A New Categorization of Metonymy on the Language Axis

Due to the extensive usage of metonymy from the past to the present, several definitions of the term have been propounded. Old definitions were not very clear and precise, there being no lucid distinction between definitions and examples. On the other hand, metonymy and examples there of only were looked for in and selected from among literary works. Inattention to the origins of metonymy i.e. common language led to the confusion of different types and definitions of metonymy. This article first examines the vagueness and arbitrariness of old definitions of metonymy and then proposes the necessity of attention to metonymies in common language and of their entry into literary language. Next, providing examples in common and literary languages, three types of metonymy namely “metonymy for the substantive”, metonymy for the attribute” and “metonymy for the relation” are subdivided into twelve types in view of their limited and unlimited usage in literary and common languages. At the end, metonymy for the relation is described as the most valuable because of its high descriptive power.