Metaphoric and Metonymic Symbolism: A Development from Paul Ricoeur’s Concepts

Abstract

Roman Jakobson’s metaphoric and metonymic principles apply to all of language; with these categories Jakobson achieved a self-conscious generalization in the light of the Sausurrean model. That such a broadening contributed valuably to the understanding of language is indicated by the extent of the existing metaphoric-metonymic commentary and analysis. However, Jakobson’s principles have not been extensively applied to symbolism. I suggest that this is because of a Catch-22 that this theory has reached: (1) the best way to envision a metaphoric symbolism would be by analogy to figurative metaphor, and the best way to envision a metonymic symbolism would be by analogy to figurative metonymy; but (2) after broadening, Jakobson’s principles apply to much more than metaphor and metonymy as distinct figures. Ideas of Paul Ricoeur and David Lodge can be used to refocus on figurative metaphor and figurative metonymy so that these figures can be used to define metaphoric and metonymie symbolism, without abandoning or radically changing Jakobson’s valuable system.¹