نوع مقاله : بلاغی
نویسنده
دانشیار زبان و ادبیات فارسی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Metonymy has various definitions in Persian and Arabic rhetoric books, which leads to ambiguity in determining its instances and its precise boundary with metaphor and synecdoche. It seems that the main reason for this difference in definitions depends on the nature of metonymy because metonymy has various types that were not considered in the ancient classification. In this article, the author wants to find a way to more precisely classify metonymy, while examining the definitions of the ancients, which seems to be possible considering the origin of metonymy, the type of sign on which metonymy is based, and the relationship between the signifier and the signified. Therefore, metonymy can be divided into four types according to the type of meaning it has: 1. Figurative metonymy, in which the relationship between the signifier (literal meaning) and the signified (concept) is natural. 2. Descriptive metonymy, in which the relationship between the signifier and the signified is causal, and understanding the signified of these ironies is based on reasoning. 3. Symbolic metonymy, in which the relationship between the signifier and the signified is situational, and these ironies are often based on science, rituals and customs, laws, customs, and lifestyles of people. 4. Linguistic metonymy. These ironies are based on linguistic signs, but in terms of their meaning, this type can be categorized under symbolic metonymy (situational metonymy).
Introduction
Metonymy is one of the most important rhetorical devices in Persian and Arabic literature. Numerous and sometimes contradictory definitions of this figure have been proposed, yet the common element among them all is this part of al-Sakkākī’s definition: “Metonymy is the omission of explicitness from mentioning something.”
The central feature of metonymy is indirect expression, while other characteristics attributed to it are disputed. Hence metonymy may encompass various modes of figurative language, including metaphor, ambiguity, and allusion
Materials & Methods
In this article, the author seeks to classify metonymies based on their origins, the kinds of signs on which they are founded, and the relationship between the signifier and the signified.
According to Charles Sanders Peirce, signs are divided into three types: Icon, index, and symbol. In logic, an icon signifies by natural likeness, an index signifies through a causal or rational relation, and a symbol by conventional association.
Since iconic signs are easier to understand—owing to the direct and concrete relation between signifier and signified—the study first considers iconic metonymy (based on natural or physical indication), then indexical metonymy (based on causal reasoning), followed by symbolic metonymy (based on convention and culture), and finally linguistic metonymy, which rely on verbal signs and constitute the weakest type in terms of denotative strength.
Research findings
Iconic Metonymy
In these types, the relationship between the literal meaning (signifier) and the intended concept (signified) is concrete—indeed, the signifier itself embodies the signified.
An iconic metonymy is essentially the reaction of human beings, animals, or nature to stimuli—it is their body language. From such observable reactions (the effect), we infer the hidden motive or cause.
Examples include:
To throw down one’s shield — a metonymy for accepting defeat.
To stretch out one’s hand to someone — a metonymy for asking for help.
Such metonymies, rooted in instinctive or natural behaviors, remain constant over time regardless of changing social conditions.
Indexical Metonymy
In these kinds of metonymy, the link between the signifier and signified is causal; comprehension of the meaning is based on reasoning. They resemble natural signs such as smoke, which indicates the presence of fire, or dark clouds, which foreshadow rain.
Symbolic Metonymy
Here, the relationship is conventional. These metonymies arise from cultural and intellectual contexts—linked to rituals, customs, laws, and social practices.
Examples include:
Saying four Takbīrs over someone, or reciting the Fātiḥa, both derived from Islamic funeral rites;
The phrase a rational animal which is a metonymy for human being;
Raising a white flag as a sign of surrender.
Such metonymies are relatively recent in origin and are often limited to particular ethnic or subcultural frameworks.
Linguistic Metonymy
The previous three categories were based on non-linguistic signs, whereas this type is founded on linguistic signs. Nevertheless, from a semiotic standpoint, they can still be grouped under symbolic metonymy, as their signification depends on convention.
Metonymy and implicational meanings of sentences:
Beyond their explicit meaning, sentences may convey secondary or implicit meanings that logically follow from them, or that the listener can infer.
These can be regarded as metonymy meanings—but only when the implied sense is mutually understood by both speaker and listener, i.e. when the listener grasps precisely the unspoken meaning intended by the speaker.
Discussion of Results & Conclusion
Metonymy can be classified into four categories:
Iconic Metonymy:
The relationship between literal and implied meaning is natural.
Indexical Metonymy:
The relationship between signifier and signified is causal; understanding depends on inference.
Symbolic Metonymy:
These are cultural or intellectual in nature, grounded in customs, traditions, laws, and social practices; their linkage is conventional.
Linguistic Metonymy:
Based on linguistic signs, yet semiotically subsumed under symbolic Metonymy.
A linguistic Metonymy is a sentence whose implicit meaning is shared and agreed upon by both speaker and listener.
The difference between a metonymy and a mere implicature lies in precision: an implicature is ambiguous and indeterminate, whereas metonymy meaning is definite, unique, and clear.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله