Метонимия и синекдоха в английской литературе

THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN 
 
 
THE UZBEK STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY  
 
II ENGLISH PHILOLOGY FACULTY 
 
 
COURSE PAPER 
 
 
The theme: Metonymy and its role in literary text 
 
 
Written by: Tuychiyeva Muhlisa. 
 
Group№ 404 B 
 
Checked by: Khojikulov Sh  
 
 
Tashkent-2010 

Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………..........2

 
Main part: 
 
§1. Stylistics as a science of linguistics………………………………………4 
 
§2. Metonymy as a lexical stylistic device and its characteristic features…...6 
 
§3. The semantic types of Metonymy…………………………………........13 
 
§4. The difference of metonymy between metaphor and synecdoche………17 
 
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..23 
 
Bibliography………………………………………………………………...25 
 
 

Introduction

 
This course paper is devoted to the study of metonymy which is one of the lexical stylistic devices.  
 
The subject matter of the course paper is to study Metonymy and its role in literary text and to analyse it in the English and Uzbek languages.  
 
The main aim of the work is that we will try to reveal the main types of metonymy and show its differential peculiarities from other stylistic device in Modern English. 
 
The purpose directs us to arrange some tasks to carry out in revealing the chosen theme. So we have arranged the following to discuss: 
 
- to study Stylistics as a science of linguistics;  
 
- to define metonymy as a lexical stylistic device; 
 
- to study the types of metonymy;  
 
- to point out the main difference between metaphor and metonymy; 
 
- to reveal the stylistic effect of metonymy in contexts. 
 
The following methods are used to carry out this qualification paper. They are: componential-definitial method, analytical method and comparative method. 
 
As the main material of the work served several theoretical books on Lexicology and Stylistics and fresh information from Internet. The examples have been gathered from different English and American writers’ work of art. 
 
The theoretical value of the work is that theory and examples can serve as the main material in lectures and seminars on English Stylistics and Text Interpretation.  
 
The practical importance of the work is that one can compile a handbook on Stylistics. 
 
The course paper consists of Introduction, main part, Conclusion and Bibliography. 
 
Introduction deals with the main purpose, actuality, methods and theoretical, practical importance of the work. Also, here was given information about the structure and brief plot of the qualification paper. 
 
Main Part is devoted to the study of general ideas on Stylistics, Metonymy as a lexical stylistic device and its characteristic features, characteristics of metonymy and its usage in Modern English.  
 
Conclusion deals with the achieved results of the work under the chosen theme. 
 
Bibliography deals with the alphabetical list literatures used in carrying out the investigated work. 
 
 
Main part: 
 
§1. STYLISTICS AS A SCIENCE OF LINGUISTICS. 
 
Stylistics, sometimes called lingo-stylistics, is a branch of general linguistics; it has been more or less definitely outlined. It deals mainly with two independent tasks: 
 
a) the investigation of the inventory of special language media which by their ontological features secure the desirable effect of the utterance. 
 
b) certain types of text (discourse) which due to the choice branch and arrangement of language means are distinguished by the pragmatic aspect of the communication. The two objective of stylistics are clearly discernable as separate fields of investigation. 
 
The inventory special language media can be analyzed and their Ontological features revealed if presented in a system in which the Correlation between the media becomes evident. 
 
The second field, i.e. functional styles, cannot avoid discussion of such most general linguistic issues as oral and written varieties of language, the notion of the literary (standard) language, the constituents of texts larger than the sentence, the generative aspect of literary texts and some others. In dealing with the objectives of stylistics, certain pronouncements of adjacent disciplines such as theory of information, literature, psychology, logic and to some extent statistics must be touched upon. This is indispensable; for nowadays no science is entirely isolated from other domains of human knowledge: and linguistics particularly its branch stylistics cannot avoid references to the above mentioned disciplines because it is confronted with certain overlapping issues. 
 
The branches of stylistics free language science was indirectly the result of a long-established tendency of grammarians to confine their investigations to sentences, clauses and word-combinations which are “well-formed“, to use a dubious term, neglecting anything that did not fall under the recognized and received standards. This became particularly strong in what is called descriptive linguistics. The generative grammars, which apt as a reaction against descriptive linguistics, have confirmed that the task of any grammar is to limit the scope of investigation of language data to sentences which are considered well-formed Everything that fails to meet this requirement should be excluded from linguistics1. 
 
The most frequent definition of style is one expressed by Seymour Chatman: “Style is a product of individual choice and patterns of choice among linguistic possibilities.” 
 
This definition indirectly deals with the idiosyncrasies peculiar to a given writer. Somehow it fails to embrace such phenomena in text structure where the “individual” is reduced to the minimum or even done away with entirely. However, this definition is acceptable when applied to the ways men-of – letters use language when they seek to make it conform to their immediate aims and purport. A somewhat broader view a style is expressed by Werner The essential property, indeed, merit of a truly genuine individual style is its conformity to the established norms of the language system in their idiosyncratic variations. This uniqueness of the individual style of an author is not easy to observe. It is due not only to the peculiar choice of words, sentence-structures and Stylistic Devices, but also to the in comparable manner these elements are combined. 
 
It is hardly to underestimate the significance of a minute analyses of the language of a writer when approaching the general notion of his style.  
 
The language will inevitably reveal some of the author’s idiosyncrasies in the use of language means. Moreover, the author’s choice of language means reflects to a very considerable extent the idea of the work as a whole. 
 
Nowhere can the linguist observe the hidden potentialities of language means more clearly than through a scrupulous analyses of the ways writers use these means. 
 
But for the linguist the importance of studying an author’s individual style is not confined to penetration into the inner properties of language means and stylistic devices. The writers of a given period in the development of the literary language contribute greatly to establishing the system of norms of their period. It is worth a passing note that the investigations of language norms at a given period are to a great extent maintain on works of men-of letters. 
 
 
§2. METONYMY AS A LEXICAL STYLISTIC DEVICE AND ITS CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES. 
 
Metonymy (Gr. “metonymia” “changing of name”) is transfer of meaning based upon the association of contiguity. In metonymy the name of one thing is applied to another with it has some permanent or temporary connection. The transfer may be based on temporal, spatial, causal, functional, instrumental and other relations. 
 
Like metaphors, metonymy can be divided into linguistic metonymy (i.e. words of metonymic origin) and metonymy as a stylistic device. 
 
In linguistic metonymy the transferred meaning has been established in the semantic structure of the word as a secondary meaning. In the course of time its figurativeness and emotional colouring have faded. E.g. “nickel” is used for a coin made of nickel, “a hand” may denote a worker in a factory, a member of a ship’s crew, “the House” may be used for the House of Common or the House of Lords. 
 
If a metonymic transfer of meaning is still felt to be figurative, it can be regarded as a stylistic device. Stylistic metonymy may be divided into figures of speech established in the language and individual contributions1. 
 
Metonymic figures of speech established in the language are frequent occurrence in colloquial speech. 
 
e.g. the whole table was stirring with impatieme; (Snow, CP) 
 
You’re not going to get those beastly papers in, are you? (Golsworthy, Ch) 
 
“I don’t know that I noticed her” – “Dear, I saw the corner of your eye!” (Golsworthy, Ch) 
 
How can a man of nine hundred keep out of the bench? (Thackray, BS) (the bench = the law-court). 
 
Metonymic transfer may be conditioned by various relations. A characteristic feature can be used instead of its possessor, e.g. 
 
“Who’s the moustache?” he asked, “oh, Harry?” 
 
- “The one you were kissing?” (Stone, YL) 
 
There’s too much petticoat in business today; (Steinbeck, WD) 
 
It was one of a million idential dreams of a million olive uniforms and cotton prints; (Steinback, WD) 
 
(olive uniforms and cotton prints = young men and woman) 
 
Metonymy of this kind often becomes stereoted, eg. names of characters in fairy-tales, such as Red Riding Hood, Bluebeard, etc. 
 
Metonymy – is based on a different type of relation between the dictionary and contextual meanings, as a relation based not on identification, but on some kind of association connecting the two concepts which these meanings represent.  
 
Thus, the word “crown” may stand for “king a queen”, “cup or glass” for “the drink” it contains, “woolsack” for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who sits on it, or the position and dignity of the Lord Chancellor, e.g.  
 
Here the noble lord inclined has knee to the Woolsack (f/m Hansard) 
 
Here also the interrelation between the dictionary and contextual meanings should stand out clearly and conspicuously. Only then can we state that a stylistic device is used. Otherwise we must turn our mind to lexicological problems. To the ways and means by which new words and meanings are coined. The examples of metonymy given above are traditional. In fact they are derivative logical meanings and therefore fixed in dictionaries. However, when such meanings are included in dictionaries, there is usually a label fig (figurative use). This shows that the new meaning has not replaced the primary one, but, as it were, co-exists with it. 
 
Still the new meaning has become so common, that it is easily predictable and therefore doesn’t bear any additional information, which is an indispensable condition for an SD. 
 
Here are some more widely used metonymical meanings, some of which are already fixed in dictionaries without the label. fig “the press’ for printing or publishing establishment”, or for “the newspaper” and periodical literature which is printed by the printing press. “The bench” is used as a generic term for “magistrest and justies”. “A hand” is used for a “worker”, “the cradle” stands for “infancy, earliest stages, place of aigin” and “the grave” stands for “death”. 
 
Metonymy used in language-in-action, contextual metonymy is genuine metonymy and reveals a quite unexpressed substitution of one word for another, a one concept for another, on the ground of some strong impression produced by a chance feature of the thing, for exp. 
 
“Miss Tox’s hand trembled as she slipped it trough Mr. Dombey’s arm, and felt herself escorted up the steps, preceded by a cocked hat and a Babylonian collar”. (Dickens). 
 
In the book English lexicology by Rayevskaya metonymy is given other explanation: 
 
- Metonymy comes from the Greek word “meta” – which means substitution and “onyme” – name. 
 
Metonymy is the device in which the name of one thing is changed for that of another, to which it is related by association of ideas, as having close relationship to one another. The strength of metonymy lies in the pictorial appeal of the concrete and general. 
 
Transfers by contiguity between the senses are very common occurrences and have received extensive attention in semasiology.  
 
The simplest case of metonymy is the so-called synecdoche (literally: a receiving together. From Greek: syn-together; ekedochomoi – I join in receiving). 
 
Synecdoche means “giving the part for a whole” 

•  
  all hands aboard (hands stand for sailors)

 
foot – infantry, Bluebeard (so called from the titular hero of the popular story) 
 
the word town may be used the implication of the inhabitants of a town; 
 
the word house – may be denote the members of the House of Commons or of Lords. 
 
the word violin is often used to denote not the instrument but the musician who plays it  
 
the bar – the lawyers. 
 
The association between the existing meaning and the new is based on the contiguity of meaning. In terms of the referential approach we may speak here of the contiguity of referents. 
 
Sense-shift may result in the change of denotational or the connotational meaning. A change in denotation may result in the existension or the narrowing of meaning.  
 
A change in the connotational component may result in either elevation or degradation of meaning. 
 
The effect of metonymy are frequently achieved by substituting the part for the whole or by using an idea connected with an event or person in place of the event or person itself. We use metonymy in daily conversation in expressions: 
 
head of cattle 
 
to keep a good table  
 
unit for table  
 
to keep the guests amused 
 
in the clouds 
 
Metonymy is a useful for placing emphasis where we wish it do fall.  
 
E. Poe, for instance, speaks of  
 
the Glory that was Greece 
 
And the grandeur that was Rome. 
 
By suggesting ideas to be connected with the two notions, the poet creats a subtle and meaningful distinction between them. This is based upon the connotative value of glory and grandeur. With its implication of authentic distinction, deserved praise and distinction, glory assumes a higher standing than grandeur, with is connotations of more wordly splender and exterior display of wealth.  
 
Metonymy is a shift of names between things that are known to be in some way or other connected in reality. The transfer may be conditioned by spatial, temporal, causal, symbolic, instrumental, functional and other relations1. 
 
Many physical and technical units are named after great scientists : volt, ohm, ampere ,watt etc. 
 
There are also many instances in political vocabulary when the place of some establishment is used not only for the establishment itself or its staff but also for its policy: :the White House, the Pentagon, Wall Street, Downing Street, Fleet Street. Examples of geographic names turning into common nouns to name the goods exported or originating there are exceedingly numerous, e.g. astrakhan, birkini, boston, cardigan, china, tweed. Garments came to be known by the names of those who brought them into fashion: mackintosh, raglan, wellingtons. The stylistic device based on the principle of substitution of one object for another is called metonymy. Metonymy is based on different types of relation between the dictionary and contextual meanings, relation based not on affinity, but on some king of association connecting the two concepts which these meanings represent. 
 
For example, the word “crown” may stand for “king or queen”, “cup or glass” for the “drink it contains”. These examples of metonymy are traditional. In fact, they are derivative logical meanings and there ore fixed in dictionaries, there is usually a label “fig”. This shows that new meaning not entirely replaced the primary one, but, as it were, co-exists with it. The lexical stylistic device-metonymy is created by a different semantic process. It is hand on contiquity of object. Transference of names in metonymy does not involve a necessity for two different words to have a common component in their semantic structures as is the case with metaphor but proceeds from the fact that two objects have common grounds of existence in reality. Such words as “cup” and “tea” have no semantic nearness, but the first one may serve the container of the second, hence the conversational cliché “Will you have another cup?”. Metonymy as all other lexical stylistic device loses its originality due to long use. The scope of transference in metonymy is much more limited than that of metaphor, which is quite understandable: the score of human imagination identifying two objects (phenomena, actions) on the grounds of commonness of their unmemorable characteristics is found less while actual relations between objects are more limited. One type of metonymy – namely the one, which is based on the relations between the part and the whole is often viewed independently as synecdoche. 
 
As a rule, metonymy is expressed by nouns (less frequently – by substantives numerals) and is used in syntactical functions characteristic of nouns (subject, object, predicative). 
 
Metonymy emotionalized communication by substituting the most suggestive characteristic for an object meant, as the sign for the thing signified, the container the thing contained, the office for the employees, the instrument for the action, the eject for the cause, the dominant features for the person, idea or object, etc. 
 
Eg. The stars and stipes dangled languidly from a flagstaff. (W. S. Maugham). 
 
As we said, metonymy is based on definite relations between the object implied and the object named. For example: many ears and eyes were busy with a vision of the matter of these placards. Besides, their logical meanings the words “ears’ and “eyes” have acquired contextual logical meanings that of people (or listeners and readers). 
 
The interaction between the logical and the contextual meaning of these words is based on close relations objectively existing between the part and the body it self. In metonymy relations between the object named the object implied are various and numerous. The list given below includes the most frequent types of relations: 

1.  
   The relations that exist between an instrument and the action it performs (or between an organ of the body and its function).

 
As, “the sword” is the worst argument that can be used, so should it be the last. (Byron). 
 
The word has acquired a contextual logical meaning in the above sentence – that of military action, repression. 
 
2. The relations that exist between an article of clothing and the person wearing it. 
 
Then a pause, as the bonnet and dress neared the top of square (Bennett). 
 
In this example, the articles of clothing are used to denote the woman herself. 
 
3. The relations that exist between the symbol and the phenomenon it symbolized. 
 
Ex. “This”, - he said, - “was characteristic of England, the most selfish country in the world”; the country which sucked the blood of other countries; destroyed the brains and hearts of freshmen, Hindus, Egyptians, Boers and Burmese.  
 
The words “blood”, “brains” and “hearts” are used in the above extract to symbolize the freedom and strength of other people, their political, economic and intellectual else. 
 
Apart from this group of metonymies some other three types of metonymies should be mentioned that is metonymies based on very close, common relation between objects. They are:  

1.  
   The relations between the material and the thing made of it, as for example: to be dressed in silk, or nylon.

2.  
   The relations between the creator and his creation; “Your father would go crazy about Goye” (Gollsworthy).

3.  
   The relations between the sinqularand the plural. This type of metonymy is called synecdoche:

 
Ex. It was…..in the pacific, where week, months, often pass without the margin less blue, level being ruffed by any wandering kill. (Fr Bullen) 
 
Metonymies of these types are always trite irrespective of the fact whether they have long bun in common use or have recently been created. 
 
There’re other trite metonymies in the English language which have been long and widely used, become hackneyed and last their vividness; 
 
Ex: from the cradle (from babyhood), to succeed to the crown (to become king), under one’s roof (in one’s house), etc. The stylistic effect of trite metonymies is, in most cases, weak. 

§3. THE SEMANTIC TYPES OF METONYMY.

 
Many attempts have been made to pin-point the types of relation which metonymy is based on among them the following are most common: 
 
1) A concrete thing used instead of an obstruct notion. In this case the thing becomes a symbol of the notion, as in  
 
The camp, the pulpit and the low 
 
For rich men’s sons a free (Shelly) 
 
2) The container instead of the thing contained: 
 
The hall applauded, kettle boil. 
 
3) The relation of proximity as in  
 
The round game table was boisterous and (Dickens) 
 
4) The material instead of the thing made of it as in:  
 
The marble spoke. 
 
5) The instrument which the does uses in performing the action instead of the action or the doer himself as in: 
 
Well, Mr. Weller, says the gentlemen, you are a very good whip and can do what you like you horses, we know” (Dickens)  
 
As the Sword is the worst argument that can be used, so should it be the last. (Byron) 
 
The last in no way complete. There are many other types of relations which may be serving as bases for metonymy. Being a means of building up imagery, generally concerns concrete objects, which are generalized. The process of generalization is easily carried out with the help of the definite article. Therefore instances of metonymy are very often used with the definite article or with no article at all, as in there was perfect sympathy between Pulpit and Pew, where “Pulpit” stands for the clergyman and “Pew” for the congregation. 
 
This is probably due to the fact that any definition of a word may be taken for metonymy, in as much as it shows a property or an essential quality of the concept, thus disclosing a kind of relation between the thing as a whole and a feature of it which may be regarded as part of it. 
 
In the book English lexicology by Rayevskaya are given other examples of types of metonymy:  

1.  
   The sign for the thing signified.

 
From the cradle to the grave (from childhood to death) 
 
Gray hair (old age or men) 
 
Arena is the Latin word for sand – a remainder that send was used to strew the floors of the amphitheaters.  

2.  
   The instrument for the agent 

 
The best pens of the day = the best writers of the day or Give every man thine ear but few the voice = pay heed to what every man says, but say little yourself 
 
The pen is stranger than the sword = those who use the pen have influence than those use the sword.  

3.  
   The container for the thing contained

 
He drank a cup (the contents of the cup) 
 
The kettle (the water in the kettle) is boiling. 

4.  
   A symbol can be used for an object.

 
E.g. Both the scales and the sword were allied with the infants; (Stenbeck T. Ch.) (the scales = the law – court; the sword = the police); 

5.  
   An object may stand for a person connected with it 

 
E.g. And the first cab having been fetched from the public house, where he had been smoking his first pipe. (Dickens, PC )  

6.  
   The name of the place can be used for somebody or something connected with it.

 
E.g. George was committed definitely to the joys of the table; (Galsworthy L.)  

7.  
   The names of various organs are used in the same way. Eg.

 
He drank a cup (the contents of the cup) the kettle (the water in the kettle) is boiling. 

8.  
   A part of species substituted for a whole or genus:

 
He manages to earn his bread = the necessaries of life. 
 
A fleet of fifty = fifty ships. 

9.  
   A whole or genus substitutes for a part or species:

 
He is a poor creature = that is man. 
 
In the same way vessel is used for ship, a measure is used for a dance or for poetry, the smiling year for the smiling season or spring. 
 
A great many English words have been traced to proper names. Familiar examples are: Adonis, Apollo, Don Juan, Don Quixote, Tartuffe, etc. This is one of the sources from which new words are still being (the so-called antonomasia).  
 
The following cases of metonymy are also worthy of notice: 

1.  
   The concrete substituted for the abstract, i.e. a common noun a person is used in an abstract sense, e.g.:

 
There is mixture of the tiger and the ape in the character of a Frenchman (Voltaire). 
 
I do most that friendship can,  
 
I hate the Viceroy, love the man (J. Swift). 

2.  
   The abstract substituted for the concrete. Here an abstract noun is used as a concrete noun. e.g.:

 
The authorities were greeted. 

3.  
   The material substituted for the thing made, i.e. a material noun is used as a common noun, e.g.:

 
The marble speaks, that is the statue made of marble.  
 
Silver – coin made of silver; silver money; money (in general). 
 
Iron – instrument, utensil, appliance made of iron. 
 
Glass – articles made of glass. 
 
Boards – the stage in a theatre. 
 
Metonymy and synecdoche have contributed to the stock of words by becoming fossilized. 
 
The subject of metonymy is a very complex one. Due to a great variety of associations there are a lot of instances where metonymy is disguised and hardly recognizable.  
 
The following will afford good examples of the so-called faded metonymy: 
 
book (O. E. Boc-beech-tree) – the name of the materials applied to the product; 
 
library (Lat.); librarus; liber – book, originally “the bark of a tree”; 
 
yard (O.E. gyrd) – originally meant “a piece of wood”; Modern English – a unit of measure. 
 
Sandwich – two slices of bread usually buttered and having a thin layer of meant, cheese or savory mixture, spread between them (after John Mantagu, earl of Sandwich who lived in the 18th century). 
 
hooligan – a loafer or ruffian, like the hoodlum (after an Irish family in London). 
 
mauser – a trade mark applied to a certain kind of firearm (after Paul Mauser - 1838). 
 
Ampere – the practical unit of intensity of electric current, being that produced by one volt acting through a resistance of one ohm (after A. M. Ampere, French physicist).  
 
lilliputian - a pygmy (pertaining to Lilliput, an imaginary island in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels” ). 
 
calico – so called because first imported from Calicut, India (originally, any cotton cloth from India and the East).  
 
volt – the unit of electromotive force (after Alessandro Volta, Italian physicist).  
 
Ohm – the practical unit of electrical resistance, being the resistance of a circuit in which a potential difference of one volt produces a current of one ampere (after the German electrician G. S. Ohm). 
 
silhouette – (after Etienne de Silhouette, French politician, who was often caricatured in this way. Larousse). 
 
nankeen ( = nankin) – brownish – yellow cloth in firm texture and great durability, originally from China. 
 
mousseline ( = muslin) – a very thin, fine and soft plain cloth made in India, or an imitation of it (from Mosul – a city of Mesopotamia). 
 
tulle – a thin fine net, commonly of silk, for veils dresses, etc. (from Tulle – a town in France). 
 
bordeaux – wine from the Bordeaux region, France. 
 
madeira – wine made on the island of Madeira. 
 
malaga – a white wine, Malaga – a city and province of Spain. 
 
champagne – a white sparkling wine, made in the old province of Champagne, France. 
 
vaudeville – commonly, a variety show (from Vau-de-Vire, lit., valley of Vire – a village in Normandy). 
 
dahlia – a flower (after A. Dahl, Swedish botanist). 
 
nicotine – a poisonous alkaloid (after Jean Nicot, who introduced tobacco into France). 
 
Illustrative examples of faded metonymy will be found in names of animals which arise from their places of origin. The big, shaggy Newfoundland came from the island of Newfoundland; the Pomeranian from Pomerania; and the Airedale from the valley of “dale” of the Aire in Yorkshire, England (a large terrier of a breed with hard and wiry coat).  
 
§4. THE DIFFERENCE OF METONYMY BETWEEN METAPHOR AND SYNECDOCHE. 
 
Metonymy and metaphor differ also in the way they are deciphered. In the process of disclosing the meaning implied in a metaphor, one image excludes the other, that is, the metaphor “lamp” in “The sky lamp of the night”. When deciphered, means the moon, and though there is a definite interplay of meanings, we perceive only one object, “the moon”. This is not the case with metonymy. Metonymy, while presenting one object to our mind, does not exclude the other, in the example given above “the moustache” and the man himself are both perceived by the mind1. 
 
Each type of intended substitution results in a stylistic device called a trope. The most frequently used, well known and elaborated among them is a metaphor – transference of names based on the associated likeness between 2 objects as in the “pancake” or “ball” or “volkano” for the sun, “silverdust”, “sequins” for “stars”, “vault”, “blanket”, “veil” for the “sky”.  
 
We know that nomination – the process of naming reality by means of the language – proceeds f’m choos’ 1 of the features characteristic of the object which is being named for the representative of the object. The connection between the chosen feature, representing the object, and the word is especially vivid in cases of-transparent “inner form” when the name of the object can be easily traced to the name of 1 of its characteristics Cf “railway”, “chairman”, “waxen”. Thus the semantic structure of a word reflects, to a certain extend, characteristic features of the piece of reality which it denotes. So it is only natural that similarity between real objects or phenomena finds its reflection in the semantic structures of words denoting them: both words possess at least one common semantic component. In the above exps with the “sun” this common semantic component is “hot” (hence –volcano”, “pancake” which are also “hot”), or “round” (ball, pancake which are also of round shape).  
 
The expressiveness of the metaphor is promoted by the implicit simultaneous presence of images of both objects – the one which is actually named and the one which supplies its own “legal” name. So that formally the deal with the name transference based on the similarity of one feature common to two different entities, while in fact each one enters a phrase in the complexity of its other characteristics. The wider is the gap between the associated objects the more striking and unexpected – the more expressive – is the metaphor. 
 
If a metaphor involves likeness between inanimate and animate objects. We deal with personification, as in “the face of London”, or “the pain of the ocean”. 
 
Metaphor as all other SD, is fresh, original, genuine, when first used, and trite, hackneyed, state when often repeated. In the latter case it gradually loses its expressiveness becoming just another entry in the dictionary. As in the “leg of a table” or the “sunrise”, thus serving a very important source of enriching the vocabulary of the language. 
 
Metaphor can be expressed by all notional parts of speech, and functions in the sentence as any of its members. 
 
When the speaker in his desire to present an elaborated image does not limit its creation to a single metaphor but offers a group of them, each supplying another feature of described phenomenon, this duster creates a sustained (prolonged) metaphor.  
 
Metonymy, another lexical SD – like metaphor – on losing its originally also becomes instrumental in enriching the vocabulary of the Eng, though metonymy is created by a different semantic process and is based on contiguity (nearness) of objects or phenomena. Transference of names in metonymy does not involve a necessity for two different words to have a common component in their semantic structures, as is the case with metaphor, but proceeds from the fact that two objects have common grounds of existence in reality. Such words as “cup” and “tea” have no linguistic nearness, but the first one may serve the container of the second, hence-the conversational chichi “Will you have another cup”, which is a case of metonymy, once original, but due to long use, no more accepted as a fresh SD1. 
 
“My brass will call your brass” says one of the characters of A. Hailey’s Airport to another, meaning “My boss will call your boss”. The transference of names is caused by both bosses being officers, wearing uniform caps with brass cockades. 
 
The scope of transference in metonymy is much more limited than that of metaphor. Which is quite understandable: the scope of human imagination identifying two objects on the grounds of commonness of one of their innumerable characteristic is boundless while actual relations between objects are more limited. This is the why metonymy, on the whole, is a less frequently observed SD, than metaphor. 
 
Similar to singing out one particular type of metonymy-namely, the one, which is based on the relations between the part and the whole – is often viewed independently as synecdoche. 
 
As a rule, metonymy is expressed by nouns and is used in syntactical functions characteristic of nouns. (Subject, object, predicate) 
 
There is another figure of speech related to metonymy, often included under it. This is synecdoche. The word synecdoche came from the Greek word which means, receiving together, a figure of speech by which a part is used for a whole or a whole for a part, the singular for the plural or the plural for the singular, the special for the general or vice versa1.  
 
e.g.