Changes

===Linguistic Definition===[[Metonymy]] is usually defined as a [[trope ]] in which a term is used to denote an [[object]] which it does not literally refer to, but with which it is closely linked. This link may be one of [[physical]] contiguity, but not necessarily.

This link may be one ===Roman Jakobson===However, [[Lacan]]'s use of the term owes little to this definition apart from the [[notion]] of contiguity, since it is inspired by the [[work]] of [[Roman Jakobson]], who established an opposition between [[metonymy]] and [[metaphor]].<ref>[[Roman Jakobson|Jakobson, Roman]]. "Two aspects of language and two types of physical contguityaphasic disturbances, but not necessarily" ''Selected Writings'', vol. II, ''[[Word]] and Language'', The [[Hague]]: Mouton, 1971 [1956]., p. 21.</ref>

Metonymy is a figure ===Metonymic Axis of speech that involves transferring a name from one thing Language===Following [[Jakobson]], [[Lacan]] [[links]] [[metonymy]] to another on the basis of certain typical kinds combinatorial axis of relations: designating the effect with the cause, the whole with a part[[language]], as opposed to the contents with its container[[substitutive]] axis.

An example would be "a sail ===Diachronic Dimension of Signifying Chain===In his most detailed work on [[The Subject|the horizon" for "a ship on subject]], [[Lacan]] defines [[metonymy]] as the [[diachrony|diachronic]] relation between one [[signifier]] and [[another]] in the horizon[[signifying chain]]."

===Metonymy is Versus Metaphor===[[Metonymy]] thus concerns the ways in which [[signifier]]s can be combined / linked in a single [[signifying chain]] ("horizontal" relations), whereas [[metaphor]] concerns the ways in which a [[signifier]] in one [[signifying chain]] may be substituted for a fundamental notion supporting Lacan's thesis that [[signifier]] in another [[chain]] ("vertical"relations). Together, [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]] constitute the unconscious way in which [[signification]] is structured like a languageproduced."

It is analogous with the Freudian concept of "displacement" and refers to the problematic of desire and demand===Formula for Metonymy===[[Lacan]] provides a [[formula]] for [[metonymy]]. <ref>{{E}} p.164</ref>

[[Image:Lacan--metonymy.jpg|center]]

However, Lacan's use of the term owes little This formula is to this definition apart from the notionn of contiguity, since it is inspired by the work of [[Roman Jakobson]], who established an opposition between [[metonymy]] and [[metaphor]].<ref>Jakobson 1956</ref>be read as follows:

Following On the lefthand side of the [[Jakobsonalgebra|equation]], [[outside]] the brackets, [[Lacan]] links metonymy writes '''<i>f</i>''' '''S''', the [[paternal function|signifying function]], which is to say the combinatorial axis effect of [[languagesignification]]. [[Inside]]the brackets he writes '''S . . . S'''', as opposed to the substitutive axislink between one [[signifier]] and another in a [[signifying chain]].

(For example, in On the righthand side of the sentence [[algebra|equation]] there is 'I am happy,' the relation between the words 'IS' and 'am' is a metonymic relation, whereas the possibility of substituting [[signifier]], and ('''sad---' for 'happy' depends on ), the [[bar]] of the metaphoric relation between these two terms[[Saussure]]ean [[sign|algorithm]]. The [[sign]] <b>=</b> is to be read "is congruent with.)"

===Formula for Metonymy --Summary===Thus the [[whole]] formula reads:

In his most detailed work on <blockquote>"The signifying function of the connection of the subject, [[Lacan]] defines [[metonymy]] as signifier with the [[diachrony|diachronic]] relation between one [[signifier]] and another in is congruent with maintenance of the [[signifying chain]]bar."</blockquote>

The formula is meant to illustrate [[MetonymyLacan]] thus concerns the ways in which 's [[signifierthesis]]s can be combined/linked that in a single [[signifying chain ('horizontal' relations), whereas metonymy]] the [[metaphorresistance]] concerns the ways in which a of [[signifiersignification]] in one is maintained, the [[signifying chainbar]] may be substituted for a is not crossed, no new [[signifiersignified]] in another chain ('vertical' relations)is produced.

Together, ===Contexts===[[metaphorLacan]] and puts his [[metonymyconcept]] constitute the way in which of [[significationmetonymy]]s is producedto use in a variety of contexts.

[[LacanDesire]] is also characterized by exactly the same never-ending [[process]] of continual [[deferred action|deferral]]; since [[desire]] provides a formula is always "desire for something else,"<ref>{{E}} p. 167</ref> as soon as the [[object]] of [[desire]] is attained, it is no longer desirable, and the [[subject]]'s [[desire]] fixes on another [[metonymyobject]]. Thus [[Lacan]]writes that "desire ''is'' a metonymy."<ref>{{E}} p.164175</ref>

===Metonymy and Displacement===[[Lacan]] also follows [[Jakobson]] in linking the [[metaphor]]--[[metonymy]] [[distinction]] to the mechanisms of the [[dream work]] described by [[Freud]]. However, he differs from [[Jakobson]] over the precise [[nature]] of this link. Just as [[displacement]] is logically prior to [[condensation]], so [[metonymy]] is the condition for [[metaphor]], because "the coordination of [[signifiers]] has to be possible before transferences of the signified are able to take [[place]]."<ref>{{S3}} p. 229</ref>

This formula is to be read as follows. On the lefthand side of the equation, outside the brackets, [[Lacan]] writes ''f'' '''S''', the signifying function, which is to say the effect of [[signification]]. Inside the brackets he writes '''S . . . S'''', the link between one [[signifier]] and another in a [[signifying chain]]. On the righthand side of the equation there is '''S''', the [[signifier]], and ( - ), the [[bar]] of the [[Saussure]]ean algorithm. The sign = is to be read 'is congruent with'. Thus the whole formula reads: "the signifying function of the connection of the signifier with the signifier is congruent with maintenance of the bar." The formula is meant to illustrate [[Lacan]]'s thesis that in [[metonymy]] the [[resistance]] of [[signification]] is maintained, the [[bar]] is not crossed, no new [[signified]] is produced. --- [[Lacan]] puts his concept of [[metonymy]] to use in a variety of contexts. == Metonymy and DesireSee Also==[[Lacan]] presents [[metonymy]] as a [[diachrony|diachronic]] movement from one [[signifier]] to another along the [[signifying chain]], as one [[signifier]] constantly refer sto another in a perpetual deferral of meaning. [[Desire]] is also characterized by exactly the same never-ending process of continual deferral; since [[desire]] is always "Desire for something else,"<ref>{{ESee}} p.167</ref> as soon as the [[object]] of [[desire]] is attained, it is no longer desirable, and the [[subject]]'s [[desire]] fixes on another [[object]]. Thus * [[LacanBar]] writes that "desire ''is'' a metonymy."<ref>{{E}} p.175</ref> == Metonymy and Displacement== * [[Lacan]] also follows [[Jakobson]] in linking the [[metaphor]]-[[metonymy]] distinction to the mechanisms of the [[dream workDesire]] described by [[Freud]].||However, he differs from * [[JakobsonDisplacement]] over the precise nature of this link. Just as * [[displacementLanguage]] is logically prior to [[condensation]], so [[metonymy]] is the condition for [[metaphor]], because "the coordination of signifiers has to be possible before transferences of the signified are able to take place."<ref>{{S3}} p.229</ref>  == See Also ==||

 </div>