METONYMY - a type of trope, the use of a word in a figurative sense, a phrase in which one word is replaced by another, as in a metaphor, with the difference from the latter that this substitution can only be made by a word denoting an object (phenomenon) located in one or another ( spatial, temporal, etc.) connection with the object (phenomenon), which is denoted by the replaced word; for example: "All the flags will visit us", where the flags replace the ships (the part replaces the whole, pars pro toto). The meaning of metonymy is that it singles out a property in a phenomenon that, by its nature, can replace the rest.

Thus, metonymy essentially differs from metaphor, on the one hand, by a greater real interconnection of substitute members, and, on the other hand, by greater limitation, the elimination of those features that are not directly given in this phenomenon. Like metaphor, metonymy is inherent in language in general, but it is of particular importance in artistic and literary creativity, receiving in each specific case its own class saturation and use.

Metonymy is based on the replacement of words “by adjacency” (a part instead of the whole or vice versa, a representative of a class instead of the whole class or vice versa, a receptacle instead of content or vice versa, etc.), and a metaphor is “by similarity”. Synecdoche is a special case of metonymy.

In early Soviet literature, an attempt to maximize the use of metonymy both theoretically and practically was made by the constructivists, who put forward the principle of the so-called "locality" (the motivation of verbal means by the theme of the work, that is, their limitation by real dependence on the theme). However, this attempt was not sufficiently substantiated, since the promotion of metonymy at the expense of metaphor is illegitimate: these are two different ways of establishing a connection between phenomena that do not exclude, but complement each other.

If we accept that contiguity in metonymy is always connected in one way or another with internal dependence, then such a characteristic can be considered to be quite exhaustive of the essence of the object, since in synecdoche the relation of the expression to the expressed cannot be limited to one external connection or contiguity of a part of the object and his whole. The whole point is that some other principle should be put in the basis of the definition of metonymy, which would make it possible to isolate its very nature from the logical and psychological nature of both metaphor and synecdoche.

An attempt is made to find such a principle by concentrating the study on the very mental processes that give rise to this or that expression. It is rightly believed that, proceeding from static results alone, it is difficult to avoid arbitrariness and contradictions in the definitions of the nature of a phenomenon.

From this point of view, attempts have been made to establish a different order of distinction between metonymy and related synecdoche. The latter, as it were, starts from a part (or sign) of an object that catches the eye, obscures the whole: “Rhino”, the name of an outlandish animal, “patched”, in Gogol about Plyushkin, are characteristic synecdoches, where the part is brought to the fore, and the whole is only connoted. Metonymy comes necessarily from the whole; which is somehow already present in consciousness; it is, as it were, the phenomenon of the condensation of thought about the whole into a separate word or expression; here the expressive does not so much replace expression as stands out as essential in the merged content of thought. “I read Apuleius willingly” (Pushkin) means only one thing: the works (novel) of Apuleius; for a certain content of thought, what is expressed by the highlighted word "Apuley" is essential here - this is the constitutive, forming element of this thought. Artists say “painting with oil” instead of “oil paints”, in contrast to other non-oil paints, and oil here does not mean any special oil independent of oil paints.

That is why metonymy can be characterized, and in accordance with the etymology of this word, as a kind of naming, renaming an object of complex logical or material composition according to its essential, in general or for a given view of it, its constitutive element. And this is why, if metaphor is sometimes defined as a concise comparison, then metonymy could be defined as a kind of concise description. “The theater applauded” we say instead of “the audience gathered in the theater applauded”; here "theater" is a concise description of a merged concept, focused on a sign that is essential for a given view: a place that unites a heterogeneous crowd of people and therefore defines it as a whole. Similarly, the metonymy "graduate from university" compresses the expression "course of study at the university"; or - another example: “I ate three plates” (Krylov), where the image of the plate is not thought of by us separately from the soup that makes up its content, but only the single concept of “three plates of fish soup” is thought here; so in the chronicle expression: "to inherit the sweat of one's father" we have a metonymy in one word giving a concise description of the labors associated with inherited power.

Types of metonymy

  • general language
  • general poetic
  • general newspaper
  • individual-author's
  • individual creative

Synecdoche

Synecdoche(ancient Greek συνεκδοχ? - ratio, literally - “understanding”) - tropes, a kind of metonymy, based on the transfer of meaning from one phenomenon to another on the basis of a quantitative relationship between them. Usually used in synecdoche:

  1. Singular instead of plural: "Everything sleeps - and man, and beast, and bird". (Gogol);
  2. Plural instead of singular: "We all look to Napoleons". (Pushkin);
  3. A part instead of a whole: “Have you any need? — in the roof for my family." (Herzen);
  4. A whole instead of a part: “It opened in different directions Japan". (Stock news); (instead of: shares on the Tokyo Stock Exchange); « Germany avoided defeat in the match against Australia. (Sport); (instead of: Germany national football team);
  5. Generic name instead of species name: “Well, sit down, light". (Mayakovsky) (instead of: Sun);
  6. Species name instead of generic: “Mainly take care a penny". (Gogol) (instead of: money).

Synecdoche is a type of trope based on the relation of the part to the whole. Synecdoche is sometimes regarded as a kind of metonymy, and indeed there are many cases where it is difficult to differentiate between these two tropes.

For example, the expression: “so many heads of cattle” is usually defined as an indisputable synecdoche: a head instead of a whole animal, but a completely analogous expression “so many bayonets”, in the sense of a soldier, used like the first one in calculation, is often cited as an example of metonymy on on the grounds that there is a relation of the instrument to the agent.

One and the same expression is very often defined by the same theoretician either as a synecdoche or as a metonymy, depending on the point of view on it. So, Pushkin's "All flags will visit us" is interpreted in one article both as a synecdoche: flags instead of ships, and as a metonymy: flags instead of "merchants of different states." Obviously, all this fluctuation and inconsistency of terminology is due to the fact that they proceed from attempts to accurately establish the subject that stands behind a given expression, which almost always presents great fundamental difficulties due to the very nature of verbal (in particular, poetic) allegory.

Fundamentally, however, the synecdocheal process of thought differs substantially from the metonymic. Metonymy is, as it were, a concise description, consisting in the fact that an element essential for a given case, for a given view, is singled out from the content of thought. Synecdoche, on the contrary, expresses one of the attributes of an object, names a part of the object instead of its whole (pars pro toto), and the part is called, and the whole is only connoted; thought focuses on that of the attributes of the object, on that part of the whole, which is either striking, or for some reason important, characteristic, convenient for a given case. In other words, the thought is transferred from the whole to its part, and therefore in synecdoche (as well as in metaphor) it is easier than in metonymy to talk about the figurative meaning of the image.

The separation of the expression and the expressed, direct and figurative meaning appears more clearly in it, because in metonymy the relation of an object to its given expression is, approximately, the relation of the content of a thought to its concise description, in synecdoche - the relation of the whole to not only isolated from it, but also isolated , thus, its parts. This part can stand in different relations to the whole.

A simple quantitative ratio gives the most indisputable synecdoches of the type of the singular instead of the plural, about which there are no disagreements among theorists. (For example, in Gogol: "everything is sleeping - and man, and beast, and bird"). But in a different order, relations can be revealed in synecdoche without making it yet a metonymy. Proceeding from such a distinction between the two phenomena, it is easier to avoid hesitations—since they are generally surmountable to the end—in definitions of the tropical nature of this or that expression, such as those discussed above. “So many bayonets”, “All the flags”, etc. will then turn out to be a synecdoche, regardless of the point of view on the connoted object, because no matter what is meant by flags - whether they are just ships, whether merchant ships, etc. - this expression only indicates one of the signs, one of the parts of the merged content of thought, which, as a whole, is co-implied.

Other examples of synecdoche: “hearth”, “corner”, “shelter” in the sense of home (“near the hearth”, “in the native corner”, “hospitable shelter”), “rhinoceros” (the name of the animal according to one of its parts, rushing into eyes), “Hey, beard!”, “Patched” (by Gogol about Plyushkin); "live to gray hair" vm. to old age, “to the grave”, “summer” in the sense of the year (“how old”), “bread and salt”, “red” (ten rubles) and others.

Most people repeatedly encounter the use of metonymy when reading books, in writing and speaking, believing that this is an ordinary general language; at the same time, few people think what the meaning of the word "metonymy" really is. So what is it? The most understandable answer can be considered the following: this is a phrase in which one of the words can be replaced by another word.

In contact with

The ancient Roman thinker Mark Fabius Quintilian argued about metonymy in this way: its essence manifests itself in replacing the described object with its cause, which means that it is able to replace a word or concept with a related one.

(emphasis on the last syllable; "metonymia" - translated from ancient Greek "renaming"; from the meaning of the words "meto" - "above" in translation and "onyma" - "name") - a phrase, a kind of trail, in which one word can be replaced by another, denoting a phenomenon or an object that is in some (temporal, spatial, etc.) relationship with the object, which is indicated by a replacement word. In this case, the replacement word is used in a figurative sense.

Metonymy is different from metaphor, but it is often confused with it. The difference is that it is based on the replacement "by adjacency" (i.e. part of the whole instead of the whole whole or, conversely, the whole class instead of the representative of the class or vice versa, the content instead of the container or vice versa, etc.), and the metaphor is is based on the replacement "by similarity"; it is also easy to define a metaphor if you replace it with a word that answers the question: “what”. A special case of metonymy is.

Example:“All flags will visit us” (“flags” are “countries” (a part replaces the whole, from the Latin “pars pro toto » ). Metonymy in this case highlights the property in the phenomenon, while the property, by its characteristic quality, can replace other meanings. Thus, on the one hand, the metaphor becomes unlike metonymy in its essence, since it has a large real relationship of substituting members, and on the other hand, it is more limited and the features that are invisible in this phenomenon are eliminated.

The only thing likeness to metaphor- this belongs to the language (for example, such a word as "wiring" in the metonymic sense is common from the action of the word to the result, and in the artistic and literary direction it has a special meaning).

In the early literature of the Soviet period, the maximum attempts to use this method of expression were consolidated by the constructivists. They put forward a principle that they called the "principle of locality", meaning the motivation of verbal means by some theme of the work, i.e., limiting their current (real) dependence on the theme. But such an attempt turned out to be insufficiently substantiated for them, since it was considered illegitimate to put forward metonymy at the expense of metaphor, and these are two completely different ways in the connections between phenomena that do not exclude, but complement each other.

Types of metonymy

  • spatial(transfer of the physical, spatial relative position of phenomena, objects or names to objects that are closely related to them; for example, “the audience applauded”; the meaning lies in the fact that people applauded, therefore, the action is transferred to the audience);
  • temporary(the name of the action is transferred to the result of this action; for example, "new edition of the book"; in this case, the meaning of the word "edition" is used as a result, not an action);
  • logical(the name of the author, the name of the action or the original substance, etc. is transferred to the final result, i.e. the final work, action and product relative to the above; in this case there should be a clear connection, for example, “I looked at Ozhegov” - available in mind obtaining information from Ozhegov's dictionary).

Types of metonymy

  • general language metonymy - quite often used in speech; for example, beautiful porcelain (we are talking about porcelain products);
  • general poetic (distinguished by popularity in poetry; for example, sky blue);
  • Is it general media general newspaper (for example, an author's page);
  • individually-author's (for example, chamomile Rus).

Synecdoche is a type of metonymy

Synecdoche (translated from the Greek "sinekdohe" - "correlation").

The peculiarity of this variety is that it is inherent in plural replacement to the word (meaning) of the singular, with the use of some part of it instead of the whole, or vice versa. Synecdoche is also called “quantitative metonymy”, because it is based on the strong use of replaced meanings, which enhances the expressiveness of the syllable, giving speech the greatest generalizing meaning.

Let's take the following sentences as an example:

“A detachment of a hundred bayonets” or “I won’t let him in on the threshold!” and so on.

Examples in Russian

Metonymic transfers are quite diverse in the Russian language both in the nature of their transformations and in the state of phrases and expressions. They can be based on a sign and action, replacing content with containing, etc.

Consider a few examples in Russian:

  • the conference made a decision (replacing part of the general with the general, since the meaning of the word "conference" means people);
  • apple jam (transferring the process to an objective state, since it is clear that the jam was made from apples);
  • eat another plate (containing acts instead of content, because it is not specified what is in the plate);
  • he is in blue (here there is a sign instead of an object, because it is not indicated exactly what clothes are, while the meaning of what was said is clear)

Examples of metonymy in literature

Metonymy in literature is called literary trope, which is based on adjacent, adjacent, close and understandable connections of phenomena and objects.

For example, the words from the fable of I. A. Krylov "Demyanova's ear": “I ate three plates ...” or an expression in the poem “There is in the original autumn ...” F. I. Tyutchev: "Where the peppy sickle walked and the ear fell ...".

Let us recall such literary phrases as “the hungry years”, “the Bronze Age”, “we met at the opera”, “the stands froze”, “the theater applauded” and much more.

Opinion of scientific researchers

Modern science is convinced that the way of expressing thoughts, built in the form of metonymy, enhances expressiveness not only works and the Russian language, but also reveals the richness of vocabulary, helping to perceive the connection of related concepts that are not always homogeneous.

Metonymy is widely used in vocabulary, poetics, semantics, rhetoric and stylistics and is the most effective means of speech influence. Researchers argue that it has speech and logical qualities that help to reason more diversely, as well as cognitive properties, thanks to which a person deeply penetrates the process of cognition and thinking.

Yu. G. ALEKSEEV

SOME STYLISTIC FEATURES
ROMAN I. A. GONCHAROV "OBLOMOV"
IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

Despite the significant interest in the work of I. A. Goncharov all over the world, most foreign readers get acquainted with the works of the writer in translations.

Often the quality of such translations leaves much to be desired. For example, German potters note that it is necessary not only to translate and publish the writer's letters and essays into German, but also to correct errors in existing translations of Goncharov's novels or replace translations with completely new ones.

The attitude of I. A. Goncharov himself to the translation of his novels is well known. Firstly, at the will of the translators and without the knowledge of the author, the first part of the novel Oblomov, translated into French at the end of the 19th century, was passed off as the entire work. Secondly, in his letter to Goncharov, the "translator" S. Delen notes that even in the translation of this part there are "many places" that "do not satisfy" the writer. In addition, S. Delen "confesses" that he "did not understand" why "the blacksmith Taras almost suffocated, exhausting himself with steam baths so that then he had to treat him with water to bring him to his senses", and asks for an "explanation" for the French reader. It is not surprising that in a response letter to S. Delen Goncharov writes: “I<···>never encouraged those who have done me the honor of being a consultant on the translation of my novels into foreign languages.

In the same letter, the writer explains the reason: “... a more or less faithful reproduction of some national types is, perhaps,

the only merit of my writings in this genre and<···>these types, little known outside the country, cannot be of interest to a foreign reader.

However, despite the understandable national and cultural differences in the perception of foreign-language literary works by readers and translators, translators are trying to achieve the greatest possible adequacy, taking into account the latest achievements in translation studies. The translation into English by D. Magarshak of lexical units in the novel "Oblomov", which we have considered, although not free from shortcomings, can be considered quite successful.

Naturally, the range of issues facing the translator of fiction is much wider. It is impossible to achieve the same degree of emotional impact on the reader of the translation, which the author of the work achieves on the reader of the original, only by the correct transmission of vocabulary. One of the problems he faces is the need to take into account the significance of the stylistic features of the work and the adequacy of their translation into a foreign language.

Among the stylistic means in I. A. Goncharov's novel "Oblomov", metonymy, metaphor and hyperbole stand out, cases of litotes, paraphrase and euphemism are more rare. Consider their translations into English by D. Magarshak and E. Dannigen. The examples were selected by random sampling.

Translators translate almost the same cases of litotes and euphemisms, obviously due to the fact that the example of euphemism we encountered has a well-established equivalent: “fallen woman” (7, 22) - a fallen woman (8, 34; 9, 44), and hardship has a specific semantic-syntactic structure: cf. “not without laziness” (7, 262) - none too eargely (8, 321; 9, 373), i.e. “ not too willing»; “not without guile” (7, 275) - not without guile (8, 338; 9, 391), i.e. “ not without deceit, cunning»; "used not to consider them an inconvenience" (7, 100) - even stopped regarding them as such (8, 129) and even ceased regarding them

As such (9, 149), i.e. " even ceased to consider them [inconveniences] as such».

Similarly, translators had no difficulty in translating metonymy when:

1) the name of the object was transferred from the material to the products made of this material: “places the crystal and lays out the silver” (7, 60) - placing the glasses and the silver (8, 81), setting out the silverware and crystal (9, 96);

2) the name was transferred from the place to the totality of its inhabitants: “there is half the city there” (7, 16) - half of the town is there (8, 27), half the town goes there (9, 36); “with the whole house” (7, 379) - all together (8, 466), i.e. “ together", the entire household went together (9, 537-538), i.e. " let's go home together»,

3) the name was transferred from the institution to the totality of employees: “our editors are all dining at St. Georges today” (7, 24) - the whole staff dine at St George’s to-day (8, 37), our editors are all dining at St. George's today (9, 47), i.e. " the entire editorial staff dine at Saint-Georges»;

When translating metaphor, hyperbole and periphrase, D. Magarshak and E. Dannigen show more noticeable differences. If in some cases translators convey the meaning of the metaphor almost equally close to the original: cf. "to distinguish between the painted lie and the pale truth" (7, 130) or cf. “Let a whole ocean of evil and evil worries around him...” (7, 373) - a regular ocean of evil and baseness may be surging round him (8, 459), a whole sea of ​​evil and depravity could be surging around him (9, 530), in other cases D. Magarshak follows the path of clarifying the metaphor: he translates the phrase “they bathed in the crowd of people” (7, 33) as enjoying being among a crowd of people (8, 49), i.e. e. " they liked being in a crowd of people", while E. Dannigen - they swam with the crowd (9, 60), i.e. " floated with the crowd". Similarly, the phrase “scolded him with an “old German stick-in-the-mud” (7, 363) by D. Magarshak is translated as scolded him for being “an old German stick-in-the-mud” (8, 446), i.e. scolded, t . to. he was " an old backward German”, and E. Dannigen - scolded him for being an “old German periwig” (9, 515), that is, “an old German wig”, as in the original.

Consideration of the transmission of the hyperbole also reveals similarities and differences. Some hyperbolas are translated in the same way: cf. “I would give half my life” (7.205) - I’d gladly give half my life (8, 253) and I would give half my life (9, 292), and some D. Magarshak or conveys more adequately to the original: “a hundred miles from that place "(7, 330) - a hundred miles away (8, 405), i.e. " for a hundred

miles" (cf. far away (9, 469), i.e. " far”), or translates more deeply and boldly: “I rubbed my back and sides, tossing and turning” (7, 134) - I’ve worn myself to a shadow worrying about it (8, 167), that is, literally “ turned into a shadow worrying about it” (cf. I’ve worn myself out over these troubles (9, 196), i.e. “ exhausted due to problems»).

When translating the paraphrase "To the gray hair, to the grave" (7, 144), the translators could not, to some extent, avoid retaining the indirect designation of the phenomena: cf. Yes, till old age till the grave (8, 180), i.e. " to old age, to the grave”, this translation directly indicates age, the paraphrase “until gray hair” is lost, and Till you grow gray - till you are laid in the grave (9, 209), i.e. “ until you turn gray, until they put you in the grave”, which seems to be a somewhat straightforward indication of death.

Thus, in the translations of I. A. Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" by D. Magarshak and E. Dunnigan, the tendency to preserve the stylistic features of the author's text is not fully traced, despite the fact that most of the stylistic means are conveyed quite adequately. A small number of such errors in the considered translations allows us to hope that when working on new translations, it will be possible to avoid such shortcomings and take into account not only the cultural distance between the author of the novel and the readers of the translation, but also take into account the stylistic features of the author's text.

Metonymy as a kind of poetic trope

Long ago, long before our era, Aristotle wrote his "Poetics" - one of the first versification textbooks known to us, trying to set out in an orderly manner the norms and rules for writing poetry, but little has changed since then, despite the fact that the norms and rules , systematized and expounded by the great philosopher, should already be learned, like mathematical axioms, like the provisions of formal logic, the creator of which is he, Aristotle. No, these norms and rules have not yet been assimilated, despite the fact that all poetic terminology is ninety percent borrowed from the ancient Greek language and, therefore, the concepts denoted by these terms existed at the same time when the great philosopher Aristotle lived and worked. Even then there were stylistic figures called metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, epithet, but still not only amateurs, but also writers who call themselves masters are sometimes surprised, indignant, perplexed when they encounter the use of these stylistic figures or tropes in practice.

Let us make a reservation right away that the use of tropes (the general name of words or turns of speech in a figurative, allegorical sense - comparisons, epithets, metaphors, litots, hyperbole, symphors, synecdoches, etc.) is not a mandatory feature of poetic speech, that verses without such elements, in in which all words and expressions are used in their direct, immediate meaning, are called autological and exist along with metalogical verses, i.e. written using metaphors, comparisons, epithets, etc., in the work of any major poet.

Here is an example of the first stanza of a poem in a clear autological style, with exceptional realistic transparency:

Mikhail Lermontov TESTAMENT Alone with you, brother, I would like to be: There is not enough in the world, they say, I only have to live! You will go home soon: Look, well ... What? my fate, To tell the truth, very Nobody is concerned ...

Does this mean that Mikhail Yuryevich avoided the use of tropes, that is, metalogical, or figurative, speech? Of course not! It should be repeated once more and emphasized with a thick red line that autology coexists with metalogy in the work of every major poet, and attempts to oppose the first to the second are gross distortions of the real state of affairs.

Poetry written in the autological style must be distinguished from the products of the mechanical transposition of elementary prose into verse, i.e. from samples of primitive prose speech, which has the external features of verse (meter, rhyme). Artistic rhythmic prose will also differ from poems written in the autological style, but in this case the line between the first and second is thin to transparency, so thin that it is still the subject of discussion and research at the highest level. We will not dwell on autological verses now that we have decided to talk about metaphors and metonyms, that is, elements of not autological, but, on the contrary, metalogical verses, which are much more common than their antipode - autological verses. Why is it necessary to use tropes in poetic speech? The theory of the trope was developed by ancient theorists, in particular Quintilian, who wrote that due to the use of tropes, “enrichment of meaning” occurs, since the word is used in such a way that both its direct and figurative meanings play out.

Let's start with such a variety of artistic tropes as METONYMY, i.e. "renaming" in a literal translation from Greek.

Metonymy differs from metaphor in that the metaphor is paraphrased into comparison with the help of auxiliary words AS WELL, LIKE, LIKE, AS LIKE, etc., and it is impossible to convert metonymy into comparison, because metonymy is built not on the principle of similarity, but on the principle of contiguity, i.e. “on the basis of close and easily understood relations in which these objects are located among themselves. Thus, metonymy is based on the mutual connection or relationship of concepts. (F. A. Brockhaus, I. A. Efron "Encyclopedic Dictionary")

On the Internet, you can find many definitions of this term - not only in works on the theory of poetry, but also in the works of philosophers, psychologists, and so on. The approach of different authors to the classification of metonyms is also different. Here are some links to definitions of metonymy:

We will give here the definition and classification into types of metonymy given in the "POETIC DICTIONARY" by A. Kvyatkovsky, because it is not available in full on the Internet, and the book itself, published in 1966 by the "Soviet Encyclopedia" publishing house, is a bibliographic rarity .

Quote:

METONYMY - a common poetic trope, the replacement of a word or concept by another word that has a causal relationship with the first.

There are several types of metonymy, the most common are the following:

I read APULEI willingly (instead of: Apuleius' book "The Golden Ass") But I did not read Cicero. A. Pushkin

It is a pity that in a dream we start an argument about Nietzsche, about Greenbergs, about Hess, etc. (Julia Volt "To the Missing Person")

2) Or, conversely, MENTIONING THE WORK OR BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS BY WHICH THIS AUTHOR (OR PERSON) IS GUESSED

Soon you will learn at school How the ARKHANGELSK MAN (ie Lomonosov) By his own and God's will Became reasonable and great. (N. Nekrasov)

3) INDICATION OF SIGNS OF A PERSON OR OBJECT INSTEAD OF MENTIONING THE PERSON OR OBJECT ITSELF (THE MOST COMMON FORM OF METONYMY IN POETRY)

A crazy hero repelled from them, Alone in a crowd of domestic servants, A noisy attack by the Turkish rati, And threw a SPOE UNDER BUNCHUK (i.e., surrendered to the Turks) (A. Pushkin)

Only heard on the street somewhere LONE Wandering Harmonica (instead of "harmonist") (M. Isakovsky)

Two star wanderers are sitting in orbit: IN IRON and TIN their fingers. (instead of "spacesuit gloves made of iron and tin") (Leaflets "Melting Planet")

He traded the boat for a wetsuit from Versace and hatches from "KURSK" for OLD SONGS ABOUT THE MAIN THING. (N. Vorontsova-Yuryeva, “I thought you were a ghost”)

In the last example, the "objects" are two sensations - the tragedy of the submarine "KURSK" and the entertainment TV program "OLD SONGS ABOUT THE MAIN THING". Both of them had a high public outcry, but, according to the author of the poem, the interest in entertaining spectacles in modern society is higher than in tragedies. This is akin to metonymy in Blok's poem "On the Railroad":

Silent YELLOW AND BLUE. IN GREEN wept and sang.

3rd class carriages were green. Under the colors of the wagons, the strata of society are meant. Thus, “Kursk” and “Songs” mean specific processes in modern society, designated metonymically, because subtext, the second plan is created not due to similarity, but by transferring from global social phenomena to specific events.

The walls and mouth were washed with the FIRE cocktail with ORANGE. (Mikhail Gofaizen "Two Christmases, Two New Years...")

In this case, "spruce" and "orange" means their smell, i.e. there is a reverse metonymic transfer from the property of the object to the object itself.

4) TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTIES OR ACTIONS OF THE OBJECT TO ANOTHER OBJECT, WITH THE HELP OF WHICH THESE PROPERTIES AND ACTIONS ARE DETECTED

The hiss of FOAM GLASSES (instead of foaming wine in glasses) (A. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman")

Girey sat with downcast eyes, AMBER smoked in his mouth (instead of "amber pipe") (A. Pushkin "The Fountain of Bakhchisarai")

This type of metonymy is a shift in the meaning of characteristic words (adjectives and verbs) based on the contiguity of the objects they characterize (secondary metonymization of meaning); cf. "ironed suit" and "ironed young man"; cf. also the expansion of the compatibility of definitions, caused by the semantic proximity of the defined names: “impudent expression of the eyes”, “impudent look”, “impudent eyes”, “impudent lorgnette”; for example: “I pointed a lorgnette at her and noticed that my impudent lorgnette annoyed her in earnest” (M. Lermontov), ​​where the adjective “impudent” characterizes the protagonist, and not the instrument of action. This can be illustrated with the following example:

Pike perch, the decree of zander with deaf-mute fins will loom for me ... (Julia Volt “Fate judged ...”)

The epithet "deaf-mute" here is metonymic, since it characterizes not "fins", but "perch", gesturing with its fins, like a sign language interpreter on a TV screen. Here we are dealing with a complex figurative construction, where the “perch” is metaphorically likened to a deaf-mute, its fins are like hands, and then the “fins” acquire the characteristics of the original metaphor through metonymy. The genesis of this metonymy is obvious, it is derived from a stable phrase, from the running metonymy of the fourth type “mute lips”, used, in particular, in the sense of “mute lips”, therefore, “deaf-mute fins” - “deaf-mute fins”.

5) SYNECDOCHE - TRANSFER OF THE NAME OF THE PART OF THE OBJECT TO THE WHOLE AND vice versa, TRANSFER OF THE NAME OF THE WHOLE TO ITS PART.

All flags will visit us (instead of "ships") (A. Pushkin)

And it was heard before dawn How the Frenchman rejoiced. (instead of "French soldiers") (M. Lermontov)

I did not know how to peep into the castle (instead of "keyhole") What is happening in freedom. (V. Shtokman “A year passes ...”)

Two varieties of synecdoche correspond to the Latin expressions pars pro toto - "a part instead of a whole" and totum pro parte - "a whole instead of a part". Synecdoche pars pro toto identifies an object by pointing to its characteristic detail (for example: "beard" - an appeal to a bearded man). The use of synecdoche in colloquial speech is determined by the situation; for its correct perception, it is necessary that the object of meaning transfer be in the field of view of both the speaker and the listener. In poetic speech, the use of synecdoche requires for its adequate perception the use of well-known or previously introduced into the text details or attributes of the whole that it represents. So, a person who has never seen a hedgehog will not understand the meaning of the synecdoche: “Here are needles and pins crawling out from under the bench.”

The “part-whole” relationship in synecdoche is manifested in such varieties as the use of species instead of gender, the singular instead of the plural and vice versa, a large number instead of an indefinite set (for example, there are millions of stars in the sky, you need to repeat a hundred times).

Very often, a poetic image is a complex lexical-semantic structure and can be interpreted in two ways, and even in three ways. An example of this is Lermontov's poem "Sail", which has already become a textbook illustration of the versatility and ambiguity of the poetic image. So, the word "sail" in this poem can be understood both as a metonymy of the 5th type - synecdoche ("boat" - "sail"), and as a metonymy of the 3rd type ("someone in a boat" - "sail") , and as a metaphor (“someone in the sea of ​​life” - “sail”).

With the successful use of metonymy, it develops into a SYMBOL, defined in A. Kvyatkovsky’s “Poetic Dictionary” as “a multi-valued, objective image that unites (connects) different planes of reality reproduced by the artist on the basis of their essential commonality, affinity.”

Consider the metonymy of the 3rd type from Elena Kabardina's poem "Woman on the Internet":

... and I will find the FANTIK forgotten under the glass, secretly buried in the garden in the last century ...

In this poem, "wrapper ... secretly buried in the garden" is a metonymy in which "wrapper" refers to children's dreams of pure and bright, about the mystery of love and friendship, a secret that can only be shared with someone very close. So the abstract "childhood" with all the depth of its meanings is metonymically transferred to the "wrapper wrapper" - an attribute of the children's game of "secrets", turning it into a capacious and deep SYMBOL.

And one more example of the ambiguity of the metonymic image:

Remove the hooves from the feet, And from the shoulders - the carnival of dominoes. (Julia Volt “To break…”)

So, the “hooves” in the poem cited above can be interpreted as a running metaphor: HOOVES - shoes with high thick soles (cf. large shoes - “hooves” with folding insoles” - A. Chepurnaya “Romeo and Juliet”), and at the same time as metonymy (synecdoche), where the properties of the “imp” are transferred to the “hooves”, which the lyrical heroine, entangled, is forced to play "chains of intrigue." The development of this image takes place in the next line, also metonymic, in which the Mephistopheles qualities are transferred to its attribute - the black cloak of a domino.

The poet does not always create new metaphors and metonymy, he often overhears them in lively speech that sounds on the streets of cities, in television reports and in newspaper publications, because metonymy is not an artificial technique, not an invention of ancient Greek philosophers, poets and orators, but linguistic phenomenon inherent in every language. Language is not a frozen amorphous substance and not a rigidly defined mechanism with details fitted once and for all, but an open system, a living organism that develops, changing and adapting to external conditions and obeying its own internal logic. Metonymy is one of the factors of the word-formation process. As a result of metonymic transfers, the word acquires new meanings. Thus, words denoting actions receive an objective meaning and are used to indicate the result or place of action: “composition”, “story”, “work”, “sowing”, “sitting”. Thus, metonymy contributes to the development of vocabulary. This process is complex and sometimes lasts for centuries, enriching the same word with more and more new meanings. As an example, we can cite the word "knot", which in ancient times, by means of transfer, acquired the meaning of objects tied into a rectangular piece of matter. But the development of the meaning of the word "knot" did not end there, and today dictionaries have recorded, for example, the following "metonymic" meanings: the place of intersection, convergence of lines, roads, rivers, etc.; an important point of concentration of something; part of the mechanism, which is a combination of closely interacting parts.

Metonymy saves speech efforts, since it provides an opportunity to replace the descriptive construction with one word: “stadium” instead of “fans sitting in the stadium”, “early Rembrandt” instead of “Rembrandt of the early period of his work”. This property explains the widespread use of metonymy in everyday colloquial speech. We use metonymy, often without even realizing it. For example: drink a mug (instead of “a mug of beer”), read Sorokin (instead of “Sorokin’s book”), there is porcelain on the table (instead of “porcelain dishes”), copper tinkles in your pocket (instead of “copper coins”), medicine for the head (instead of "headache").

Running metonymy, such as “hooves” in the meaning of “shoes” from the above poem by Yu. Volt are not recorded in dictionaries and are not of a normative nature, but function in colloquial speech.

Household metonymy, which arose as a result of metonymic transfer and entrenched in the language as independent words, usually do not have a second, figurative, meaning. Their meanings have narrowed from everyday use and no longer remind us of their allegorical origin. None of us today is aware that the word "pain", for example, in the meaning of "sorrow, strong mental, and not physical suffering" is a metonymy, that the direct meaning of this word is "physical suffering". But, looking into any explanatory dictionary, we find that we regularly use this word in its figurative meaning, that is, as a metonymy. Or the word bitter. Speaking of taste, of a purely physiological sensation, we use the word in its direct meaning, but as soon as we say "bitterness", meaning "sorrow", implying some kind of painful feeling, and at the same moment what the ancient Greeks called "Metonymy", that is, renaming or nickname, if you use slang vocabulary.

To paraphrase the words of Professor V. M. Ogoltsev, both everyday and everyday metonymy can be attributed to stable metonymy of the Russian language, which “are verified by long-term nationwide experience, therefore ... as a rule, they are impeccable in their internal logical structure and artistic and aesthetic merits.” Stable metonymies (comparisons, epithets, metaphors, and other types of language units as a self-developing open system) must be distinguished from literary clichés, which "are devoid of nationwide linguistic reproducibility and are limited in their use by the narrow sphere of literary and artistic speech." It is also necessary to distinguish everyday metonymy, which is no longer recognized as a trope, from metonymy as a special stylistic device in fiction, in which a word or phrase is used in a figurative sense to create a stylistic effect. Metonymy, as stylistic figures of poetic speech, is the result of an individual creative process, and allows the authors to achieve certain aesthetic effects, more vividly, adequately and concisely express emotions, assessments and attitudes.

Here is what Roman Yakobson writes about the poetry and prose of Boris Pasternak: “Pasternak's poems are a whole kingdom of metonyms that have awakened to independent existence. In front of the tired hero, the impressions of the day live and move, as does he himself, deepening into sleep. Continuing the interrupted movement, the poet's dream itself quietly struck: "I am a dream about war" [OG, 235]. The author, recalling, says: "I often heard the whistle of anguish that did not begin with me. Overtaking me from the rear, he frightened and complained" [OG, 203]. "It [silence] rode with me, I was on the road in his presence and wore his uniform, familiar to everyone from their own experience, everyone's favorite" [OG, 226]. The manifestation of the object captures its role. “Somewhere nearby, his herd was playing music... Horseflies sucked the music. Probably, the skin was twitching on it” [OG, 242]. The action and its author acquire an equal degree of concrete existence: "Two rare diamonds played separately and independently in the deep nests of this semi-dark grace: a bird and its chirping" [VP, 128]. Turning into a concrete object, abstraction is dressed in neutral accessories: "These were airways along which, like trains, the straightforward thoughts of Liebknecht, Lenin and a few minds of their flight departed daily" [VP, 130]. Abstraction is personalized at the cost of catachresis: "Midday silence reigned. It was carried along with the silence of the plain stretching below" [OG, 213]. Abstraction becomes responsible for certain independent actions - and these actions themselves are in turn made by concrete objects: "The lacquer grins of the dried-up way of life were secretly winking there" [OG, 204]. "(R. O. Yakobson Notes on the prose of the poet Pasternak // Yakobson R. Works on poetics. M .: Progress, 1987)

In artistic speech, metonymic transfer is often not limited to individual words, but takes on such complex and detailed forms as REALIZATION OF METONYMY and DETAILED METONYMY.

REALIZATION OF METONYMY takes place when running metonymy is taken in the literal sense and subsequently acquires the outlines of a real, non-figurative object.

How to put to sleep, I think, all people, And in a dream to make hats and nails out of them (Leaves "I love")

Listikov, a great lover of the grotesque style, emphasizing in his work the compatibility of contrasts - real and fantastic, comic and tragic, cannot but resort to the release of everyday metaphors and metonyms, since this technique is the best for giving poetic speech a grotesque shade. In the poem “I Love,” he combines in one line the realization of the everyday metonymy “hat” with the following internal quote of the realized everyday metaphor from Tikhonov’s poem: “Nails should be made from these people. It would not be stronger in the world of nails.” What metaphor did Tikhonov implement? It is known that we call "iron" a strong, strong, strong-willed person. And about the origin of the metonymy “hat” in the sense of “blunder, clumsy person” in Ushakov’s Dictionary it is written that this word migrated to everyday speech from military jargon and the original “hats” were called civilians, non-military people. Involuntarily, intuitively or consciously using the method of implementing metonymy, Listikov not only painted a grotesque, eerie picture, but again revived all the meanings and sub-meanings of nicknames and nicknames that exist in our speech, that is, metaphors and metonyms, causing a number of associations in our minds. The poet Listikov does not divide people into a proletariat with an iron will and intellectuals in hats, into civilians and military men, he only notices and ridicules the indestructible property of mankind, characteristic of all times, to be divided into friends and foes.

The implementation of metonymy and metaphor is a common phenomenon in modern poetry and is especially pronounced in the work of metametaphorist poets, which are characterized by complex and detailed constructions of metonymic and metaphorical transfers, when metaphor is often superimposed on metonymy. So in the poem by Alexei Parshchikov, two derivatives of the word transparent take place at the same time:

The reason is dark, but the empty bottle and the loop are TRANSPARENT ...

The adjective "transparent" in the sense of "clear, easily comprehensible" is an everyday transfer in relation to the abstract noun "reason" and at the same time, in relation to the subject series "bottle" and "loop", - the implementation of this transfer, revealing its direct meaning "allowing you to see through".

EXPANDED METONYMY(metonymic paraphrase) - a whole allegorical turn of speech, which is based on metonymy. Expanded metonymy is revealed over a long poetic segment or even a whole poem. Here is a classic example from Eugene Onegin:

He had no desire to rummage In the chronological dust of the Genesis of the earth. (that is, did not want to study history).

To illustrate the expanded and realized metonymy, consider two fragments from the poems of Marina Tsvetaeva and Yulia Volt:

And if the heart, torn, Removes the stitches without a doctor, - Know that there is a head from the heart, And there is an ax - from the head ... (Marina Tsvetaeva “The dawn was burning burning down ...”)

Overwhelmed with pain - the heart, the brain are bitter. (Julia Volt "Lightning")

If we consider both Tsvetaeva's quatrain and Y. Volt's couplet as unfolded paths, then we can find how the meaning changes depending on the meaning of the original expression. Tsvetaeva deployed the everyday metaphor “to tear the heart”, which is close, almost identical in meaning to the stable expression “heart pain”, therefore, there is a “medicine” - “head” for heart pain, i.e. mind, and J. Volt expands the running phrase, one of the elements of which is the everyday metonymy "pain", turning "fullness with pain" into OVERFLOWNESS. In both cases, the everyday metonymy “heart” is used as a symbol of the concentration of feelings in the same meaning, but Tsvetaeva uses the word “head” as a symbol of the concentration of thoughts, and Y. Volt uses the word “brain”.

In the 4th line, Tsvetaeva abruptly moves from a detailed metaphor to the implementation of the metonymy “head”, and Y. Volt forms a verb from the everyday metonymy “bitterness”, which until now has been used only in its direct meaning. The result is different content. Tsvetaeva contrasts reason and feelings, which is traditional for Russian poetry, arguing that reason can prevail over feelings and heartache can be overcome by reason, but she also proceeds from the expression “tear the heart”, which is close in meaning to the expression “heartache”, while while Y. Volt initially points to EXCESSIVE, EXTREMELY pain, which is indicated by the prefix PER- in the word “overcrowded”. Therefore, the “brain” and “heart”, “reason” and “feelings” in Yu. Volt’s poem are not opposed, but only delimited by a comma, united with the help of the common verb “bitter”. Yu. Volt depicts a state of excessive pain, such that pain affects not only feelings, but also reason, such that emotional excitement is combined with clouding of consciousness, when one can really feel nausea, a taste of bitterness in the mouth, when the temperature can rise, etc. . Thus, the verb "bitterness" is a rare type of verbal metonymy formed on the basis of everyday metonymy-the noun "bitterness" and is simultaneously used in its literal meaning.

In conclusion, it should be recalled once again that the doctrine of paths took shape in the era of Antiquity; developed and supplemented - in the Middle Ages; finally, it finally turned into a permanent section of normative "poetics" (textbooks on poetics) - in modern times. The first attempts to describe and systematize figures are presented in ancient Latin treatises on poetics and rhetoric (more fully in Quintilian's Education of an Orator). The ancient theory, according to M. L. Gasparov, assumed that there is some simple, “natural” verbal expression of any thought (as if a distilled language without stylistic color and taste), and when real speech somehow deviates from this standard, then each individual deviation can be separately and accounted for as a "figure". Tropes and figures were the subject of a single doctrine: if “tropes” is a change in the “natural” meaning of a word, then “figure” is a change in the “natural” word order in a syntactic construction (rearrangement of words, omission of necessary or use of “extra” - from the point of view of “ natural" speech - lexical elements). We also note that within the limits of ordinary speech, which does not have an attitude towards artistry, imagery, tropes and "figures" are often considered as speech errors, but within artistically oriented speech they are usually distinguished as effective means of poetic expressiveness. (See "Poetic Syntax. Figures.")

Language, like every self-organizing system, lives, obeying two opposite tendencies: protective, fixed in language norms, and productive, creative, which, by “loosening” the norms, allows the language to adapt to changing conditions. One such productive factor is art. The speech of officials, politicians, lawyers, radio and television announcers, newspapermen should be sterile literate and “smoothed”, while poetic speech lives and develops according to other laws, which even the ancients knew about, and which we all should not forget either.

* A. Kvyatkovsky, "Poetic Dictionary"
M.: "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1966

* V. M. Ogoltsev "DICTIONARY OF SUSTAINABLE COMPARISONS OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE (SYNONYMOUS-ANTONYMIC)"
M .: Russian Dictionaries LLC: Astrel Publishing House LLC, 2001

* F. A. Brockhaus, I. A. Efron "Encyclopedic Dictionary"
http://infolio.asf.ru/Sprav/Brokgaus/2/2881.htm

* Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. Volume 4. Edited by D. N. Ushakov

* Encyclopedia "ROUND THE WORLD"
http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/82/1008286/1008286a1.htm

* Theoretical poetics: concepts and definitions
Reader for students of philological faculties
Compiled by N. D. Tamarchenko
http://infolio.asf.ru/Philol/Tamarchenko/hr10.html

* A. Chepurnoy, "Romeo and Juliet",
http://humor.21.ru/?id=2063&page=1

* E.I. Golanova "Should we stop in front of a zebra?"
http://www.svetozar.ru/lingvo/lexicology/25.shtml

* R. O. Yakobson “Notes on the Prose of the Poet Pasternak”
// Jacobson R. Works on poetics. Moscow: Progress, 1987
http://philologos.narod.ru/classics/jakobson-past.htm

* ENI "Literary Encyclopedia"
http://feb-web.ru/feb/litenc/encyclop/

* P. A. Nikolaev "Artistic speech"
// Course of lectures "Introduction to literary criticism"
http://nature.web.ru/db/msg.html?mid=1193081&uri=8.htm

* E.B. Sukhotskaya "The motive "vision" in the texts of metametaphorists"
http://www.omsu.omskreg.ru/vestnik/articles/y1998-i4/a081/article.html

* Poetic syntax. Figures.

Often there is a problem with the definition of certain tropes that are found mainly in poetic texts. This article will be devoted to this problem. We will analyze, give a definition of the term and consider in detail the cases of use in the literature.

What is metonymy?

So, consider the meaning of the word "metonymy". Metonymy is the transfer of a word by adjacency (relatedness of concepts). The famous ancient Greek philosopher Mark Quintilian said, defining this concept, that the essence of metonymy is manifested in the replacement of what is described by its cause. That is, there is a replacement of related concepts.

Here is an example of metonymy:

  • “All flags will visit us” (A. S. Pushkin), different countries are meant by flags, while if we replace the word “flags” with “states”, then the meaning of the line will not change at all.
  • "Bronze Age" - it is understood that not the century was made of bronze, but that this time became famous for the beginning of the use of this material.
  • “Applicant for the director's portfolio”, that is, an applicant for the position of director, whose attribute is the portfolio.

Metonymy is used to enhance the expressiveness and richness of the language. This technique is widespread in poetics, lexicology, stylistics, and rhetoric. With it, you can influence the audience for a long time.

Communication in metonymy

Metonymy in Russian has such a property as establishing an adjacent connection between two objects. Actually, this is its main essence and purpose. So, there are the following metonymic connections:

  • To name not the thing itself, but the material from which it was made: “Walked in gold” instead of “Walked in gold jewelry”.
  • The concrete noun is replaced by an abstract one. “My beauty is indescribable,” says the lover about the object of sighing.
  • Content is replaced by content or owner is indicated instead of ownership: "I'll have another glass" instead of the name of a particular drink.
  • The name of the item is replaced by its attribute: "Man in Black" instead of giving a clear description of his clothes.
  • Replacing an action with a tool with which it is usually performed: “His pen breathes revenge” (A. Tolstoy) instead of “His poetry breathes mysticism.”
  • Naming works by the name of the author: "I read Chekhov" instead of "I read Chekhov's works."
  • Substitution between the person and the place where he is: "It was quiet in the house" instead of "No one made noise in the house."

All metonymic connections are divided into types.

Types of metonymy

Metonymy is divided into three main types, which are determined depending on the contiguity of concepts, objects, actions:

  • Spatial.
  • Temporary.
  • Logical.

We will analyze each of these types separately in order to understand the specifics of use and not make mistakes in the future in practice.

Spatial

Such a metonymic transfer is based on the physical, spatial arrangement of phenomena or objects.

The most common example of this type of metonymy is the transfer of the name of a room (institution, etc.) or part of it to persons working or living in a given house or enterprise. For example: a spacious workshop, a dark hut, a cramped editorial office, a multi-storey building. In these cases, the words "workshop", "hut", "editorial office" and "house" are used in their direct meaning. Now consider the following phrases: “the entire editorial board went out for a subbotnik”, “the whole house was asleep”, “all the huts took part in the competition”, “the whole shop was in favor”. Here, these same words acquire a metonymic meaning and are perceived in a figurative sense.

Also, spatial metonymy is the transfer of the name of a receptacle or vessel to its contents. For example, “the kettle is boiling”, that is, the liquid poured into the kettle boils.

Temporary

This type of metonymic connection occurs when the compared objects are in contact with each other in time.

An example of metonymy: when the name of an action, which is a noun, is transferred to its result (what should occur in the course of actions). Thus, the action will be "publishing a book", and the result of the action will be "a beautiful gift edition"; “the artist had difficulties with depicting details” - “images of dragons are carved on the bas-relief” (that is, the result of drawing).

Also examples of a temporary type of transfer would be "embroidered shirt", "bring in the translation on time", "decorate with carvings", "ancient sewing", "collectible embossing", "polishing worn off".

logical

Logical metonymy is widespread. Examples in Russian of this type are not only extensive, but also differ in the specifics of transfer:

  • Transferring the name of a container or vessel to the volume of the substance contained in this item. Consider the phrases: "break the plate", "find a spoon", "wash the pan", "untie the bag". All nouns are used in their direct meaning and are called receptacles. Compare these examples with usages such as "try a spoonful of jam," "eat two bowls," "buy a bag of sugar." Now the same nouns are already used in a figurative sense and serve to denote the volume of the substance they contain.
  • Transferring the name of a material or substance to what is made of it. The method of metonymy of this kind is used as follows: “win silver” (that is, a silver medal), “put on furs” (fur clothes), “collect ceramics” (ceramic products), “shift papers” (documents), “write watercolors” ( paint with watercolors).
  • Transferring the name of the author to the creation he created. For example: “reread Pushkin” (Pushkin’s books), “love Shishkin” (Shishkin’s paintings), “use Dahl” (a dictionary edited by Dahl).
  • Transferring the name of an action to the people or object with which it is carried out. For example: "pendant" (decoration), "putty" (substance to eliminate defects), "change" (people who make up a certain group).
  • Transferring the name of the action to the place where it is performed. For example, signs with the inscriptions "exit", "entrance", "stop", "detour", "transition", "crossing", "turn", "passage", etc.
  • Transferring the name of a quality (property) to something that has this property or quality. Consider the phrases “tactlessness of words”, “mediocrity of a person”, “tactless behavior”, “caustic expressions”, “banality of assessments”. The words used indicate abstract qualities and properties. Now let's compare: "to commit tactlessness", "to talk nonsense", "she was surrounded by mediocrity", "to speak banalities", "to allow barbs". There is already a metonymic transfer of meaning.
  • Transferring the name of the area to the material or substance that is mined or produced there. For example: "harbor", "gzhel".

Types of metonymy

Now we list the main varieties of metonymy:

  • General language.
  • General poetic.
  • General newspaper.
  • Individually-author's.

Let's consider each type in more detail.

general language

Various types of tropes are used everywhere in Russian, and metonymy is one of the most common. Often people using it do not even notice it. This is especially true for this species.

So, what will relate to common language metonymy:

  • The words "silver", "casting", "crystal", "porcelain", when they denote products. For example, "porcelain collector", that is, a collector of porcelain products.
  • The words "impregnation", "putty" and others denoting a substance.
  • The words "factory", "shift", "factory", "attack", "defense" when they refer to people. For example: "The plant took part in the competition", that is, the workers of the plant took part in the competition.
  • The words "turn", "exit", "entry", "crossing" when they indicate the place of action.
  • The words "hare", "mink", "fox", "squirrel" and others, when used instead of the name of the product. For example: "dressed in a mink", that is, in a product made of mink fur.

general poetic

Perhaps the most expressive form is the general poetic metonymy. Examples from fiction belong to this group:

  • “A cloud / One you rush through a clear azure” (Pushkin). The word "azure", meaning blue sky, is a metonymy here.
  • "Transparent and cold day" (Kuprin). "In the transparent cold" (Yesenin). The word "transparent" is a metonymy.
  • “In fights ... Meeting fatal lead” (Pushkin). “The deadly lead tore the heart of the poet” (Tyutchev). The word "lead" is a metonymy.
  • "The blue wind whispers" (Yesenin). “On such a blue day” (A. Tolstoy). The word "blue" is a metonymy.

Thus, general poetic metonymy is a type of metonymy that is typical for use in artistic (more often poetic) texts.

General newspaper

Such metonymy includes the following words: "fast" ("quick seconds", "fast water"), "green" ("green harvest", "green patrol"), "golden" ("golden flight", "golden jump" ). That is, these are the methods of metonymy that are most often used in journalistic texts.

Individual-author's

The types of trails have a huge variety, this is due to the fact that most of them have several types and types, and metonymy, as we see, is no exception.

Individual-author's metonyms are such metonyms that are characteristic of the work of a single writer and are not used everywhere. For example: “I’ll put you to sleep with a quiet fairy tale ... I’ll tell you a sleepy fairy tale” (Block); “From the cool wooden purity of the house” (V. Solovyov).

Synecdoche

Another frequently encountered problem is the question of how synecdoche and metonymy relate to each other. Often these two concepts are mistakenly perceived as completely separate, but they are not. Synecdoche is a kind of metonymy and means the transfer of a name (name) from a part of an object (substance, action) to its whole. Usually this subspecies is used when it is necessary to highlight some particular side or function of the object. For example, let's take the words "figure", "person", "personality" and apply them to a person: "historical figure", "legally responsible person", "the role of personality in our victory".

But the main function of synecdoche is its ability to identify an object, using indications of its distinguishing feature or a detail peculiar only to it. Therefore, a definition is usually included in this trope. If we talk about the structure of sentences, then the synecdoche will take the role of nominal members, that is, the object, subject or address. For example: “Hey, beard! And how to get from here to Plyushkin? (Gogol). The word "beard" is a synecdoche. Knowing this feature can help when you need to find a synecdoche in a text.

The use of synecdoche in the text contextually or situationally (pragmatically) is always conditioned: most often it will be about an object that either enters directly into the speaker's field of vision, or its characterization was given earlier in the text. For example, if a person is called a “hat”, “cap” or “bowler hat”, then the addressee is first given a description of his headdress: “An old man in a panama was sitting opposite me, and a woman in a flirty hat was sitting obliquely. Panama was dozing, and the flirtatious hat was chirping about something with the young man ... ”Thus, as we could see, the synecdoche is always context-oriented, that is, anaphoric. Therefore, its use in all kinds of existential sentences (they first introduce readers to the characters) is unacceptable. Let's illustrate such a mistake with the following example: let's start the fairy tale with the words: "Once upon a time there was Little Red Riding Hood." Such a beginning would mislead the reader, since the main character would not be a girl in a red cap, but the object itself, that is, a cap painted red.

Metaphor and metonymy

Also, questions arise in cases when it is necessary to distinguish in the text such tropes as metaphor, metonymy, epithet. And if things are quite easy with epithets - this is an adjective that enhances the expressiveness of a word, then it is much more difficult to deal with metaphor and metonymy.

So let's look at what a metaphor is. It serves as a connecting link not for related concepts that have common structural connections in the real world (like metonymy), but for correlating completely different objects, united only by an association, function or characteristic. Consider the example of two sentences: “Lera is meek” and “Doe is meek”, from this we conclude that “Lera is as meek as a doe”, the final metaphor will be: “Lera is a doe”.

The structures of constructing metaphor and metonymy are similar: two objects are taken, in which a common semantic element is distinguished, which allows to reduce some elements of the description, but at the same time preserve the semantics. But in the case of metonymy, the connection (semantic element) is always materialized and can only be perceived with the help of the senses. When creating a metaphor, the semantic element is synthesized in our minds on the basis of associations and memory.

Metaphors, in essence, are a folded comparison that can be expanded when doing. For example, a “family tree”: if you graphically depict family ties, they will look like a tree.

A metaphor is created on the basis of a comparison, but not every comparison is suitable for its creation. Only logical structures that serve to combine heterogeneous (foreign, heterogeneous) phenomena can be used.

To clarify, let's give an example: "Katya is as wise as Veronica." In this case, a metaphor cannot be created, since objects of the same kind are taken as the basis: a girl is compared with a girl (the action would not work if a person were compared with a person). But if you build a sentence like this: “Katya is as wise as a snake,” then the metaphor would turn out, since the compared objects are heterogeneous (animal and human).

Despite the fact that the metaphor has a very abstract meaning, the basis (comparison) of the transfer is as easy to determine as in the case of metonymy.

Thus, metonymy, in comparison with metaphor, always has a more real connection between the concept and the object that replaces it, and it also eliminates or significantly limits the features that are insignificant for the described phenomenon (object).

Metonymy in literature

Metonymy is very common in this area. Examples from fiction are full of all sorts of types of this trail. As noted above, metonymy is widespread in all types of speech, including everyday speech. However, nowhere does it play such a significant role as in a literary work.

Tropes were especially popular with writers of the first half of the 20th century. Especially among those of its representatives who were engaged in constructivism and created poems on the basis of this teaching. Metonymy and metaphor in their works were opposed to each other, and preference was given to the first. They believed that only the text is of primary importance, and the reader should not interfere with its content with his associations and memory, and therefore metaphorical images could not be created.