METONYMY AND SYNECDOCHE AS FIGURES OF MEANING FOCALIZATION

Abstract

Both metonymy and synecdoche is considered a rhetorical figure connected with a change in meaning. In some
modern linguistic approaches, these figures, especially synecdoche, are considered to be the most important rhetorical
figures. Ancient rhetoric was not able to define the exact boundaries of metonymy and synecdoche. Consequently, the
metonym for one was perceived as synecdoche for another. The complex aspect of the issue may be related to the deficiencies in theories. Recently, in cognitive linguistics, metonymy and synecdoche are considered as the same conceptual phenomenon. Synecdoche has been considered a rhetorical figure with poor rhetoric with unknown boundaries and is
often confused with metonymy and sometimes not differentiated from the literal language. To describe any concept, we
must necessarily refer to other concepts or words, and so on. On the basis of metonymy lies «comprehension» and on
the basis of synecdoche is «extension». Metonymy and synecdoche are caused by two contiguous representations. They
do not differ according to the internal logic, they differ according to the field of application. Therefore, metonymy and
synecdoche are two forms of the same group: focalization and logical connection.