[[metonymy|Metonymy]] is [[metonymy is really hard to define|hard to define]], and it is hard to [[metonymy is really hard to differentiate from synecdoche|differentiate]] from a similar, related figure, [[synecdoche]]. However, it's fair to say that metonymy tends toward physical relations in space and time. Synecdoche tends toward conceptual or categorical relations. (This *still* leads to ambiguity, but nevermind for now.) One suggestive way to think about this is [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Charles Sanders Peirce's]] concept of [[icon, index and symbol]]: ![[basic breakdown of icon, index and symbol]] Metonymy relies on the indexical, the material, with a bit of the symbolic mixed in. Synecdoche, by contrast, leans much _more_ towards symbolic. ### Metonymy and Secondness This becomes a bit more helpful once you factor in Peirce's ideas about [[firstness, secondness and thirdness]]. ![[basic breakdown of firstness, secondness, thirdness]] Since, for Peirce, [[for Peirce, everything is triadic|everything is triadic]], the icon/index/symbol thing maps over to the firstness/secondness/thirdness idea. **Icons** (relations based on similarity) partake mostly if firstness. **Indexicality** (relations based on real-world connections) partakes mostly of secondness. **Symbols** (relations based on pre-known rules or codes) partake of thirdness. If we agree that metonymy is based on *physical* part/whole relations, whereas synecdoche is based on semantic or conceptual part/whole relations, then we can say... - **_Metonymy_ is closer to indexicality and secondness.** There's a bit of thirdness thrown in (since metonymy invokes a cognitive [[domain|domain]], but it's largerly indexical. - ***Synecdoche* is closer to thirdness, pre-known rules and categories, etc., and symbols.** - For fun, I'd also suggest that **[[metaphor]] is closer to iconicity and firstness**. This is _basically_ congruent with the idea that metaphor produces new knowledge but [[metonymy relies on pre-existing chains of knowledge|metonymy relies on pre-existing knowledge.]] Most scholars agree with the idea that metaphor produces new knowledge but metonymy doesn't, but the breakdown above problematizes this. The breakdown above suggests that synecdoche is the figure that relies wholly on pre-existing knowledge or known categories; metonymy, by contrast, does... something *else*. It doesn't produce new knowledge in the same way as metaphors or icons (firstness), but it also doesn't rely solely on pre-known rules or codes (thirdness). It's in-between. And that is... suggestive.