ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-091-004 · ATLAS 260

Metonymy

The naming of an object using a concept that is conceptually related to it.

Part of the subject path Rhetoric and Style

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

F · Figure / procedure R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Metonymy examines choosing an access point within a connected configuration, such as a place for an institution or a container for its contents. It lets readers ask which participants a compressed label reveals or obscures. This is a different operation from cross-domain metaphor, not merely another name for figurative language.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Metonymy names something through an expression belonging to the same factual or experiential configuration. “Washington responded” allows a place to stand for political institutions located there; “drink a glass” shifts from container to contents. Unlike metaphor, metonymy does not primarily cross into another domain through perceived similarity. It follows relations of contiguity such as place and institution, cause and effect, producer and work, or part and whole. Which connection is intelligible depends on cultural knowledge and context. Metonymy condenses by selecting one point of access while co-activating a larger configuration. It can reveal responsibility, but it can also obscure it when institutions, persons, places, and actions are compressed into one label.

Movement of thought

1. A complex configuration contains elements that regularly occur together. 2. One element is linguistically selected as a point of access to another. 3. Hearers follow a familiar relation of contiguity toward the intended target. 4. A counter-test asks which agents or responsibilities the compression reveals or conceals. 5. The named element returns as the carrier of a larger unspoken configuration.

Scientific use case

Corpus studies can annotate recurrent source-target relations and examine which actors news headlines make visible through metonymy. Experiments can test whether alternative access points change attribution of responsibility and evaluation.

Example

“The White House announced …” presents neither a speaking building nor merely a geographical place. An institution and its authorised actors become accessible through their location.

Counterexample

“The foot of the mountain” is normally understood metaphorically through similarity of form or position. If no established contiguity exists and a resemblance across domains must be constructed, a primarily metonymic analysis is less plausible.

Distinction

Distinguish metonymy from metaphor and synecdoche. Metaphor structures one domain through another by projected similarity; synecdoche is often defined more narrowly through part-whole or species-genus relations.

Effect on thought and perception

Metonymy condenses a configuration into one selected point of access and directs attention toward particular parts, places, causes, or agents.

Resonance

One element calls up the configuration to which it belongs; what is named lets its unnamed neighbour sound as an active background.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Metonymy“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-091-004. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-091-004

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-091-004

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

Bullinger's 1898 account defines metonymy as the replacement of one designation by another related to it. Relation rather than resemblance is his explicit organizing principle. He distinguishes cause, effect, subject and adjunct, illustrating a relation with hand used for handwriting. His name-based examples remain claims made by this handbook; their individual etymologies have not been independently verified.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

The analytical task is to identify the particular referential relation, rather than merely an unusual choice of word.