Stylistic classification of the english vocabulary

b) Metonymy

Metonymy is a stylistic device based on a different type of relation between logical and contextual meanings, a relation based upon the association of contiguity. Thus the word crown may stand for "king or queen", cup or glass for "the drink it contains". E.g.:

Many ears and eyes were busy with a vision of the matter of these placards.

Besides their logical meanings the words "ears" and "eyes" have contextual meanings - that of people. The interaction of two meanings of these words is based on close relations objectively existing between the part and the body itself.

Like metaphors metonymy can be divided into trite metonymy and genuine metonymy. The examples of metonymy given above are traditional. They are derivative logical meanings and therefore fixed in dictionariesIn trite metonymy the transferred meaning is established in the semantic structure of the word as a se­condary meaning. In the course of time its figurativeness and emotional colouring fades away. In the result of long and widely usage they become hackneyed and lose their vividness. E.g.: "Hands are wanted at the plant". Here a hand is used for "a worker"; Nickel - the coin of the US and Canada worth 5 cent; "From the cradle to the grave". Here cradle stands for "infancy", grave stands for "death".

Here are some examples of trite metonymy: fifty sails (instead of fifty ships), smiling years (the spring), to earn one's bread (means of living), to live by the pen (by writing). I get my living by the sweat of my brow (by difficulty); to succeed to a crown (to become a king).

If the interrelation between the dictionary and contex­tual meanings stands out clearly then we can speak about the expressiveness of metonymy and in this case we have genuine metonymy. In most traditional metonymies the contextual meanings are fixed in dictionaries and have a note - fig.

The expressiveness of metonymy may be different. Metonymy used in emotive prose is often called contex­tual and in this case is considered to be genuine and unex­pected.

Metonymy as a genuine stylistic device is used to achieve concreteness of description. By giving a specific detail connected with the phenomenon, the author evokes a concrete and life-like image and reveals certain feelings of his own.

In order to decipher the true meaning of a genuine metonymy a broader context is needed. It is necessary to understand the words in their proper meanings first. Only then it is possible to grasp the metonymy.

"In the morning old Hitler-faced question­ed me again". (A.Sillitoe)

Sometimes a genuine metonymy which stresses the most essential features of the character is so striking and unusual that the author finds it necessary to give a kind of explanation:

"Then they came in. Two of them, a man with long fair moustaches and a silent dark man... Definitely, the moustache and I had nothing in common' . (D. Lessing)

We have a feature of a man here which catches the eye, in this case, his appearance: the moustache stands for the man himself.

Metonymy established in the language is frequent in colloquial speech. For example: The whole table was stirring with impatience, i.e. the people sitting round the table were impatient. Green fingers, people who have skill for growing gardens.

Among trite metonymies we can find those that are based on very close, common relations of contiguity (pro­ximity) between objects:

1. 
   The relations between the creator and his creation. E.g.: To read Shakespeare. Browning created browning (pistol).
   
2. 
   The relations between the containers instead of the thing contained. E.g.: The hall applauded.
   
3. 
   The relations between the material and the thing made of it. E.g.: To be dressed in silk.
   
4. 
   The relations between the part and a whole. E.g.: I have eaten a plate.
   
5. 
   The relations between the instrument, which the doer uses in performing the action instead of the action or the doer himself, as in. E.g.: a). "Well, Mr. Weller", says the gentleman, "you're a very whip, and can do what you like with your horses, we know". (Dickens); b). As the sword is the worst argument that can be used, so should it be the last. (Byron)
   

Certainly the types of metonymy are not limited. The­re are many other types of relations which may serve as a basis of metonymy.

The stylistic effect of trite metonymies is in most ca­ses weak.

A metonymy differs from a metaphor by the fact that a metaphor may be periphrased into a simile by the help of such words as: as if so as, like etc. With metonymy you cannot do so.

The sources where images for metonymy are borro­wed are quite different: features of a person, -names of writers and poets, names of their books, names of some instruments, etc.

The expressiveness of metonymy may be different. Metonymy used in emotive prose is often called contex­tual and in this case is considered to be genuine and unex­pected.

Synecdoche is the case when the part of an object is called instead of the whole. It has given rise to many phraseological units: not to lift a foot (do not help when help is needed), under one's roof (in one's house).

The functions of metonymy are different. The general function of metonymy is building up imagery and it main­ly deals with generalization of concrete objects. Hence nouns in metonymy are mostly used with the definite ar­ticle, or without it at all (the definite and zero articles ha­ve a generalizing function). Besides, metonymy may have a characterizing function when it is used to make the cha­racter's description significant (by mentioning only his hat and colour).