Analysis and Definition of Metonymy Based on its Origin

Document Type : Rhetoric

Author

Associate Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran.

10.22091/jls.2026.14710.1763

Abstract

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.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

منابع

ابن رشیق، حسن بن رشیق. (2000). العمده فی صناعه الشعر و نقده. حققه و علق علیه: النبوی عبدالواحد شعلان. مصر، القاهره: مکتبه الخانجی.
امین شیرازی، احمد. (1370). شرح مختصر المعانی، علم بیان. قم: دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی قم.
بهاءالدین ساوجی. (1395). دیوان اشعار. به تصحیح علیرضا شعبانلو. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
پریز، عبدالقادر. (1387). «تطور تاریخی کنایه در ادب فارسی و عربی تا قرن هفتم هجری». فصلنامة زبان و ادب پارسی. شمارة 38. صص:90ـ66.
تقوی، نصرالله. (1317). هنجار گفتار. تهران: چاپ خانه مجلس.
جامی، نورالدین عبدالرحمن ابن احمد. (1337). هفت اورنگ. به تصحیح آقا مرتضی مدرس گیلانی. تهران: کتابفروشی سعدی.
جبری، سوسن. (1394). «تردیدهای بنیادین در معیارهای شناخت کنایه». دوفصلنامة زبان و ادبیات فارسی. شمارة 79. صص: 112ـ83.
جرجانی، عبدالقاهر. (1383). دلائل الاعجاز فی القرآن. ترجمة سید محمد رادمنش. اصفهان: شاهنامه پژوهی.
چندلر، دانیل. (1387). مبانی نشانه شناسی. ترجمة مهدی پارسا. تهران: پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و هنر اسلامی.
الخطیب القزوینی، محمد بن عبدالرحمن. (2010). الایضاح فی علوم البلاغه. حققه ابراهیم شمس الدین. بیروت: دار الکتب العلمیه.
الخطیب القزوینی، محمد بن عبدالرحمن. (2016). تلخیص المفتاح مع شرحه الجدید تنویر المصباح. شرحه ابی داود عبدالواحد الحنفی. پاکستان، کراچی: مکتبه المدینه.
دهمرده، حیدرعلی؛ امیری خراسانی، احمد؛ طالبیان، یحیی و بصیری، محمدصادق. (1386). «کنایه لغزان‌‌ترین موضوع در فن بیان». نثر پژوهی ادب فارسی (ادب و زبان). شمارة 22. صص: 138ـ113.  
رجایی، محمد خلیل. (1379). معالم البلاغه. شیراز: انتشارات دانشگاه شیراز.
سکاکی. (1987 م). مفتاح العلوم. ضبطه و کتب هوامشه و علق علیه: نعیم زرزور. لبنان، بیروت: دار الکتب العلمیه.
شفیعی کدکنی، محمد رضا. (1375). صور خیال در شعر فارسی. تهران: آگاه.
صفوی، کورش. (1380). از زبان شناسی به ادبیات، جلد دوم: شعر. تهران: حوزه هنری.
صفوی، کورش. (1383). درآمدی بر معنی شناسی. تهران: پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و هنر اسلامی.
طاهری، سعید و طاهری، قدرت­الله. (1399). «تقسیم بندی نوین کنایه در محور زبانی». نشریة کهن نامه ادب پارسی. شمارة 1. صص: 169ـ151.
عرفان، حسن. (1375). کرانه‌ها، شرح فارسی کتاب مختصر المعانی. قم: انتشارات هجرت.
عسکری، حسن بن عبدالله. (1998 م). الصناعتین: الکتابه و الشعر، جلد 1. لبنان، بیروت: المکتبه العصریه.
علوی، یحیی بن حمزه بن علی ابن ابراهیم. (2002). الطراز، الجزء الاول. حققه عبدالحمید هنداوی. الطبعه الولی. بیروت: مطبعه العصریه.
فاضلی، محمد. (1376). دراسه و نقد فی مسائل بلاغیه هامّه. الطبعه الثانیه. مشهد: انتشارات دانشگاه فردوسی.
فخر رازی، محمد بن عمر. (2004). نهایه الإیجاز فی درایه الإعجاز، جلد1. حققه نصرالله حاجی مفتی اوغلی. بیروت: دار صادر.
فلکی شروانی، محمد. (1400). دیوان، به تصحیح علیرضا شعبانلو. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
فندرسکی، میرزا ابوطالب. (1381). رسالة بیان بدیع. به تصحیح سیده مریم روضاتیان. اصفهان: دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی.
کاشف، میر محمد شریف بن شمس­الدین. (1402). سراج المنیر. به تصحیح علیرضا شعبانلو. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
گرکانی، محمد حسین. (1377). ابدع البدایع. به اهتمام حسین جعفری. تبریز: انتشارات احرار.
گندمکار، راحله. (1400). «تعبیر کنایه در زبان فارسی بر مبنای دیدگاهی ادراکی». فصلنامة زبان فارسی و گویشهای ایرانی. شمارة 11. صص: 286ـ269.
لاینز، جان. (1385). مقدمه‌ای بر معناشناسی زبان­شناختی. ترجمة حسین واله. تهران: گام نو.
محمد هادی بن محمد صالح مازندرانی. (1375). انوار البلاغه. تصحیح محمدعلی غلامی‌نژاد. تهران: میراث مکتوب.
مطلوب، احمد. (1983 م). البلاغه عند الجاحظ، جلد 1. الجمهوریه العراقیه. وزاره الثقافه و الأعلام. دائره الشؤون الثقافیه و النشر.
واینسهایمر، جوئل. (1383). استعاره به مثابه استعاره فهم. در کتاب استعاره مبنای تفکر و ابزار زیبایی آفرینی. تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده فرهنگ و هنر اسلامی.
وحیدیان کامیار، تقی. (1375). «کنایه، نقاشی زبان». نامه فرهنگستان. شمارة 8. صص: 69ـ55.
هاشمی، احمد. (1381). جواهر البلاغه. با تحقیق و تصحیح جمعی از اساتید حوزه. قم: دفتر انتشارات حوزه علمیه.
همایی، جلال الدین. (1389). فنون بلاغت و صناعات ادبی. تهران: اهورا.

References

Alawi, Y. (2002). Aṭ‑Ṭirāz (Vol. 1, Ed. ʿAbd al‑Hamid Handawi). Beirut: al‑Maṭbaʿah al‑ʿAṣriyyah. [In Arabic]
Al‑ʿAskari, H. (1998). Aṣ‑Ṣināʿatayn: al‑Kitābah wa ash‑Shiʿr (Vol. 1). Beirut, Lebanon: al‑Maktabah al‑ʿAṣriyyah. [In Arabic]
Al-Khatib Al-Qazwini, M. (2010). Al-I'dah fi 'Ulum al-Balagha. Haqqaqh Ibrahim Shams al-Din. Beirut: Dar al-Kutb al-Ilmiyah. [In Arabic]
Al-Khatib al-Qazwini, M. (2016). Talkhīs al-Miftāḥ with its new commentary Tanwīr al-Misbāḥ. ed. by Abu Dawud Abd al-Wahid al-Hanafi. Karachi, Pakistan: Maktabat al-Madinah. [In Arabic]
Al‑Sakkākī. (1987). Miftāḥ al‑ʿUlūm. Ed. & annotated by Naʿīm Zarzūr. Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al‑Kutub al‑ʿIlmiyyah. [In Arabic]
Amin Shirazi, A. (1991). Sharh e Mukhtasar al-Ma’ani. vol. 3: Ilm e Bayan. 1st ed. Qom: Daftar e tabliqat eslami. [In Persian]
Baha’ al-Din Sawaji. (2016). Divan e ash'ar. Edited by Ali Reza Sha’banlu. 1st ed. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
Dahmardeh, H., Amiri Khorasani, A., Talebian, Y & Basiri, M.S. (2007). Kenāyah: The most ambiguous subject in the art of rhetoric. Persian Prose Studies of Literature and Language, 22, 113-138. [In Persian]
Erfan, H. (1996). Karānehā: A Persian Commentary on Mukhtaṣar al‑Maʿānī (Vol. 3). Qom: Hijrat Publications. [In Persian]
Fakhr al‑Rāzī, M. (2004). Nihāyat al‑Ījāz fī Dirāyat al‑Iʿjāz (Vol. 1, Ed. Nasrallah Hāji Mufti Oghli). Beirut: Dār Ṣādir. [In Arabic]
Falakī Sharwānī, M. (2021). Dīwān. Ed. Ali Reza Shaʿbānlu. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
Fazeli, M. (1997). Derasa va naqd fi masa'il balaghiya hamma. (2nd ed.). Mashhad: Ferdowsi University Press. [In Persian]
Fendreski, M.A. (2002). Risāla‑ye Bayān va Badī. Ed. Seyyedeh Maryam Ruzatian. Isfahan: Daftar e tabliqat e islami. [In Persian]
Gandomkar, R. (2021). The Conceptual Approach to Kenāyah in Persian Language. Journal of Persian Language and Iranian Dialects, 11, 269-286. [In Persian]
Garakāni, M.H. (1998). Abdaʿ al‑Badāʾeʿ. Ed. Hossein Jafari. Tabriz: Ahrar Press. [In Persian]
Chandler, D. (2008). The basics Semiotics. Translated by Mehdi Parsa. Tehran: Islamic Culture and Art Research Institute. [In Persian]
Hashemi, A. (2002). Jawāhir al‑Balāghah. Ed. Group of Seminary Scholars. Qom: Seminary Publications Office. [In Persian]
Homāyi, J. (2010). Fonun e balaghat, sana'at adabi. Tehran: Ahoora. [In Persian]
Ibn Rashiq, H. (2000). Al-Umda fi sana’t al-she’r wa naqdeh. Haqqaqah wa ‘allaq alayhi: al-Nabawi ‘Abdul-Wahed Sha’alan. Egypt, Cairo: Maktaba al-Khanji. [In Arabic]
Jabri, S. (2015). Fundamental Doubts in the Criteria for Recognizing Metonomy. Two Quarterly Journals of Persian Language and Literature, 79, 83-112. [In Persian]
Jami, N. (2008). Haft Owrang. Edited by Agha Morteza Modarres Gilani. Tehran: Sa'di Bookstore. [In Persian]
Jorjani. A. (2004). Dalail al-Ijaz fi al-Quran. Translated by Seyyed Mohammad Radmanesh. Isfahan: Shahnameh Pajoohi. [In Persian]
Kāshif, M. (2023). Sirāj al‑Munīr. Ed. Ali Reza Shaʿbānlu. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
Lyons, J. (2006). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Trans: Hossein Vāleh. Tehran: Gām‑e Now. [In Persian]
Matlub, A. (1983). Al‑Balāghah ʿInd al‑Jāḥiẓ (Vol. 1). Baghdad: Ministry of Culture and Information, Directorate of Cultural Affairs and Publishing. [In Arabic]
Muhammad Hādi ibn Muhammad Ṣāleh Mazandarani. (1996). Anwār al‑Balāghah. (Ed. Mohammad Ali Gholāminjad). Tehran: Mīrāth‑e Maktūb. [In Persian]
Pariz, A. (2008). Historical Development of metonomy in Persian and Arabic Literature up to the Seventh Century AH. Persian Language and Literature Quarterly, 38, 66-90. [In Persian]
Rajaei, M.K. (2000). Maʿālem al‑Balāghah. Shiraz: Shiraz University Press. [In Persian]
Safavi, K. (2004). An Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Institute for Islamic Culture and Art Studies. [In Persian]
Shafiei‑Kadkani, M.R. (1996). Imagery in Persian Poetry. Tehran: Āgāh. [In Persian]
Safavi, K. (2001). From Linguistics to Literature, Vol. 2: Poetry. Tehran: Howzeh‑ye Honari. [In Persian]
Taheri, S & Taheri, G.A. (2020). A new linguistic classification of metonymy. Journal of Classical Persian Literature, 1, 151-169. [In Persian]
Taqavi, N. (1998). Hanjar e goftar. Tehran: Majles Printing House. [In Persian]
Vahidiyan Kamyar, T. (1996). Kenāyah: The Painting of Language. Journal of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature, 8, 55-69. [In Persian]
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Rhetoric and Grammar Studies
Volume 15, Issue 28
January 2025
Pages 182-201

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics