... the problem is the chain of ''if''s. The logic is clearer if we indent: |
|||
::When the distinction is made, it is the following:<BR> |
|||
:::if A is used to refer to B,<BR> |
|||
::::it is a synecdoche if A is a part of B<BR> |
|||
::::and a metonymy if A is commonly associated with B but not a part of it." |
|||
:There's no technical problem with the punctuation above that I can see, but I do see how it could be confusing. I'm going to change the first "if" to a "when" -- that may well help. Here's my proposed revision (I'll go ahead and put this in for now): ''When the distinction made, it is the following: when A is used to refer to B, it is a synecdoche if A is a part of B and a metonymy if A is commonly associated with B but not a part of it.'' [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
== Confusion about Keels example == |
|||
There is a famous example which displays synecdoche, metaphor and metonymy in one sentence. "Fifty keels ploughed the deep", where "keels" is the metonym as it takes a part (of the ship) as the whole (of the ship), but keels are not an inherent quality of 'shipness'; "ploughed" is the metaphor as it substitutes (thus also displacing it) by association the concept of sailing; and "the deep" is the synecdoche, as "deepness" is an inherent quality or attribute of seas and oceans and directly affects their defintition. |
|||
Regarding this, is it true that either one of these is a metonym, as it seems that both of the examples'' keels ''and'' the deep'' are parts of their respective references, and not separable objects/qualities. Maybe a new clearer example is needed, or to simply rid this example from the article so confusion does not arise. ''(unsigned by 142.151.166.83 at 21:37, 11 December 2005)'' |
|||
: "Deep" is not a "part" of the ocean -- "deep" is an adjective describing the ocean. If "the deep" were a part of the ocean, it would surely be the bottom of it, not the part "plowed by keels". [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
I take issue with the same section of the article, but for a different reason altogether: How "famous" is a phrase if the only reference [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=%22keels+ploughed+the+deep%22] to it is that which proclaims its fame? It's not just a matter of spelling [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=%22keels+plowed+the+deep%22], either. --[[User:Electric counterpoint|electric counterpoint]] 08:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: Why don't we just remove the word famous? I assume whoever added it had heard it various times and it's a kind of neat example, so I'm not opposed to keeping it. It's not like this is somebody trying to add their name to a list of poets or something -- it's just an example of metonymy, after all. It also strikes me as plausable that this example has been used quite a bit (perhaps it appeared in a rhetoric textbook at some point) but does not show up on a google search. [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
== Metonymy and Synecdoche == |
|||
With the comment, "Removed "Metonymy & Synecdoche" section, incorporating it into larger article and not as a separate section to correct either error or cog-ling bias and bring it in line with synecdoche article", the metonymy and synecdoche section was removed. What is strange to me is that this was not really "incorporated" into the article -- rather, a statement was added to the beginning stating that "metonymy is often confused with synecdoche". Since the old section suggested that "synecdoche is usually understood as a type of metonymy", it seemed like an awfully big change. Anyway, I am tempted to revert but wanted to allow for discussion first. Do other people think the old metonymy & synecdoche section was biased? Does moving a statement saying the two terms are often "confused" into the lead paragraph just create a different bias? [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
For reference, here is the removed section: |
|||
: Synecdoche and Metonymy |
|||
: [[Synecdoche]], where a specific part of something is taken 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 [[metaphor#Metaphor and Simile|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 part of B and a metonym if A is commonly associated with B but not a part of it. |
|||
: Thus, "The White House said" would be a metonymy for the president and his staff, because the White House (A) is not part of the president or his staff (B), it is merely closely associated with them because of physical proximity. On the other hand, asking for "All hands on deck" is a synecdoche because hands (A) are actually a part of the men (B) to whom they refer. |
|||
: There is an example which displays synecdoche, metaphor and metonymy in one sentence. "Fifty keels ploughed the deep", where "keels" is the synecdoche as it takes a part (of the ship) as the whole (of the ship); "ploughed" is the metaphor as it substitutes the concept of ploughing a field for moving through the ocean; and "the deep" is the metonym, as "deepness" is an attribute associated with the ocean. |
|||
:: Well -- there has been no reply here. I'm replacing the section -- this adds to the discussion, I think, and helps make this an encyclopedic article and not a mere dictionary entry. [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
:::Synecdoche is a subset of metonymy. |
|||
:::*[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/metonymy Metonymy]: in place of A, we use B, which with it is associated. |
|||
:::*[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/synecdoche Synecdoche]: in place of A, we use B, which is either a part of A or something A is a part of. Since parts of an object are also associated with the whole object, all synecdoches are metonyms, though not all metonyms are synecdoches. --[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Examples == |
|||
The list of examples keeps getting longer -- this really isn't useful! Two or three examples will suffice. I'll go ahead and do some dramatic trimming [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
: I just trimmed the example list again -- maybe we need to reformat these as sentences and not as a list, since apparently formatting as a list makes people think they need to add more examples (and, in the most recent case, to categorize those examples into British and American examples!) [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
== metonymy vs metaphor == |
|||
I was taught, and I think it makes perfect sense, that metonymy and metaphor are not mutually exclusive; metonymy is a type of metaphor. Clearly not every type of metaphor is reached by metonymy, but in any instance of metonymy, you are using one word as a substitute for another, which is the very definition of metaphor. Just take the definition from the lead: "...is the substitution of one word for another [with which it is associated]." Take out the bracketed part, and you have the definition of metaphor. The requirement this article assumes, that metaphors *must* be made by virtue of A being said to have B-like characteristics, is consistent neither with what I have learned metaphor to be, nor with what dictionary.com says it is, nor even with what the wikipedia entry on metaphor says it must be (from the brief skimming I've given it). |
|||
In other words, I think this article artificially constrains the definition of metaphor in order to support an exclusive relationship between it and metonymy for which there is no basis or convention. |
|||
And since the article mentions different contexts in which this can be framed, I'll add that I have heard the above argument both in literary and in linguistic contexts. |
|||
I know I'm supposed to "be bold" and all that, but I don't like being bold. This is my warning shot... if nobody complains and says I'm wrong, I'm going to fix this in a couple days. |
|||
I forget how exactly I'm supposed to sign this, but in case anyone wants to yell at me or whatever, my SN is Eleusinian 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:For the sake of keeping common knowledge accurate, I'd like to include here that [[Shellfish|shellfish]] aren't actually fish. [[User:Cwbr77|Cwbr77]] ([[User talk:Cwbr77|talk]]) 09:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
: Just noticed the change -- I've reverted it. Just because metaphor and metonymy each can be described as substitutions (Word/Concept A used for Word/Concept B) does not mean they're the same. The deleted section included an explanation of the difference, an example, and a citation. I added a new sentence acknowledging the similarity you described between metonymy and metaphor, but I've returned the rest of the section to its former state. [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
Definitely not a metonym... Pearls refers to pearls, not the oyster. Harvesting oysters to eat is different than harvesting pearls. This was confusing from the beginning because "to fish pearls" or whatever isn't an actual idiom or metaphor, no one says or writes that. "Pearls diving" is apparently slang for cunnilingus.... which is also not a metonym |
|||
::Take a look at any definition of metaphor, including the one on Wikipedia itself. It doesn't specify the way in which the comparison is made, just that it's made. If you really insist, I'll go and read that reference of yours more closely, but really, apply some basic logic and you'll see that metonymy is a kind of metaphor. A car and a Honda Civic aren't the same either, but one's a kind of the other. |
|||
BTW, all the examples discussed at length the Talk Page appear to be gone, replaced with jibberish and irrelevant references to antiquity... What the hell happened to this article? I'm obviously an anonymous so I have to criticize but it'd pretty messed up <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:647:5A00:C160:C055:BB68:D28C:1460|2601:647:5A00:C160:C055:BB68:D28C:1460]] ([[User talk:2601:647:5A00:C160:C055:BB68:D28C:1460#top|talk]]) 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Dates as metonymy == |
|||
::I don't know how to add references with nice formatting and all, but if you look at http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/jtallmon/style.htm , you'll see a professor at Dickinson U. whose website includes a definition of metonymy that explicitly says it's a kind of metaphor. Mind you, I am in no way connected to Dickinson; I just did a google search and posted the first thing I saw that wasn't from "just some page." |
|||
What about dates, like "The Fourth of July" meaning "American Independence Day" or "May Fourth" meaning "The ideas in China about nationalism and modernization that resulted in and were a result of the 'May Fourth Incident'"? Another good one is "a September 11th" meaning "An incident of terrorism on a grand scale like what happened on 11 September 2011" [[Special:Contributions/198.207.26.2|198.207.26.2]] ([[User talk:198.207.26.2|talk]]) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::If you want to consider the two terms mutually exclusive, fine. But it is by no means obvious or established that they are, and you should permit, at the very least, the mention that some consider them not to be. I've edited in a way that I think is a very fair compromise. |
|||
:Yes, yes, good idea. [[User:Leptus Froggi|Leptus Froggi]] ([[User talk:Leptus Froggi|talk]]) 15:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Arab Street == |
|||
::Eleusinian |
|||
So the term '''Arab Street''' instantiates what--''metaphorical toponymy''? That's too many levels of abstraction to be wieldy (nevermind catchy). |
|||
::: The definition given in the wikipedia metaphor lead is that metaphor "is a direct comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects. Metaphor then always draws out a similarity between two dissimilar things. Metonymy is quite different -- it uses an *association* between two things to relate them. If you look at the definitions on the very thorough Sylva Rhetorica site (http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm) you'll see definitions that reiterate the difference -- it defines metaphor as a comparison and metonymy as referring to something by naming one of its attributes (I find this definition slightly confusing, but you get the idea). I'll grant that the webpage you site gives the definition you suggest, but certainly in cognitive science, where this distinction is talked about a great deal, metonymy is *not* considered a type of metaphor. |
|||
::: A quick search of scholar.google.com for metaphor and metonymy will get you plenty of articles and books on the difference between these figures (or modes of thought/language). I'll look for some of the more foundational papers on the topic and include them as citations as I re-edit this section. [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
[[User:Patronanejo|Patronanejo]] ([[User talk:Patronanejo|talk]]) 07:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Sorry, I forgot to check back until now! My wiki-use tends to go in and out. Anyway I like the current revision. I see your point about the linguistic and cognative science analysis, but my point was simply that at a superficial level, the two are not mutually exclusive. You have covered both of those aspects, and in good detail. I've only skimmed it (I'm really tired right now, can barely even read a full sentence ;) ) but it looks good. Thanks for the work! |
|||
:::: One thing, though. Couldn't "lend me your ear" also be synecdoche if you're chopping someone's head off? ;)[[User:Eleusinian|Eleusinian]] |
|||
== Unclear citation style == |
|||
:::::: Glad you approve of the latest version! Your new interpretation of "lend me your ear" is quite extreme indeed! [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
:::::::I've noticed this unfortunate tendency that anytime a colloquial word in english is borrowed by pedagogy to describe an exact studied concept, the people studying the concept define it as only being the latter. E.g. energy is a word borrowed by physics, but the word means far more than the precisely defined concept in physics. That being the case, I feel it's only fair in making this elaborate comparison between metaphor and metonymy to mention in the article that in the familiar colloquial sense [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/metaphor as is defined in a dictionary] they are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, all metonyms are metaphors in this sense. I'm sure people have studied these things in depth and constrained "metaphor" to a smaller region than colloquial english has, but this restriction, as Eleusinian has mentioned, is artificial and is not complete.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I am loathe to remove the items from the "bibliography", but many of them have no footnotes or parenthetical citations to show what they are supposed to support. Please help clean up the citation style if you can. Otherwise, I will probably move the books to the further reading section, and mark various assertions in the article as needing citation for verification. Thanks, [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::What Loodog says. I will add that both terms have been used for centuries by scholars of classical literature, who use it exactly as Loodog says. That sociologists and non-classical linguists choose to seize these words and use them with a rather different meaning, which I must say deviates from etymology and historical usage, certainly does not mean that the traditional sense should be surrendered without a fight. The traditional sense is still the most common one, as far as I know: every schoolboy and classicist is still educated that way. |
|||
== Phonetic Transcription == |
|||
Metonymy is simply a "change of name" (literally from the Greek), i.e. you use a name to indicate a thing that you would normally not so indicate, instead of its proper name; metaphor means no more than "transfer" (hence "transferred sense", a common synomyn), and it is used to describe that you use any phrase to indicate something that you normally would not indicate that way, be it a phrase, a word, a parable. The only difference is the name part: metonymy is restricted to the use of names, metaphor is not; i.e. metonymy is a subclass of metaphor. Frankly I found the linguistic paper in note 3 hardly readable. [[User:Cerberus™|Cerberus™]] ([[User talk:Cerberus™|talk]]) 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The nucleus of the first syllable in metonymy is the DRESS vowel; [ɛ]. Not [i]. |
|||
== The opening sentence == |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/192.76.7.216|192.76.7.216]] ([[User talk:192.76.7.216|talk]]) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I think the parenthesis about the etymology of the word makes the first sentence practically unreadable. Can't we just open with "In rhetoric, metonymy is the substitution of one word for another with which it is associated." and then put the etymology on the second line. Somehow the combination of greek letters, italics and nested brackets makes me dizzy. |
|||
[[User:85.178.40.91|85.178.40.91]] 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the opening sentence was changed after the above comment, but it still makes me dizzy. If A is associated with B, can we say instead that B is associated with A? If so, the sentence can be simplified considerably, in my opinion, from ''"In [[rhetoric]], '''metonymy''' ({{IPA-en|mɨˈtɒnɨmi}}) is the use of a word for a concept the original concept behind this word is associated with. "'' to ''"In [[rhetoric]], '''metonymy''' ({{IPA-en|mɨˈtɒnɨmi}}) is the use of a word for a concept associated with the original concept behind this word. "'' --[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== New Edit 3/5/14 Enthymeme example == |
||
Hello! |
|||
In restaurants, I often hear people order a Coke, even if the restaurant serves Pepsi. It's been my observation that people say "Coke" to refer to any kind of cola, even using the brandname in preference to the beverage name. For example, the drink is called a "rum and coke," not a "rum and cola." Is this a metonym? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Khan singh|Khan singh]] ([[User talk:Khan singh|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khan singh|contribs]]) 07:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
When I learned about enthymemes, something clicked for me in figuring out the definition of metonymy |
|||
I added the section relating metonymy to enthymemes in order to clarify this concept using the much more easily understood concept of syllogism for my fellow scholars who might have trouble making connections between the definition of metonymy and its use, much like I did. |
|||
I'm a communication major working at a research university in a class on rhetoric and would appreciate any constructive comments or suggestions. |
|||
Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:KBB24|KBB24]] ([[User talk:KBB24|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/KBB24|contribs]]) 04:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Whitehall is a street, not a city== |
|||
: Yeah -- I think that's a metonym. So is "pop" by the way -- in that case we take the noise the soda makes and use it for the soda -- pretty cool. [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
I know I'm being a bit picky here - the idea is clear enough. But this sentence is factually incorrect: |
|||
== domain == |
|||
{{quote|" The national capital is often used to represent the government or monarchy of a country, such as "Washington" for United States government or "Whitehall" for the Government of the United Kingdom."}} |
|||
The word "domain" appear six times in the article, each without clarifying statements or a wikilink. [[Domain|Looking it up in wikipedia]] doesn't help. In the interest of making this more accessible, "domain" needs to clarified.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Whitehall is a street in London, not a city or capital, that's London of course. And we never (to my knowledge) use "London" to represent the UK government. And - we perhaps more commonly refer to it as Westminster after the palace of Westminster (also known as the Houses of Parliament) where the government meets. |
|||
== List of metonyms == |
|||
{{quote|" The national capital or another geographical location is often used to represent the government or monarchy of a country, such as the city of "Washington" for United States government or the street of "Whitehall" or the palace of "Westminster" for the Government of the United Kingdom."}} |
|||
Do we really want a list of metonyms? It seems like it will grow exponentially in very little time... on the other hand, it has taken the pressure off the intro of the article (at long last extra metonyms have stopped appearing tacked onto the intro of the article). If the list is worthy, perhaps we could specify what sort of list it is -- is it a list of common metonyms? A list of famous ones? A list of words of metonymic origin? [[User:Thomas Mills Hinkle|Tom]] |
|||
:I figured that common was implied. It's... difficult to cite a metonym. I suppose that a work would simply have to use it in order to qualify? Perhaps multiple ones? --[[User:Eyrian|Eyrian]] 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
is more accurate but maybe a bit clumsy. Any thoughts? Welcome to use that if others agree. I feel that this is quite a high profile page so best to suggest the idea on the talk page first rather than just jump in and try to fix it. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 11:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Well I personaly found the list very useful (note that Im not from US) [[User:Unknown entity|Unknown entity]] ([[User talk:Unknown entity|talk]]) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::They are very useful. I'll stick an HTML comment in there to hopefully prevent it from becoming a crud bucket.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: Good proposal as-is—thoughts on tweaking include (1) could just switch to a second example using a city, such as Washington and Moscow, if want to avoid the issue or (2) "national capital or another geographical location" could be "national capital (or a street or building)"—concrete, maybe less clumsy. Streets and buildings include Downing Street, Westminster, Whitehall, Kremlin, White House. — [[User:Three-quarter-ten|¾-10]] 22:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Sand Hill Road == |
|||
== "Metonymy and related figures of speech ..." (currently 'graph 4 of lead section of the acc'nying article) == |
|||
This example needs to be cited. One might argue that every entry needs to be cited, and that's true, but I find this one in particular is likely not in common usage, and should be considered in light of [[WP:NEO]]. --[[User:Eyrian/T|Eyrian]] 15:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I have come across this phrase used often. Here's an example- http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/08/magazines/business2/rimer_vc.biz2/index.htm |
|||
: Please search for the word 'Sand' and you get the sentence. [[User:Praveens|peachy]] 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I butchered the 'graph in question, complaining in a remark in the markup to the effect that |
|||
== Sweat = Work? Huh? == |
|||
:I, and no doubt a few other dunces, don't know whether our colleague meant (by "substitute"): |
|||
:* "alternate name for" or |
|||
:* "vaguer term that may be more accessible to the dunces who don't specialize in LitThry". |
|||
: Note that we dunces might, nevertheless even improve ourselves by reading appropriately linked WP articles on some of the other 7 terms! |
|||
(On the other hand, that i might may have left it insufficiently clear to some, the fact that i doubt i will ever consult Burke's even-older-than-i-am monograph.)<br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 06:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)<br> |
|||
== External links modified (January 2018) == |
|||
The first example on the page "sweat = hard work" makes no sense to me. What sentence uses the word "sweat" to literally mean "hard work"? eg.<br /><br /> |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
"It will take a lot of sweat to finish this jigsaw"<br /><br /> |
|||
I have just modified 2 external links on [[Metonymy]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/822516573|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
huh? Nobody says that. Not in the UK, but maybe elsewhere possibly. |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816080831/http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/M/metalepsis.htm to http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/m/metalepsis.htm |
|||
I think the first example should really be simple and universally understood. |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031015050215/http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/acl2003/lexfig/pdfs/Peters.pdf to http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/acl2003/lexfig/pdfs/Peters.pdf |
|||
How's about... |
|||
<br /> |
|||
WORD: jigsaw<br /> |
|||
ORIGINAL USE: the tool used to make the puzzle<br /> |
|||
METONYMIC USE: the actual puzzle<br /> |
|||
<br /> |
|||
Also, the list of metonyms is almost exclusively proper nouns, which aren't very enlightening, especially since most of them are country-specific. I've never heard of Foggy Bottom for instance, and I don't imagine too many people outside the US have. Sounds like a lovely place though! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mikething|Mikething]] ([[User talk:Mikething|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikething|contribs]]) 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Don't give up on the metonym that easily; put some sweat into it!--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
I've heard "sweat" used to mean "hard work" here in the U.S., so perhaps some sort of note should be made on the local nature of these metonyms. [[User:Kevinthenerd|kevinthenerd]] ([[User talk:Kevinthenerd|talk]]) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
== "Tongue" as a metonym for "Language" == |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Is "tongue" really a metonym for "language"? In many languages, the word for "language" is actually the exact same word for "tongue" (cf. "язык" in Russian and "γλώσσα" in Greek). The word "language" itself is actually etymologically derived from the Latin word for tongue/language, "lingua". It doesn't seem right that this should be considered a proper metonym. --[[Special:Contributions/216.73.248.254|216.73.248.254]] ([[User talk:216.73.248.254|talk]]) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:In present-day English usage, it is a metonym. Metonyms don't give notice to etymologies or origins.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== containment sounds a lot like toponymy unless it gets better examples == |
|||
But the table is the problem then, as it has a column stating that the 'original meaning' of tongue is an oral muscle. Perhaps the metonymy is the other way round. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.243.204.95|134.243.204.95]] ([[User talk:134.243.204.95|talk]]) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
'containment' could use better examples. 'white house' & 'pentagon' function quite similarly to toponyms, I think. |
|||
== Kennedy Space Center == |
|||
you could say that a toponymic name can persist even when the signified entity moves somewhere else. But do we know that container names can't do that? Or maybe that's a primary distinguisher between these two types of metonyms? If so, the article should say so. |
|||
I was born in Cocoa (Florida) and grew up in Merritt Island. I've gone to school in Melbourne, Cocoa, and about thirty miles northeast of Tampa. I've also lived in Orlando, Oviedo, and in a rural area directly north of Clearwater. In the twenty years I lived in Brevard County, I quite often heard people refer to the Kennedy Space Center as "The Cape," but never in my life have I heard anybody call it "Merritt Island." I dispute the validity of this metonym. I'll agree with "Cape Canaveral," but the exact wording might need to be changed. [[User:Kevinthenerd|kevinthenerd]] ([[User talk:Kevinthenerd|talk]]) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I think a lot of this article is just structuralists drumming up business for themselves. [[user:skakkle|skak]][[ying yang|E]][[oingo boingo|L]] 11:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== The list of metonymy in opening == |
|||
== America and USA == |
|||
I have gone ahead and removed the list seeing that the examples aren't really necessary IMHO, especially in light that there is already a decent example in the beginning and a extensive list below. [[User:HaItsNotOver|HaItsNotOver]] ([[User talk:HaItsNotOver|talk]]) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Is saying America when talking about the United States of America also an example? --[[User:FredTC|FredTC]] ([[User talk:FredTC|talk]]) 12:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Eggcorn == |
|||
== Is the Kremlin example actually synecdoche? == |
|||
An [[eggcorn]] is an instance of metonymy plus homonymy, yes? Please expand the article to mention this. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Isn't the use of the Kremlin to describe the government of Russia an example of [[synecdoche]]? Although synecdoche is a type of metonymy, given that these two are often confused<ref name="merr_OnSy">{{Cite web |title=On Synecdoche and Metonymy |author= |work=merriam-webster.com |date= |access-date=2 January 2020 |url= https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/synecdoche-metonymy-usage-differences}}</ref>, wouldn't it make more sense to have a different example? [[User:BobEret|BobEret]] ([[User talk:BobEret|talk]]) 11:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
No, an eggcorn need not contain any element of metonymy. An eggcorn is the idiosyncratic substitution of a word or morpheme for a phonologically similar string. In the eponymous ''eggcorn'', it is likely that a speaker understood ''acorn'' as related to ''corn'' either in the sense of a seed or a hard object, plus ''egg'' as a metaphorical description of shape. I see no metonymy here. It may be possible to analyze some eggcorn coinages as featuring metonymy, but that is accidental rather than systematic. [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
==Cause and effect== |
|||
== This article struggles to distinguish what Metonymy actually is == |
|||
The article does not mention that a metonymy can substitute an effect for a cause and vice-versa. |
|||
Definitions are terrible in this article, and where they do occur, the language used is so obscure and technical that it becomes meaningless. It fails to distinguish metonymy from a synecdoche, or even a metaphor, because it never mentions that a metonymy relies on an obvious and well known connection between concepts. Instead fuzzy references to 'analogous similarity' are used. |
|||
extract: |
|||
A metaphor is an unusual, creative link betwen ideas, that is specifically expressed. A metonymy relies on the fact that everyone knows a king is connected to his crown, and that the people who work in a famous building are at the address where that building is situated. That is why the metonymy of 'crown lands' or 'number 10' work without confusion. A synecdoche is a specific type of metonymy that refers to size. Again, this distinction of syndechdoches being a subset of metonymy is never mentioned. |
|||
For the people to turn into "sheer money," the narrator needs to skip a few steps in the logical and empirical chain of causes and effects. They "are sheer money" themselves, but he also sees them as the remuneration ("Honorar") they will earn him through writing. While the identification is seemingly metaphorical, it thus turns out to be the result of a metonymic procedure, substituting cause for effect. Conspicuously, the ontological claim "they are sheer money" chimes in with the self-conception of the citizens. It alludes to the more conventional metonymy that "the big money" is present on the stage. In this manner, the metonymical undercurrent of the scene ironically transforms the self-reliant citizens into a means to an end: the rich citizens are walking around not as a representation of their own wealth, but as incarnations of the writer's anticipated royalties ("Honorar"). |
|||
If these definitions were set out properly then most of the above questions regarding specific examples would be solved. |
|||
''Italic text'' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.54.64.36|121.54.64.36]] ([[User talk:121.54.64.36|talk]]) 09:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I propose to add in some of these ideas to the article over the next few days - with appropriate referencing, of course. |
|||
==Article currently does not sufficiently cover metonymy as a widespread aspect of cognition== |
|||
<small>[[User:Mdw0|Mdw0]] ([[User talk:Mdw0|talk]]) 01:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Agree. |
|||
In fact it moved backward a bit on this in recent months. Currently the first sentence of the lede declares the overall nature of metonymy to be "a figure of speech used in rhetoric". But that is mistaking one instance for the whole principle. Metonymy is, simply, the process of a thing or concept being called not by its own name but rather by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. This is a basic component of cognition, because how an intelligent entity (such as a human mind) parses reality into object models is subjective; various models can fit the data well, and none fits perfectly. Metonymy on the mundane end of its spectrum is simply having a method to organize useful abstractions out of a messy pile of instances (such as "the president needs to propose a plan to Congress soon" instead of "the team of people reporting to the president who will prepare all 238 pages of his proposal need to soon go through the process for submitting executive proposals to the congressional staff who log and process them so that the legislators can then evaluate the proposal"). On the most exaggerated end of its spectrum it is a figure of speech used in rhetoric (such as "Crown" for "Queen Elizabeth" or "White House" for "presidential administration"). |
|||
:I just tried to read the article and it was so confusing and not clear that I was going to post on the talk page about it. |
|||
:Looks like you beat me to it. |
|||
:[[User:Paige Matheson|Paige Matheson]] ([[User talk:Paige Matheson|talk]]) 21:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== “Meaning relationships” section == |
|||
The section that mentions "cognitive science and linguistics" in its heading currently does virtually no justice to the topic from those perspectives. All we've yet done in this article in its current form is mention those perspectives' names and then fail to discuss them. |
|||
The Meaning Relationships section of this article feels inappropriately detailed to me. The tone and structure also feel less like an encyclopedic article and more like an educational text. There is way too much information here for it to be a reference in the style of other Wikipedia articles [[Special:Contributions/217.208.166.155|217.208.166.155]] ([[User talk:217.208.166.155|talk]]) 08:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
These are some areas needing improvement that can be revamped if any users with exposure to cognitive science find time and willingness to contribute to the article. Regards, [[User:Quercus solaris|Quercus solaris]] ([[User talk:Quercus solaris|talk]]) 16:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Hebrew cited as having risen from the ashes == |
|||
==Table== |
|||
The table of illustrative examples was deleted; and the edit summary presented a plausible explanation: |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&diff=388075136&oldid=388053777 diff] 10:22, 1 October 2010 [[Special:Contributions/24.61.203.154|24.61.203.154]] (''Removed toponyms, as they quickly overwhelm the list of examples since no one seems content to leave a single toponym stand (if we have Washington DC then we must have London and so on...)'') |
|||
This edit requires discussion. Some illustrative examples are helpful -- perhaps necessary -- in the context of an article like this one. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
No supporting evidence or even an explanation for how Israeli Hebrew somehow metaphorically rose from the ashes despite being in continuous contact use for millennia. [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:9CEE:8500:48F2:FA82:7FD3:54|2600:4040:9CEE:8500:48F2:FA82:7FD3:54]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:9CEE:8500:48F2:FA82:7FD3:54|talk]]) 19:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==Conflated meanings== |
|||
In a reasonably [[WP:Be Bold|bold]] edit, only one section was deleted: |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&diff=406321528&oldid=406196196 diff] 18:24, 6 January 2011 [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] (19,536 bytes) (''→Conflated meanings: deleted section - a rather poor example, poorly explained'') |
|||
In the edit summary, the adjective "poor" implies that the illustrative example was marginally understood as relevant and that it was minimally explained. This suggests that something other deletion is arguably possible. If we accept as axiomatic that the section is drafted with sufficient clarity, what else can be done? IMO, the [[Schengen Agreement]] presents an excellent example precisely because its subsequent development is a bit muddy. It helps that "Schengen" has become a modern [[trope]].<p>A related noteworthy edit is at [[Treaty#Conflated meanings]] |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Treaty&diff=406321394&oldid=405808346 diff] 18:23, 6 January 2011 [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] (34,505 bytes) (''→Conflation: deleted this nonsensical section'') |
|||
Compare [[Treaty#Rhetorical usage]].<p> My continuing interest in this section is practical, not abstract. Although the Schengen treaty cited is a contemporary example, the primary utility of this concept is in the context of anticipated edit wars in articles like [[Unequal treaty]] -- compare [[Talk:Eulsa Treaty]] ([[Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905]]). --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:As a constructive response, I have removed the disputed section from the article; and it is now here: |
|||
::;Conflated meanings<br> |
|||
::As an example of metonymy, the central principle of international relations is expressed in the [[brocard|maxim]] ''[[pacta sunt servanda]]'' ("pacts must be respected"); and this can be illustrated by the Schengen [[treaty]] despite the fact that it was not actually signed at [[Schengen, Luxembourg]], but in the [[Moselle River]] at the tripoint of [[Germany]], [[France]] and [[Luxembourg]].<ref>Lungescu, Oana. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/theneweurope/commen10.htm "Fortress Europe,"] BBC World Service. July 1998.</ref> This metonymy is unaffected, even after the [[Schengen Agreement]] lost the status of a treaty which could only be amended according to its terms.<ref>[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_396/l_39620041231en00450046.pdf Council Decision of 22 December 2004 providing for certain areas covered by Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be governed by the procedure laid down in Article 251 of that Treaty]</ref> Schengen has been encompassed within wider EU treaties.<ref>Example: By article 39 subsection 1 of the Schengen Borders Code, Articles 2 to 8 of the Schengen Agreement had been repealed — ''see'' [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_105/l_10520060413en00010032.pdf Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)].</ref><p>A treaty is that official document which expresses an agreement in words; and it is the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships. As an instance of metonymy, the "treaty" in an abstract sense can also refer to the subject of the pact or the elements of the pact itself .<ref name="shengen1"> |
|||
Halverson, Sandra L. ''et al.'' "Domains and Dimensions in Metonymy: A Corpus-Based Study of Schengen and Maastricht," [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a919063688 ''Metaphor and Symbol,''] 1532-7868, Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 1 – 18.</ref> In other words, the term treaty conflates the explicit words of the [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:42000A0922(01):EN:NOT Schengen Agreement] printed on emphemeral sheets of paper, the signing of the treaty at Schengen, and the actual implementation and consequences intended by those who drafted the words and those who affixed signatures on behalf of five European nations.<ref name="shengen2">Natase, Vivi and Michael Strube. [http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D/D09/D09-1095.pdf "Combining collocations, lexical and encyclopedic knowledge for metonymy resolution,"] [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1699631&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=100793574&CFTOKEN=27401081 ''Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,''] Volume 2, August 06-07, 2009, at 915 citing Farkas, Richard ''et al.'' [http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/S/S07/S07-1033.pdf GYDER: maxent metonymy resolution,"] [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1621507&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=100793574&CFTOKEN=27401081#citedby ''Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations,''] |
|||
Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 161-164, 2007; excerpt, "Schengen boosted tourism" ... [ignores] narrower distinctions, such as the fact that it wasn't the signing of the treaty at Schengen but its actual implementation (which didn't take place at Schengen) that boosted tourism."</ref><p>The [[Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]] has codified the conflated meanings of customary international law on treaties, entering into force in 1980.<ref>Organization of American States (OAS), [http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm Vienna Convention]</ref> States that have not ratified it yet may still recognize it as binding in as much as it is a restatement of customary law.<ref>United States Department of State, [http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm Vienna Convention]</ref> |
|||
:The section can be edited in response to the critical comments of [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] and others. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 04:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 19:01, 28 January 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metonymy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Simpler Introduction
[edit]I think the introduction has too much jargon and should be narrower and more direct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhDoTell (talk • contribs) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- This concern appears to have been addressed. I was quite impressed with the simple opening sentences, especially with the non-traditional-Wiki example, using Hollywood. Some good thinking, there. Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not the best example
[edit]I saw this example in the article...
On the other hand, asking for "All hands on deck" is a synecdoche because hands (A) are actually a part of the men (B) to whom they refer.
Dictionary.com defines "hand" as, among other things, "[o]ne who is part of a group or crew" [1]. Since the example above is not referring to the crew's hands, but rather to the crewmen themselves, is that really an example of synechdoche (or, for that matter, metonymy) at all? I suppose calling it synechdoche would be valid if that is how that usage of "hand" came about, but in that case the etymology should be noted. Thoughts? --bdesham ★ 20:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that "hand" refers to the crewmen and not the crewmen's actual hands is what makes it an example of synecdoche. This is in fact the canonical example of synecdoche; referring to the worker as "the hand" is to refer to the whole as the part. It's such a common usage that it even found its way into the dictionary, as you note. Fumblebruschi 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. See also: plow or sail.--Loodog 03:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The example, "to fish pearls" seems like a metaphor to me: am I mistaken that, "finishing for pearls" would have the exact same meaning? (And be employing the same linguistic devices.) Would the argument slightly farther down that it, "transfers the concept of fishing ... into a new domain" (namely hunting pearls instead of hunting fish). The charictarization of the activity of fishing as it is metaphorically being applied seems ill-written but perhaps not stricly incorrect. Paxfeline 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- "to fish pearls" (or "fishing for pearls", which you correctly note means exactly the same thing) is not a metaphor, since you are literally fishing. The metonymy in this case does not involve the word "fish" (or "fishing"), but the use of the word "pearls" as a metonym for the shellfish that contain pearls. Fumblebruschi 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- No -- the metonymy *does* involve fish. The point is that you are not getting fish, you are getting pearls -- but fishing and getting-pearls are both associated with going into the ocean and getting stuff out of it. Thus, you are maintaining the domain of usage (reinforcing an association) rather than transferring a concept to a new domain (as with "fishing for information"). There's an article linked to which explains this in depth. Tom
- I don't agree. Oysters are shellfish. If you are pulling shellfish out of the ocean, then you are fishing. What you're fishing for is oysters; what you hope to get from the oysters is pearls; therefore, by metonymy, you might say that you are "fishing for pearls." Fumblebruschi 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Fumblebruschi. If I said I were fishing for trout or fishing for salmon I would clearly NOT be employing metonym. I would just be using the word "fishing" literally. The fact that fishing trout, salmon and oysters all require "getting things out of the ocean" is not grounds for establishing metonymy. Furthermore, if the claim is that getting pearls out of the ocean is similar to getting fish out the ocean, then you are making a comparison by similarity or analogy NOT making reference to a contiguity.
- Just because the analogy is in the same domain (the ocean), does not mean that it is a metonym. For instance the expressions "to catch a wave" and "to catch a fish" are not related metonymically even if both can occur in the domain of the ocean. Rather, "to catch a wave" transfers the idea that fishing is hard and requires both skill and luck to the domain of surfing, an activity which is otherwise quite disimilar from fishing even if both require getting wet. In fact, I would argue that fishing for fish, fishing for pearls and catching waves are most likely separated by the ocean, not joined. To state otherwise is like arguing that "to climb a mountain" and "to climb the stairs" are related metonymically because they both occur in the domain of three dimensional space.
- The passage is confusing, it should be revised. --Quaquaquaqua (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Right! It's especially clear that there's a problem in this passage: "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 fact, since oysters are shellfish, we know that pearls do, indeed, originate from fish. JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.1.231 (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the sake of keeping common knowledge accurate, I'd like to include here that shellfish aren't actually fish. Cwbr77 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not a metonym... Pearls refers to pearls, not the oyster. Harvesting oysters to eat is different than harvesting pearls. This was confusing from the beginning because "to fish pearls" or whatever isn't an actual idiom or metaphor, no one says or writes that. "Pearls diving" is apparently slang for cunnilingus.... which is also not a metonym BTW, all the examples discussed at length the Talk Page appear to be gone, replaced with jibberish and irrelevant references to antiquity... What the hell happened to this article? I'm obviously an anonymous so I have to criticize but it'd pretty messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5A00:C160:C055:BB68:D28C:1460 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Dates as metonymy
[edit]What about dates, like "The Fourth of July" meaning "American Independence Day" or "May Fourth" meaning "The ideas in China about nationalism and modernization that resulted in and were a result of the 'May Fourth Incident'"? Another good one is "a September 11th" meaning "An incident of terrorism on a grand scale like what happened on 11 September 2011" 198.207.26.2 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, good idea. Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Arab Street
[edit]So the term Arab Street instantiates what--metaphorical toponymy? That's too many levels of abstraction to be wieldy (nevermind catchy).
Patronanejo (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Unclear citation style
[edit]I am loathe to remove the items from the "bibliography", but many of them have no footnotes or parenthetical citations to show what they are supposed to support. Please help clean up the citation style if you can. Otherwise, I will probably move the books to the further reading section, and mark various assertions in the article as needing citation for verification. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Phonetic Transcription
[edit]The nucleus of the first syllable in metonymy is the DRESS vowel; [ɛ]. Not [i]. 192.76.7.216 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
New Edit 3/5/14 Enthymeme example
[edit]Hello! When I learned about enthymemes, something clicked for me in figuring out the definition of metonymy I added the section relating metonymy to enthymemes in order to clarify this concept using the much more easily understood concept of syllogism for my fellow scholars who might have trouble making connections between the definition of metonymy and its use, much like I did. I'm a communication major working at a research university in a class on rhetoric and would appreciate any constructive comments or suggestions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBB24 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Whitehall is a street, not a city
[edit]I know I'm being a bit picky here - the idea is clear enough. But this sentence is factually incorrect:
" The national capital is often used to represent the government or monarchy of a country, such as "Washington" for United States government or "Whitehall" for the Government of the United Kingdom."
Whitehall is a street in London, not a city or capital, that's London of course. And we never (to my knowledge) use "London" to represent the UK government. And - we perhaps more commonly refer to it as Westminster after the palace of Westminster (also known as the Houses of Parliament) where the government meets.
" The national capital or another geographical location is often used to represent the government or monarchy of a country, such as the city of "Washington" for United States government or the street of "Whitehall" or the palace of "Westminster" for the Government of the United Kingdom."
is more accurate but maybe a bit clumsy. Any thoughts? Welcome to use that if others agree. I feel that this is quite a high profile page so best to suggest the idea on the talk page first rather than just jump in and try to fix it. Robert Walker (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good proposal as-is—thoughts on tweaking include (1) could just switch to a second example using a city, such as Washington and Moscow, if want to avoid the issue or (2) "national capital or another geographical location" could be "national capital (or a street or building)"—concrete, maybe less clumsy. Streets and buildings include Downing Street, Westminster, Whitehall, Kremlin, White House. — ¾-10 22:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"Metonymy and related figures of speech ..." (currently 'graph 4 of lead section of the acc'nying article)
[edit]I butchered the 'graph in question, complaining in a remark in the markup to the effect that
- I, and no doubt a few other dunces, don't know whether our colleague meant (by "substitute"):
- "alternate name for" or
- "vaguer term that may be more accessible to the dunces who don't specialize in LitThry".
- Note that we dunces might, nevertheless even improve ourselves by reading appropriately linked WP articles on some of the other 7 terms!
(On the other hand, that i might may have left it insufficiently clear to some, the fact that i doubt i will ever consult Burke's even-older-than-i-am monograph.)
--Jerzy•t 06:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Metonymy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816080831/http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/M/metalepsis.htm to http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/m/metalepsis.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031015050215/http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/acl2003/lexfig/pdfs/Peters.pdf to http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/acl2003/lexfig/pdfs/Peters.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
containment sounds a lot like toponymy unless it gets better examples
[edit]'containment' could use better examples. 'white house' & 'pentagon' function quite similarly to toponyms, I think.
you could say that a toponymic name can persist even when the signified entity moves somewhere else. But do we know that container names can't do that? Or maybe that's a primary distinguisher between these two types of metonyms? If so, the article should say so.
I think a lot of this article is just structuralists drumming up business for themselves. skakEL 11:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
America and USA
[edit]Is saying America when talking about the United States of America also an example? --FredTC (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the Kremlin example actually synecdoche?
[edit]Isn't the use of the Kremlin to describe the government of Russia an example of synecdoche? Although synecdoche is a type of metonymy, given that these two are often confused[1], wouldn't it make more sense to have a different example? BobEret (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "On Synecdoche and Metonymy". merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
This article struggles to distinguish what Metonymy actually is
[edit]Definitions are terrible in this article, and where they do occur, the language used is so obscure and technical that it becomes meaningless. It fails to distinguish metonymy from a synecdoche, or even a metaphor, because it never mentions that a metonymy relies on an obvious and well known connection between concepts. Instead fuzzy references to 'analogous similarity' are used.
A metaphor is an unusual, creative link betwen ideas, that is specifically expressed. A metonymy relies on the fact that everyone knows a king is connected to his crown, and that the people who work in a famous building are at the address where that building is situated. That is why the metonymy of 'crown lands' or 'number 10' work without confusion. A synecdoche is a specific type of metonymy that refers to size. Again, this distinction of syndechdoches being a subset of metonymy is never mentioned.
If these definitions were set out properly then most of the above questions regarding specific examples would be solved.
I propose to add in some of these ideas to the article over the next few days - with appropriate referencing, of course. Mdw0 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agree.
- I just tried to read the article and it was so confusing and not clear that I was going to post on the talk page about it.
- Looks like you beat me to it.
- Paige Matheson (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
“Meaning relationships” section
[edit]The Meaning Relationships section of this article feels inappropriately detailed to me. The tone and structure also feel less like an encyclopedic article and more like an educational text. There is way too much information here for it to be a reference in the style of other Wikipedia articles 217.208.166.155 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hebrew cited as having risen from the ashes
[edit]No supporting evidence or even an explanation for how Israeli Hebrew somehow metaphorically rose from the ashes despite being in continuous contact use for millennia. 2600:4040:9CEE:8500:48F2:FA82:7FD3:54 (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)