What Is Metonymy? Naming Something by Something Connected to It
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
Referring to a government as a building, to a monarch as a crown or to a business as a street replaces a thing with something associated with it. The device is everywhere in ordinary language and is more fundamental than its status as a figure suggests.
How it differs from metaphor
Metaphor works by similarity, asserting that one thing resembles another in some respect, so calling a person a lion invokes qualities shared between them. Metonymy works by contiguity, substituting something connected with the target by association, containment, causation, possession or proximity, so calling a monarch the crown works because crowns belong to monarchs rather than because monarchs resemble crowns. That distinction is the standard one and it matters because the two do different work. Metaphor creates a comparison and invites the listener to find the respects in which it holds, which is generative and can be extended. Metonymy assumes a connection the listener already knows and uses it as a shortcut, which is efficient and does not invite exploration. Both are pervasive and metonymy is considerably less noticed.
The standard relations
The substitutions follow recognisable patterns:
- •A place for an institution, as when a capital city stands for a government
- •A container for its contents, as in drinking a glass
- •A part for a whole, which is sometimes distinguished as synecdoche, as in counting heads
- •A producer for the product, as in owning a work by an artist's name
- •An instrument for the action or the actor, as in a phrase about the pen and the sword
- •A symbol for what it represents, as with the crown, the bench or the throne
Why it is fundamental
Work in linguistics has argued that the device is not a decorative figure but a basic mechanism of meaning. A substantial share of ordinary vocabulary developed through such shifts, with words moving from one referent to an associated one so consistently that the pattern is predictable across languages, and body part terms becoming spatial terms is a documented example occurring independently in many unrelated languages. Word meanings change historically by the same route, with a term for a material becoming a term for the object made from it and so on. Comprehension studies find no processing cost for conventional cases, indicating they are handled as ordinary meanings rather than as figures requiring interpretation. That evidence supports treating the device as part of how language works rather than as an ornament applied to it.
The part for the whole
One relation is distinguished by its own name and the distinction is worth stating even though it is not always maintained. Synecdoche substitutes a part for a whole or a whole for a part, so counting heads for people, calling a car a set of wheels or referring to a country by its team are all that relation, and many writers treat it as a subtype of the broader device while others keep it separate. The distinction is difficult to maintain consistently, since whether something counts as a part or merely as an associated thing is frequently unclear, and most modern treatments have collapsed it into the general category. Knowing the term is useful mainly for reading older rhetorical works and criticism, where the distinction is maintained and where an argument may turn on which relation is operating.
Where it does work
The device carries meaning beyond its economy and the choices are frequently loaded. Referring to a government by its building depersonalises it, removing the individuals who made a decision, which is convenient for whoever is reporting and for whoever is deciding. Referring to workers as hands, or to people as numbers, reduces them to the aspect the speaker cares about and has been criticised on exactly those grounds. Referring to a country by its capital implies that the capital speaks for it, which is a political claim. Legal and bureaucratic language uses such substitutions heavily and the effect is to make agents disappear. Recognising the device is therefore a reading skill rather than a literary nicety, since noticing that a sentence has replaced people with a place or an institution reveals who has been removed from the account.
The takeaway
Metaphor works by similarity and invites the listener to find the respects, while metonymy works by association and uses a connection the listener already has. A place for an institution, a container for contents and a symbol for what it represents are the standard relations. It is a basic mechanism of meaning change rather than an ornament, and substituting an institution for the people in it removes the agents from the account.