Metaphor and Metonymy: Poetry and Prose

“he [Roman Jakobson] narrows it relegating metaphor to the domain of semiotic structure = poetry, and metonymy to the sphere of the text = prose.”

- Yuri Lotman [Universe of Mind]

 

Roman Jakobson

The quote refers to a key idea in the work of Russian-American linguist and literary theorist Roman Jakobson, particularly expressed in his influential 1956 essay "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances" (part of Fundamentals of Language). The quote is taken from Universe of Mind by Yuri Lotman where Lotman elaborates upon Jakobson’s idea. Jakobson proposes that all language operates along two fundamental axes or "poles":

The metaphoric pole — based on similarity (or substitution or selection). One element replaces or stands for another because of resemblance, analogy, or semantic likeness. Examples include synonyms, comparisons, or figurative substitutions like "life is a journey."

The metonymic pole — based on contiguity (or combination or contexture). One element connects to another through proximity, association, cause-effect, part-whole relations, or spatial and/or temporal nearness. Classic examples: "the White House" for the U.S. presidency (place for institution), or "crown" for monarchy (object for person).

In normal discourse, both processes interact constantly. But Jakobson observed their dominance in different contexts through studies of aphasia (language disorders), where one pole can be impaired while the other remains relatively intact. He extended this binary to broader cultural and literary phenomena.

 

The Quote's Core Claim

"He [Jakobson] narrows it" likely means the critic or interpreter is saying Jakobson reduces or limits the broad scope of these figures (metaphor and metonymy) by assigning them to distinct domains rather than treating them as equally pervasive everywhere.

Specifically:

- Metaphor is relegated to the domain of semiotic structure = poetry.

Poetry foregrounds the sign itself (the linguistic or semiotic material: sounds, rhythms, words as signs). It emphasizes equivalence and similarity through devices like rhyme, meter, parallelism, and semantic substitutions. These create patterns based on likeness (e.g., "the world is a stage"). Jakobson links this to the "poetic function" of language, where the focus is on the message for its own sake, drawing attention to the structure of signs rather than external reality. Romanticism and Symbolism are classic examples of metaphoric dominance.

 

- Metonymy is relegated to the sphere of the text = prose.

Prose (especially realistic narrative) advances primarily through combination and contiguity—chaining ideas via context, sequence, cause-effect, or adjacency in the "real" world. It focuses more on the referent (what the signs point to in external reality) than on the signs themselves. Narrative progresses by digressing through associated details (e.g., describing a character's environment or atmosphere via nearby elements), using synecdoche (part for whole) or metonymic shifts. Realism in fiction is often cited as strongly metonymic.

In short, Jakobson sees poetry as leaning toward the axis of selection/similarity (metaphor as its purest expression), while prose leans toward the axis of combination/contiguity (metonymy as its driving force). For poetry, metaphor is the "line of least resistance"; for prose, it is metonymy.

Why "Narrows It"?

The phrasing suggests a critique: Jakobson’s model is elegant and bipolar, but it can feel reductive. It "narrows" the concepts by mapping them neatly onto genre distinctions (poetry vs. prose) and semiotic priorities (sign vs. referent or text), even though both figures appear in all discourse. Critics sometimes note that this binary overlooks hybrid forms—metaphoric prose (e.g., modernist or symbolic fiction) or metonymic poetry. Jakobson himself acknowledged that both poles are always operative, but one often predominates under cultural, stylistic, or psychological influences.

Broader Context and Influence

This framework influenced structuralism (e.g., Lévi-Strauss, Barthes) and literary theory, extending to film (montage as metaphoric, close-ups as metonymic or synecdochic), dreams (Freud’s condensation and displacement), and cultural styles (Realism as metonymic and symbolism as metaphoric). It highlights how language isn’t just communicative but structured by deep cognitive and semiotic preferences.

The quote captures Jakobson’s insightful but polarizing move: turning two rhetorical tropes into fundamental poles of human meaning-making, then tying them to poetry’s self-referential "semiotic structure" versus prose’s more referential "textual" flow. It’s a powerful lens for analyzing style, but one that invites debate about its rigidity.