Metaphor and Metonymy: Making Their Connections More Slippery John A. Barnden School of Computer Science The University of Birmingham Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom J.A.Barnden@cs.bham.ac.uk Tel: (+44) (0)121 414-3816 Fax: (+44) (0)121 414-4281 Abstract This paper continues the debate about how to distinguish metaphor from metonymy, and whether this can be done. It examines some of the differences that have been alleged to exist, and augments the already existing doubt about them. The main differences addressed are the similarity/contiguity distinction and the issue of whether source-target links are part of the message in metonymy or metaphor. In particular, the paper argues that metaphorical links can always be used metonymically and regarded as contiguities, and conversely that two particular, central types of metonymic contiguity essentially involve similarity. The paper also touches briefly on how metaphor and metonymy interact with domains, frames, etc. and on the role of imaginary identification/categorization of target as/under source items. With the possible exception of this last issue, the paper suggests that no combination of the alleged differences addressed can serve cleanly to categorize source/target associations into metaphorical ones and metonymic ones. It also suggests that it can be more profitable to analyse utterances at the level of the dimensions involved in the differences than at the higher level of metaphor and metonymy as such. Keywords: Metaphor, metonymy, metaphor/metonymy distinction, contiguity, similarity, part/whole metonymy, representational metonymy, resemblance metaphors, image metaphors Acknowledgments: This research was supported in part by grant EP/C538943/1 from the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Re- search Council (EPSRC), and grant RES-328-25-0009 from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and EPSRC under the People at the Centre of Communications and Information Technologies programme. I am grateful to colleagues Rodrigo Agerri, Sheila Glasbey, Mark Lee and Alan Wallingon, and to the journal editors and anonymous reviewers, for important suggestions. 1