Metonymy and Polysemy

What are their differences and can you give examples...

If I were to say "Computer chips created an important new technology." then what would my "chip" be? Is it a Polysemy because it has another meaning (like "Potatoe Chips")? Or Metonymy?

[Soup]

Hi YayaGurl

Polysemy is logically motivated:

concrete to abstract
Ex: sharp knife-> sharp mind

mundane to technical
Ex: chip of wood-> computer chip

Metonymy is using a word to denote something nearby:

Ex: White House = president

Source

A typical examples of metonymy would be 'bottle' in I drank the whole bottle, where the container (BOTTLE) stands for its contents (the liquid in the bottle) – a container and its contents being contiguous or closely associated.

Source

[BobK]

Originally Posted by YayaGurl

What are their differences and can you give examples...

If I were to say "Computer chips created an important new technology." then what would my "chip" be? Is it a Polysemy because it has another meaning (like "Potatoe Chips")? Or Metonymy?

As often with figurative language - where a figure of speech can have many layers - 'chips' here is both (with added personification).

Polysemy - as in 'potato[no E) chips' (which itself trades on the other meaning - as in 'chip of wood'/

Metonymy - 'chips' doesn't just mean chips. It doesn't even just mean computers, nor does it just mean all the domestic appliances and other everyday things that have computer chips in them - phones, cars, washing machines... It means the software that uses the chips, what it can do, and all the associated changes that the new technology brings.

Personification - a person creates things.

See more here: English Grammar Glossary - UsingEnglish.com

b

[Soup]

I've a question. Would the idiomatic phase 'chip off the old block' be an example of metonymy?

[BobK]

Originally Posted by Soup

I've a question. Would the idiomatic phase 'chip off the old block' be an example of metonymy?

I'd say it was (the rule-of-thumb definition I use is 'part for whole'). But that's not the whole story. The metonym doesn't work until the metaphorical equivalence of block and father is established, and as the word "father" isn't there at all the figure of speech has to do a lot of work!

b

[Soup]

Hi BobK

'part for whole', that's my rule of thumb too, and the reason I asked the question. I wasn't sure.

Thanks.

[BobK]

On the subject of polysemy, this (attached) caught my attention.

b