Metonymy

Metonymy is a rhetorical stylistic which is used in all genera. In the case of metonymy, the intended word is replaced by another, which is in a real relation to what is meant. There is therefore a logical, spatial, causal or temporal connection between what is said and what is said. The stylistic figure is related to the metaphor and the Synekdoche, in some cases overlapping the stylistic means.

Concept and examples
The term goes back to the Greek noun metonymía (μετωνυμία) and can be translated with renaming or name translation. This translation gives first clues as to what the stylistic figure is about: renaming a thing [using a term that is related to the matter in a logical, spatial, causal, temporal context]. There are 7 forms of metonymy:

(1) I read Schiller yesterday.
The above example shows a metonymy. Here the poet Schiller was called instead of the work. Nobody leafs through the author, but says that if he says such a sentence, he has read a work (novel, tract, short story, etc.) from the respective writer. Whoever reads Schiller, therefore, deals with his works, such as the robbers, Don Karlos or his lyric poetry.

In the above example the producer of a thing stands for the thing itself. This is a work of Friedrich Schiller, and has been replaced by another concept. This concept stands in a very real relation to the original work, since Schiller is the author or producer of these books. Such a replacement is called metonymy. Let us look at another example:

(2) Fire free! Shoot wounds on our enemies!
This metonymy is also found in this example. Instead of saying that the enemies are to be attacked with a bullet (for example, arrows or cartridges), the word will be used, which probably will be done by the enemy: wounds. Of course, the shooters do not actually shoot with wounds on the enemy’s army, but with some bullets.

In the example, therefore, the product of a thing is for the thing itself. The thing, in this case the wounds, which are to be added to the enemy in an attack, are thus called instead of the projectile. But as in the previous example, the wounds are in a real relationship with the bullets, since they represent the result of the attack with ebendiesen. Another example:

(3) I will conquer him with this iron.
The example set shows a metonymy. Here it is the noun iron, which becomes metonymy in the above usage. Rather than say that you will defeat him with some weapon, the raw material from which this weapon is made is called. This could be, for example, a sword or a similar blade. It is rather unlikely that the mineral is actually meant here.

In this case, therefore, the raw material of a thing stands for the thing itself. This thing, that is, the iron, which helps to conquer any one, is thus called instead of the actual weapon. Also as in the examples before, the iron is in a real relationship with the weapon. Because the weapon was made of an ebendiesem material or a raw material – a connection between what was said and what was meant. Another example:

(4) Napoleon marched into the land.
In the above example there is also a metonymy. It is Napoleon. Instead of saying that the French or even Napoleon’s troops marched into any country, the deputy is called the commander. Perhaps Napoleon was also there, but it is meant that his army, that is, many individual people, has invaded another country.

Thus, the general stands for the whole force. There is of course a real relationship between the commander and the troops. The same is true of metonymies, which name the owner of the thing instead of the thing. For example, in the sentence “Our neighbor is burnt down.”, Not the house or the property, but the owner of these properties is called. Yet another example:

(5) Youth has decided this way.
In the above example, the noun youth is a metonymy. This is due to the fact that in the sentence a concrete group of young people was not named but the youth was cited as a collective concept of all young people. In fact, a certain group of young people has decided something and not the entire collective of all young people at all.

Accordingly, the example set used a collective deductum for a concretum. As an abstract, something is described which is not objective, something concretum as concretum, which one could thus actually touch. Thus a non-representational word is used for the mass (collective) rather than the concrete, the concrete. The concretum is usually a part of the collective, which is the real relation between what is said and what is meant. Another example:

(6) Let’s have a glass of drink.
This example set contains a metonymy again. In this case, it is the glass, which can be identified as the stylistic figure. Instead of saying what is to be drunk (beer, wine, coke, water etc.), the container is called for these liquids. A glass can not be drank, but only the contents of it. These remarks are mostly related to alcoholic beverages.

Here, then, is the vessel in which the thing is, for the cause. The vessel, therefore, stands for its content. But here, too, there is a relationship between what is said and what is meant. The formulation, by the way, is quite broad, for example if an entire theater applauds an artist, the theater can be regarded as a “vessel” for the people in it, which would be a metonymy.

(7) This behavior brings no laurels.
This example can also be regarded as metonymy. It is the laurels which fulfill the characteristics of the figure. In fact, the above statement means that this behavior will bring no fame, ie a high reputation. However, this is communicated with the laurels, which are a symbol of fame and have already been recognized in ancient times as a recognition for special successes.

In the above example there is a symbol for something abstract. It is said that a certain behavior will not bring any laurels. As a rule, however, this does not mean an actual wreath of laurel leaves, but what it symbolizes: namely glory or honor. Since the symbol of the fame of the laurel wreath is the symbol, the meaning is replaced by something that is symbolically related to it.

Note: The examples listed illustrate all forms of metonymy. The essential feature is identical for all. It is always about something that is said, although something else is meant. However, this deputy is not arbitrarily chosen, but always relates to what is actually meant in a logical, spatial, causal or temporal relationship.

Forms of metonymy
In the article the individual forms of metonymy were shown with one example. These forms are not chosen arbitrarily, but were proposed by Quintilian (35-96 AD), an ancient teacher of rhetoric. Quintilian subdivided the stylistic figure into these seven forms:

(Example: Goethe read, Amor [God of love] confused me) (1) A producer for a product, an inventor for an invention, an author for a work, a deity for her task, a homerian heroes for her mistakes and virtues.
(2) Produce for producers (Example: I give you joy)
(3) raw material for finished goods (example: you still read the whole rainforest away)
(4) Owner of property, person for one thing, commander of troop (example: the neighbor is burnt down)
(5) Collective abolition for concretum (example: Neighborhood for individual neighbors)
(6) vessel, time, place, country for content (example: France called)
(7) Symbol for the abstract (example: laurel [glory, honor] Difference: metaphor, synekdoche, metonymy
The metonymy belongs – as does the metaphor and the Synekdoche – to the tropics. The tropics are stylistic figures in which what is said differs from what is meant. A word sequence (what is said) is used, which is not synonymous with the meaning, but belongs to a completely different field of meaning. Because of the similarity, a demarcation is sometimes difficult.

Metaphor: Means a linguistic meaning transmission. This means that two areas are connected to each other, which are actually unrelated. Words are therefore used improperly. Nevertheless, the terms are similar in certain respects, which is why a recipient (reader or listener) can establish the commonality between the spoken and the spoken. For example, desert ship is a metaphor for camel. The terms belong to different areas. A ship is a vessel – this meaning is transferred to the camel, which makes it a desert vehicle.
Synekdoche: Is a stylistic figure that works with top and bottom. What is said is either the upper concept (general) for a thing, in fact the sub-concept (special) is meant or differently. If a spokesman says that Germany became the world champion, he is using an umbrella, because he actually means the national team. If someone says he has a roof over his head, he does the opposite. He names only a part and means the whole, the house.
Metonymy: In the case of metonymy, the intended word is replaced by another, which is in a real relation to what is meant. This connection may be effected in various ways. Accordingly, what is actually meant is not what is meant by the logical, spatial, causal or temporal context.
Metaphor and metonymy differ, therefore, in that the metaphor always uses a concept from a completely different domain, and in metonymy there is always a relationship between what is said and what is meant. But this knowledge suffices for a distinction!
Synekdoche and metonymy can hardly be distinguished in many cases. Most synekdoches can equally be called metonymy (but not otherwise!). For example, someone says he is drinking a glass today. This statement is a Synekdoche, since here part of the whole (glass) is used for the whole (all drinking vessels). But the theorem is also a metonymy, since the vessel is used for the content (see: Example 6).

Synekdoche can therefore be regarded as metonymy if the aspect that a part stands for the whole is equated with the connection of vessel and content. However, this does not work otherwise. The sentence Bombarding our enemies with wounds can not be a synecdoche, since the wounds are not part of the projectiles – but it is a metonymy because the projectiles are the cause of the wounds and therefore a clear connection exists.
Short overview: The most important thing about the Stilfigur at a glance
The metonymy is a rhetorical stylistic device and belongs to the group of the tropics. Tropics are figures in which what is said differs from what is meant. Metonymies call something, but mean something else. This other, that is, what is meant, stands here in an actual relation to what is meant; there is therefore a link between the two concepts.

Quintilian, a Roman scholar, distinguishes seven forms of the stylistic figure. The sixth form, which is called a vessel, a time, a place, or a land instead of what is meant, is similar to the Synekdoche. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between both stylistic devices.