 |
Craig White's Literature Courses Critical Sources Roman Jakobson "The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles" |
 |
Jakobson, Roman. "The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles." Chapter 5 of Fundamentals of Language by Jakobson and Morris Halle, 1956. Rptd in Critical Theory since Plato. Ed. Hazard Adams. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971: 1113-1116.
. . . The development of a discourse may take place along two different semantic lines: one topic may lead to another either through their similarity or through their contiguity. The metaphoric way would be the most appropriate term for the first case and the metonymic way for the second, since they find their most condensed expression in metaphor and metonymy respectively. In normal verbal behavior both processes are continually operative, but careful observation will reveal that under the influence of a cultural pattern, personality, and verbal style, preference is given to one of the two processes over the other. . . .
In verbal art the interaction of these two elements is especially pronounced. Rich material for the study of this relationship is to be found in verse patterns which require a compulsory parallelism between adjacent liens, for example in Biblical poetry or in the West Finnic and, to some extent, the Russian oral traditions. . . .
In poetry there are various motives which determine the choice between these alternants. The primacy of the metaphoric process in the literary schools of Romanticism and symbolism has been repeatedly acknowledged, but it is still insufficiently realized that it is the predominance of metonymy which underlies and actually predetermines the so-called realistic trend, which belongs to an intermediary stage between the decline of Romanticism and the rise of symbolism and is opposed to both. Following the path of contiguous relationships, the realistic author metonymically digresses from the plot to the atmosphere and from the characters to the setting in space and time. He is fond of synecdochic details. In the scene of Anna Karenina's suicide Tolstoy's artistic attention is focused on the heroine's handbag; and in War and Peace the synecdoches "hair on the upper lip" or "bare shoulders" are used by the same writer to stand for the female characters to whom these features belong. . . .
A competition between both devices, metonymic and metaphoric, is manifest in any symbolic process, either intrapersonal or social. Thus in an inquiry into the structure of dreams, the decisive question is whether the symbols and the temporal sequences used are based on contiguity (Freud's metonymic "displacement" and synecdochic "condensation") or on similarity (Freud's "identification and symbolism"). The principles underlying magic rites have been resolved by [J. G.] Frazer [The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 1950] into two types: charms based on the law of similarity and those founded on association by contiguity. The first of these two great branches of sympathetic magic has been called homeopathic or imitative, and the second, contagious magic. This bipartition is indeed illuminating. Nonetheless, for the most part, the question of the two poles is still neglected, despite its wide scope and importance for the study of any symbolic behavior, especially verbal, and of its impairments. What is the main reason for this neglect?
Similarity in meaning connects the symbols of a metalanguage with the symbols of the language referred to. Similarity connects a metaphorical term with the term for which it is substituted. Consequently, when constructing a metalanguage to interpret tropes, the researcher posses more homogeneous means to handle metaphor, whereas metonymy, based on a different principle, easily defies interpretation. Therefore nothing comparable to the rich literature on metaphor can be cited for the theory of metonymy. For the same reason, it is generally realized that Romanticism is closely linked with metaphor, whereas the equally intimate ties of realism with metonymy usually remain unnoticed. Not only the tool of the observer but also the object of observation is responsible for the preponderance of metaphor over metonymy in scholarship. Since poetry is focused upon sign, and pragmatical prose primarily upon referent, tropes and figures were studied mainly as poetical devices. The principle of similarity underlies poetry; the metrical parallelism of lines or the phonic equivalence of rhyming words prompts the question of semantic similarity and contrast . . . . Prose, on the contrary, is forwarded essentially by contiguity. Thus, for poetry, metaphor, and for prose, metonymy is the line of least resistance and, consequently, the study of poetical tropes is directed chiefly toward metaphor. . . .
Quick Definitions for Metaphor and Metonymy
Holman, Hugh, ed. A Handbook to Literature. 3d ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972.
Metaphor: An implied analogy which imaginatively identifies one object with another and ascribes to the first one or more of the qualities of the second or invests the first with emotional or imaginative qualities associated with the second. It is one of the tropes; that is, one of the principal devices by which poetic "turns" on the meaning of words are achieved.
Metonymy: A figure of speech which is characterized by the substitution of a term naming an object closely associated with the word in mind for the word itself. In this way we commonly speak of the king as "the crown," an object closely associated with kingship thus being made to stand for "king." So, too, in the book of Genesis we read, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," a figure of speech in which "sweat" represents that with which it is closely associated, "hard labor."
Synecdoche: A form of metaphor which in mentioning a part signifies the whole or the whole signifies the part. In order to be clear, a good synecdoche must be based on an important part of the whole and not a minor part and, usually, the part selected to stand for the whole must be the part most directly associated with the subject under discussion. Thus under the first restriction we say motor for automobile (rather than tire), and under the second we speak of infantry on the march as foot rather than as hands just as we use hands rather than foot for men who are at work at manual labor.
Cuddon, J. A., ed. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. NY: Penguin, 1977.
metaphor (Gk "carrying from one place to another") A figure of speech in which one thing is described in terms of another. The basic figure in poetry. A comparison is usually implicit; whereas in simile it is explicit.
metonymy (Gk "name change") A figure of speech in which the name of an attribute or a thing is substituted for the thing itself. Common examples are "The Stage" for the theatrical profession; "The Crown" for the monarchy; "The Bench" for the judiciary; "Dante" for his works.
synecdoche (Gk "taking up together") A figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole, and thus something else is understood within the thing mentioned. For example: in "Give us this day our daily bread," "bread" stands for the meals taken each day. . . . Synecdoche is common in everyday speech. In "Chelsea won the match," Chelsea stands for the Chelsea Football Team.
[ ]
—