Difference between revisions of "Metonymy"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Top}}métonymie{{Bottom}}
  
[[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.
+
===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 of physical contguity, but not necessarily.
+
===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 aphasic disturbances," ''Selected Writings'', vol. II, ''[[Word]] and Language'', The [[Hague]]: Mouton, 1971 [1956]., p. 21.</ref>
  
Metonymy is a figure of speech that involves transferring a name from one thing to another on the basis of certain typical kinds of relations: designating the effect with the cause, the whole with a part, the contents with its container.  
+
===Metonymic Axis of Language===
 +
Following [[Jakobson]], [[Lacan]] [[links]] [[metonymy]] to the combinatorial axis of [[language]], as opposed to the [[substitutive]] axis.
  
An example would be "a sail on the horizon" for "a ship on the horizon."
+
===Diachronic Dimension of Signifying Chain===
 +
In his most detailed work on [[The Subject|the subject]], [[Lacan]] defines [[metonymy]] as the [[diachrony|diachronic]] relation between one [[signifier]] and [[another]] in the [[signifying chain]].
  
Metonymy is a fundamental notion supporting Lacan's thesis that "the unconscious is structured like a language."
+
===Metonymy 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 [[signifier]] in another [[chain]] ("vertical" relations).  Together, [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]] constitute the way in which [[signification]] is produced.
  
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 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>
+
This formula is to be read as follows: 
  
Following [[Jakobson]], [[Lacan]] links metonymy to the combinatorial axis of [[language]], as opposed to the substitutive axis.
+
On the lefthand side of the [[algebra|equation]], [[outside]] the brackets, [[Lacan]] writes '''<i>f</i>''' '''S''', the [[paternal function|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]].
  
(For example, in the sentence 'I am happy,' the relation between the words 'I' and 'am' is a metonymic relation, whereas the possibility of substituting 'sad' for 'happy' depends on the metaphoric relation between these two terms.)
+
On the righthand side of the [[algebra|equation]] there is '''S''', the [[signifier]], and ('''---'''), the [[bar]] of the [[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 the subject, [[Lacan]] defines [[metonymy]] as the [[diachrony|diachronic]] relation between one [[signifier]] and another in the [[signifying chain]].
+
<blockquote>"The signifying function of the connection of the signifier with the signifier is congruent with maintenance of the bar."</blockquote>
  
[[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 [[signifier]] in another chain ('vertical' relations).
+
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.
  
Together, [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]] constitute the way in which [[signification]]s is produced.
+
===Contexts===
 +
[[Lacan]] puts his [[concept]] of [[metonymy]] to use in a variety of contexts.
  
--
+
===Metonymy and Desire===
 +
[[Lacan]] presents [[metonymy]] as a [[diachrony|diachronic]] movement from one [[signifier]] to another along the [[signifying chain]], as one [[signifier]] constantly refers to another in a perpetual [[deferred action|deferral]] of [[signification|meaning]].
  
[[Lacan]] provides a formula for [[metonymy]].<ref>{{E}} p.164</ref>
+
[[Desire]] is also characterized by exactly the same never-ending [[process]] of continual [[deferred action|deferral]]; since [[desire]] 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 [[object]]. Thus [[Lacan]] 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 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.
+
==See Also==
 
+
{{See}}
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]].
+
* [[Bar]]
 
+
* [[Desire]]
Inside the brackets he writes '''S . . . S'''', the link between one [[signifier]] and another in a [[signifying chain]].
+
||
 
+
* [[Displacement]]
On the righthand side of the equation there is '''S''', the [[signifier]], and ( - ), the [[bar]] of the [[Saussure]]ean algorithm.
+
* [[Language]]
 
+
||
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 Desire==
 
[[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>{{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 [[object]].
 
 
 
Thus [[Lacan]] 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 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>
 
 
 
 
 
== See Also ==
 
 
* [[Metaphor]]
 
* [[Metaphor]]
 
+
* [[Signification]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Signifier]]
 +
* [[Signifying chain]]
 +
{{Also}}
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 +
<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small">
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
+
</div>
 
 
  
 
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
 
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
Line 81: Line 69:
 
[[Category:Linguistics]]
 
[[Category:Linguistics]]
 
[[Category:Dictionary]]
 
[[Category:Dictionary]]
 +
[[Category:Language]]
 
[[Category:Symbolic]]
 
[[Category:Symbolic]]
[[Category:Language]]
 
 
[[Category:Concepts]]
 
[[Category:Concepts]]
 
[[Category:Terms]]
 
[[Category:Terms]]
 +
[[Category:OK]]

Latest revision as of 21:53, 18 April 2022

French: métonymie

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.

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.[1]

Metonymic Axis of Language

Following Jakobson, Lacan links metonymy to the combinatorial axis of language, as opposed to the substitutive axis.

Diachronic Dimension of Signifying Chain

In his most detailed work on the subject, Lacan defines metonymy as the diachronic relation between one signifier and another in the signifying chain.

Metonymy Versus Metaphor

Metonymy thus concerns the ways in which signifiers 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 signifier in another chain ("vertical" relations). Together, metaphor and metonymy constitute the way in which signification is produced.

Formula for Metonymy

Lacan provides a formula for metonymy.[2]

Lacan-metonymy.jpg

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 Saussureean algorithm. The sign = is to be read "is congruent with."

Formula for Metonymy - Summary

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.

Contexts

Lacan puts his concept of metonymy to use in a variety of contexts.

Metonymy and Desire

Lacan presents metonymy as a diachronic movement from one signifier to another along the signifying chain, as one signifier constantly refers to 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,"[3] as soon as the object of desire is attained, it is no longer desirable, and the subject's desire fixes on another object. Thus Lacan writes that "desire is a metonymy."[4]

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."[5]

See Also

References

  1. Jakobson, Roman. "Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances," Selected Writings, vol. II, Word and Language, The Hague: Mouton, 1971 [1956]., p. 21.
  2. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.164
  3. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 167
  4. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 175
  5. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 229