The Analysis of Metonymy in On-line Indonesian National
Newspapers
Barzan Faizin
1
, Asep Muhyiddin
1
, Aceng Ruhendi Syaifullah
2
, and Wahyudin Darmalaksana
1
1
UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, Indonesia
2
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
barzanfaizin@uinsgd.ac.id
Keywords: Metonymy, cognitive semantic, military coup.
Abstract: The political dicourse analysis is always eye-catching and attractive topic for the online media with different
approaches, one of which is metonymic analysis. This study is intended to elaborate what Kompas and
Republika on-line news presented dealing with a military coup trial in Turkey on 16th July 2016. This paper
uses a cognitive approach that sees meaning as the concepts included in the human mind where cognitive
semantic is based on the relationship of reason with the experience and culture. This approach uses language
as the main tool to reveal mapping and structure. The results showed that 22 metonymies with 6 different
metonymic types were stated in both Kompas and Republika; Institution for Person metonymy were stated
3 times in Kompas and 5 times in Republika, Person for Institution metonymy and Position for Incumbent
metonymy each was mentioned once in Kompas and twice in Republika, Means for Product metonymy was
found twice in Kompas and once in Republika, Level for Person metonymy was stated one in Kompas and
not found in Republika, meanwhile General for Specific metonymy was mentioned 3 times in Kompas and
once in Republika.
1 INTRODUCTION
In our everyday life we always say something that
does not literally refer to what we are talking about
in our cognitions. People spoken to, however,
understand what our statements mean. This is
semantically eccepted because the primary purpose
of communication in either oral or written pattern is
delivering message; speaker and writer expect hearer
and reader catch the message content in the form
meaning. In informal condition, it is easy to say that
meaning is the core of language. When someone
says, “let me give you a hand”, one does not have
any trouble to understand the offer. The speaker and
listener will agree that hand here means help. This is
so-called metonymy. Different from a metaphor
which draws resemblance between two different
things, in a metonymy, on the other hand, the word
we use to describe another thing is closely linked to
that particular thing, but is not a part of it. To this
point, metonymy analysis can be done in political
discourse of Turkey, i.e., the online news of Kompas
and Republika regarding Erdogan’s attitude toward
the failed military coup.
A military coup in Turkey on 16
th
July 2016
attracted the eyes of the world due to its unique
location, vigorous market economy, well-established
tradition of co-operating with the West and large
armed forces, second in size after the US in NATO,
makes Turkey a geo-strategic player in world affairs
(Çakar, 1998). Turkey plays a significant role in
bridging the prolonged conflict between Arabian
countries represented by Palestine and Israel as a
representation of the US’s interests in the Middle
East countries.
In Indonesia, for example, almost all the
outstanding national mass media took Turkey’s
military coup as their headlines for international
issues. It is no room for doubt that each media has
its unique way in presenting the news in accordance
with its ideological background and base. Some
media exaggerated and made hyperbolic point of
view on Erdogan’s reaction toward military
members allegedly involved in the coup. Some
others saw Erdogan’s reaction as normal in his
attempt to return his legal democratic government.
In line with the statements above, Rodman (2008)
concluded that newspaper is one of the most
informative and communicative media in the text
Faizin, B., Muhyiddin, A., Syaifullah, A. and Darmalaksana, W.
The Analysis of Metonymy in On-line Indonesian National Newspapers.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education (ICSE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 561-569
ISBN: 978-989-758-316-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
561
production because it has an actual, factual,
widespread impact and informative news.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Beginning with the brief introduction to cognitive
semantics is a branch of the general theory of
Cognitive Linguistics theory that conceives of
meaning as a “cognitive phenomenon” and which is
concerned with the “relation between language,
meaning and cognition” (Allwood and Gärdenfors,
1999: vi). Gärdenfors (1999:30) states the approach
more aptly as that which “identifies meanings of
expressions with mental entities” (p.19). In the
words of Saeed (2003), Cognitive Linguistics
considers linguistic knowledge as part of general
cognition which means that linguistic knowledge is
just a part of the general experiential knowledge
both of which are crucial in meaning production and
reception.
2.1 Mapping
Evan (2006: 167) cited from Fauconnier (1997),
stated that one of the primary themes in cognitive
semantic is conceptual mapping. Fauconnier has
identified three kinds of mapping operations: (1)
projection mappings; (2) pragmatic function
mappings; and (3) schema mappings. The former
mapping is related to metaphor, while the second
and the trird are related to metonymy. As a result,
the discussion elaborate the two later mappings.
The pragmatic function mapping derived from
two entities existing in one frame of experience. The
pragmatic function mapping is a key of metonymy.
The basic mapping is an association between two
entities so that a single entity can represent other
entity. For example: The ham sandwich has
wandering hands. The main associative relationship
in this example is the relationship between the buyer
and the food ordered. The more detailed description
will be made in metonymy discussion.
Schematic mapping is related to the framework
in a particular context which is the structured
knowledge and experience gained from everyday
life interaction. For example: the abstract
framework of GOODS PURCHASE. Each GOODS
PURCHASE activity will include buyer, seller,
traded goods, money/ credit cards, etc. For example:
The Ministry of Defence purchased twenty new
helicopters from Westland.
Based on the previously mentioned framework
above, we understand the role of each patisipan: The
Ministry of Defence is BUYER, Westland is
SELLER, and helicopter is GOODS PURCHASE.
The framework is needed to understand the role of
each participant. This framework is related to the
mental space that will be described below.
2.2 Theory of mental spaces
According to cognitive linguistics, the theory of
mental space is one of the main basic theory.
Fauconnier (1994), as cited by Lee (2001: 99.98), is
the pioneer of the theory. In relation to metonymy,
he talked about the normal reference that serves as a
trigger and a reference, which is said by the speaker
in the relevant context which is so-called by the term
target. Here are some given examples:
a. Plato is on the top shelf.
b. Canberra has announced new initiatives.
c. This Bordeaux is superb.
In the three contexts above, the reference of the
subject (underlined words) is not the normal
reference. This means that ‘Plato’ does not refer to
the ancient Greek philosopher named Plato, but to a
book he wrote; Canberra does not refer to a place
called Canberra, but the Australian government in
that city; Bordeaux does not refer to a place called
Bordeaux, but the wine branded Bordeaux. In certain
cases, such as in the example (b), we must have a
knowledge of where the center of the Australian
government is.
2.3 Metonymy
Lakoff (1989: 3), as one of the founder of cognitive
linguistics, stated that humans have a conceptual
system that governs what we conceive from the
nature and govern our relationship with others. The
human cognitive ability is a conseptual mapping.
One of which is metonymy that was stated in its
theoretical framework (Radden & Kövecses 1999;
Radden 2000; Barcelona 2000a; etc.).
2.4 Reference change
Likewise metaphor, Lakoff and Johnson (1980)
argued that metonymy is naturally conceptual.
However, there is a fundamental difference between
metaphor and metonymy. For example: The ham
sandwich is waiting for his check. In this sentence,
‘the ham sandwich’ refers to a person who ordered
the ham sandwich. This symptom is not the
personification (in the ontological metaphor) for the
ham sandwich is not the subject to human
characteristics. In that sentence, the phrase is used to
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
562
refer to other reference related thereto, that is one
who ordered the food. Other examples:
1. He’s in dance (= dancing profession).
2. Acrylic has taken over the art world. (= acrylic
use).
3. The Times has’nt arrived at the press
conference yet. (= reporter from Times
magazine).
4. New windshield wipers will satisfy him. (= a
condition of having a new windshield wiper)
5. He bought a Ford. (= object for creator).
6. Nixon bombed Hanoi. (= actor that worked as
supervisor)
2.5 Conceptual aspects
As for metaphor, metonymy applies actively in
every culture, a part of everyday human life and is
reflected in the way of thinking and acting.
Metonymy is not merely language symptoms.
Lakoff and Johnson took a sample of the actual
photograph based on the concept of metonymy.
When we look at the photograph of a person (face),
we consider it to see what that person looks like.
However, when the picture shows a part of the body,
without a head, we would still ask what that person
looks like. Thus, metonymy is a part represents the
whole like the face that represents the person as a
whole. It is not an aspect of language. In our culture,
we see the face-not the body or movement-to obtain
basic information about the person as the main
characteristic of man is in the face.
In the examples above, when we say the ham
sandwich, we do not only refers to the person as a
person, but as a customer; when we say Ford, we do
not only refer to the car, but also to the price or the
prestige that it may cause; when we say Nixon, we
think that Nixon as a supervisor, who is also the
actor of bombing responsible for the action. Thus,
the concept of metonymy rests on experience. The
experience leaning is directly related to the physical
or causal associations. That PART metonymy
represents WHOLE comes from our experience that
the part is generally associated with whole;
CREATER represent WORK is based on the causal
concept (physically); PLACE represents EVENT
relies on the experience of an event occurrence
somewhere.
2.6 Metonymic System
Metonymy is systematic, not arbitrary. Evans (2006:
311) proposed the term contiguity: direct or close
relation between the two entities. Lakoff and
Johnson present the type of relationship between the
trigger and the target as follows:
1. PART for WHOLE
a. We don’t hire longhairs.
b. Get your butt over here.
2. PRODUCER for PRODUCT
a. He bought a Ford.
b. I hate to read Heidegger.
3. OBJECT for AGENT
a. The sax has the flu today.
b. We need a better glove at third base.
4. CONTROLLER for CONTROLLED
a. Nixon bombed Hanoi.
b. Napoleon lost at Waterloo.
5. INSTITUTION for PERSON IN CHARGE
a. Exxon has raised its prices again.
b. I don’t approve of the government’s
actions.
6. PLACE for INSTITUTION
a. The White House isn’t saying anything.
b. Hollywood isn’t what it used to be.
7. PLACE for EVENT
a. Remember the Alamo.
b. Watergate change our politics.
Lakoff and Johnson considers the symbol is a
special case of metonymy. They gave the example of
DOVE for HOLY SPIRIT. This concept is not
arbitrary, but grounded in the bird concept in
Western culture and the concept of the Holy Spirit in
Christianity. Dove is, first considered to be
beautiful, docile, gentle, and even peaceful; second,
the bird habitat is in space by which metonymy
represent heaven, where the Holy Spirit dwells.
Lehmann (below) named some of the symbols as
people’s attributes.
This type of relationship between the trigger and
the target can be developed in accordance with the
life experience of a community. Evans (p, 314)
added some relationships:
1. EFFECT for CAUSE
a. His face is beaming.
b. He has a long face.
Lehmann (2000:82) pointed out relationships:
2. MATERIAL for OBJECT
a. Faire briller les cuivres (=cooking utensil
made of copper)
3. PLACE for CONTENT
a. Pierre a mangé toute la boîte. (= food
box)
4. PLACE for OBJECT
a. On ne trouve pas facilement le cantal.
(=the type of cheese produced in Cantal)
5. ATTRIBUTE for PEOPLE
a. Les casques bleus (= UN international
The Analysis of Metonymy in On-line Indonesian National Newspapers
563
troop)
b. l’héritier présomptif de la courronne (=
king)
Lehmann (2000) stated that this type of
metonimis relationship is not limited; Likewise
metaphor, metonymy also shows the ability of the
human mind develops concepts through language.
The point of view strengthens the cognitive
principle: meaning as a concept existing in the
human mind that represent his vision of the universe
and everything within it.
3 METHODS
This paper uses a cognitive approach that sees
meaning as the concepts included in the human
mind. Cognitive semantic approach is based on the
relationship of reason with the experience and
culture. This approach uses language as the main
tool to reveal mapping and structure (Evans, 2006:
153).
Gärdenfors (2001: 21-25) describes the six Six
tenets of cognitive semantics, namely:
1. Meaning is conceptualization in a cognitive
model (not truth conditions in possible worlds).
2. Cognitive models are mainly perceptually
determined (meaning is not independent of
perception).
3. Semantic elements are based on spatial or
topological objects (not symbols that can be
composed according to some system of rules).
4. Cognitive models are primarily image-
schematic (not propositional). Image-schemas
are transformed by metaphoric and metonymic
operations (which are treated as exceptional
features in the traditional view).
5. Semantics is primary to syntax and partly
determines it (syntax cannot be described
independently of semantics).
6. Concepts show prototype effects (instead of
following the Aristotelian paradigm based on
necessary and sufficient conditions).
The cognition model of metonymy analysis can
be drown in the following figure (Diez Velasco,
2001, p. 50).
This study used procedures of data analysis (Sri
Apriliana 2015, p. 112-113) as the study attempts to
elaborate and trace the use of language related to
metonymy in Indonesian online news. The
procedures include four main stages: data collection,
data analysis, discussion, and drawing conclusion
(Saifullah, 2015 p.306). The reserch data were the
indonesian online media and responder’s text related
to the news. Table 1 showed the data collected for
the study.
Table 1: Data Sources.
No.
Media
Title
Total of Responders’
Text
1
Kompas.com
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
at 20:00
Pasca percobaan Kudeta, Erdogan Belum Stop Balas
Dendam
(Post-coup Trial, Erdogan does not Stop Retaliation
7
2
Republika online
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
at 09:00
Turki Singkirkan 45 Ribu Orang Pascakudeta
(Turkey Dismissed 45 Thousand People Post-coup)
0
4 FINDING AND DISCUSSION
The data derived from Kompas and Republika’s
online news, Wednesday, 20 July 2016.. The data
are collected, categorized, and analyzed in figurative
language descriptively. Table 2 showed the types of
metonymy in Indonesian text from online Kompas
and Republika.
5 DATA ANALYSIS
5.1 Types of Metonymy
The Table 2 below elaborates the typical metonymy
of Institution for Person which appeared more than
other types of metonymy.
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
564
Table 2: Institution for Person metonymy.
Metonymy in English Text
INSTITUTION for PERSON
Kompas
a. Erdogan, Wednesday (20/702016), still continued
“cleaning up” in the government institution from
assault group.
b. On Wednesday, Erdogan chaired a meeting of
security for the first time since the failed coup.
c. Now, Turkey is also doing the cleaning in the
government body.
There are some words referring to this type of
methonymy. Kompas presented the words
‘institution’, ‘security’, and ‘Turky’. They do not
mean inanimate things such as institution as the
physical building, security as a safety system and
Turky as a country which consists of structural
authority. They, however, refer to some people who
have involved in failed coup, people in charge for
the state security such as police officiers and army,
and people in executive institution represented by
president, the ministers and those who are in the top
government.
On the other hand, Republika showed this type
of metonymy in the words of ‘Turkey,
‘government’, ‘the United States’, ‘Media
Regulation Body’, and ‘the United Nation’. These
words do not indicate the non-human things as they
may refer to in the other context. For example,
Turkey has many beautiful tourism destinations. The
word ‘Tukey’ here must refer to a certain island
whis has land and sea named Turkey. All the words
of ‘Turkey, ‘government’, ‘the United States’,
‘Media Regulation Body’, and ‘the United Nation’
are addressed as the people the authority and power
in states and institutions the words refer to.
In this case, the metonymy of the phrases in
Kompas and Republika are Institution for Person in
Authority.
The second type of metonymy presented is
Person for institution as seen below.
Table 3: Person for Institution metonymy.
Metonymy in English Text
PERSON for INSTITUTION
Kompas
a. Erdogan, Wednesday (20/702016), still
continued “cleaning up” in the government
institution from assault group.
Republika
a. The government said that they are allied with a
cleric dwelling in the United States Fethullah
Gulen.
b. Turkish Media Regulation Body on Tuesday also
revoked the licenses of 24 radio and television
channels accused of having ties with Gulen.
This type of metonymy is contrary to Institution
for Person in Charge metonymy. In this metonymy,
persons substitute for the institution where they lead
and work for. Kompas stated one word addressed to
this metonymy, while Republika mentioned two
words referring to the same thing. The word
“Erdogan” does not mean a man or husband of a
wife who has some children. But “Erdogan” here has
a different meaning, namely a person elected as a
President of Turkey democratically and now is still
in the top position of the country. In the other words,
Erdogan is a representation of formal institution
named Turkey. This case is strengtened with
”cleaning government institution” phrase, in which
an ordinary person can not do it without strong
authority embedded to him.
In addition, Republika highlighted a person who
might stand behind the failed coup. The word
‘Fethullah Gulen or Gulen’ does not merely stands
for a senior influential Turkish cleric who exiled in
The Analysis of Metonymy in On-line Indonesian National Newspapers
565
the United States. However, Gulen here represented
‘informal institution’ which is so-called Gulenese
silent movement that always expressed the need of
reform in Turkish government. From this fact that
the above ‘Gulen’ word trully describes about
Gulenese movement againts the government derived
from the Gulen’s followers inside and outside
Turkey.
Position for Incumbent metonymy represents
structural position in which people stay there usually
have power and authority, as shown in the Table 4.
Table 4: Position for Incumbent metonymy.
Metonymy in English Text
POSITION for INCUMBENT
Kompas
a. Thousands of policemen, soldiers, prosecutors,
and judges have been arrested.
Republika
a. Purge of those supposed to be less loyal to the
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan widened on
Tuesday (19/7) included teachers, university
deans and media.
b. The news came after the arrest of more than six
thousand armies and the dismissal of nearly nine
thousand police officers. About three thousand
judges have also been suspended.
Position in this context may include prosecutor,
judge, minister, governor, regent, rector, dean,
legislature and many others. The type of this
metonymy seems to be different from the two
previous ones. The position inherently contains the
concept of human. Rather than mentioning the name
of person who holds the position, the sentence
prefers to mention only the position. By seeing
context, it is preferable to state the position instead
of a person who holds it.
In Kompas’ dicourse, ‘prosecutor, and judge’
do not simply indicate certain positions in court and
judiciary. But, they are addressed to people who
work within those institutions. The stressing is given
to persons not the position of the persons. This case
is strengtened with ‘arrested’ word, added with
‘Thousands of policemen, soldiers’ phrase.
Meanwhile Republika mentioned ‘university deans’
and ‘judges’ words which are covered in this type of
metonymy. University deans and judges are
structural positions where people who stay there
have significant influence in decision making.
Position here is different from occupation in which
the former is influencial and the later is less
infuencial.
The following underlined words indicate means
for product metonymy. The ‘means’ here implies the
result of an action as shown in the sentences of
Table 5 below.
Table 5: Means for Product metonymy.
Metonymy in English Text
MEANS for PRODUCT
Kompas
a. There is no sign for the President of Turkey,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to stop “cleaning up
acts” in various social strata after the attempted
coup.
b. Erdogan, Wednesday (20/702016), still continued
“cleaning up” in the government institution
from assault group.
Republika
a. Purge of those supposed to be less loyal to the
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan widened on
Tuesday (19/7) tincluded teachers, university
deans and media.
In this types of methonymy, both Kompas and
Republika used the same word to show means for
product metonymy. The words ‘cleaning up’ and
‘cleaning act or purge’ function to express an violent
removal of a group of people from an organization
or institution. Cleaning is one of the means to
remove. In all the sentences, cleaning act or purge
refer to something produced by it, namely being
free. In this case, the contextual metonymy of the
phrase “cleaning or puge” is getting freedom from
anything or anyone that to disturb Erdogan’s
government stability. In short, cleaning act is the
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
566
means to gain the result or product in form freedom
disturbance and rebellion.
The type of this metonymy is commonly used in
political discourse, and seldom is it stated in other
discourses. This metonymy is possibly marked by
the word level or strata as hown in the Table 6
below.
Table 6: Level for Person metonymy.
Metonymy in English Text
LEVEL for PERSON
Kompas
a. There is no sign for the President of Turkey,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to stop “cleaning up
actions” in various social strata after the coup
trial.
Republika
‘The level’ here does not mean a position on a
real or imaginary scale of amount, quantity, extent,
or quality, but the level here has another sense that
refers to a group of people in community. This
assertion is supported by the word afterwards that is
‘social’. In this case, the metonymy of the phrase
“various levels” is the place for the people.
From the sentences and explanation above, it can
be concluded that the sentence describes the
President of Turkey’s attempt to punish groups of
people who are allegedly assumed to take part in
failed military coup. Thus, if put the word ‘people’
is put before the phrase in various social levels, the
matonymy will not occure.
The general for specific metonymy is mostly
spoken in every day interaction due to its simple
understanding. See the type of this metonymy in
Table 7 below.
Table 7: General for Specific metonymy.
Metonymy in English Text
GENERAL for SPECIFIC
Kompas
a. There is no sign for the President of Turkey, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, to stop “cleaning up actions” in
various social strata after the attempted coup.
b. Erdogan, Wednesday (20/702016), still continued
“cleaning up” in the government institution from
assault group.
c. President Erdogan also sought excuse and reason
to amend the Constitution in order to pass death
sentence for the coup attempt actors, that were
eventually defeated.
Republika
a. A Turkish government spokesman Ibrahim
Kalin said that the US should be able to
extradite the cleric based on suspicion
rather than asking the facts of the his case.
In this metonymy, Kompas presented General for
Specific metonymy more than what Republika did.
Kompas noted the words ‘level’, ‘institution’,
‘constitution’, and ‘government body’ that refer to
general meaning which not specifically mentioned in
the above sentences. Readers, however, can
understand to which those words are addressed from
the context of the discourse. Level here is intended
to people of both mass media and online media, civil
servant, academics who are againts Erdogan’s
government. Meanwhile institution in this context
refers to educational, police, defense, courts and
prosecutor institutions. According to merriam-
webster.com that constitution is the basic principles
and laws of a nation, state, or social group that
determine the powers and duties of the government
amd guarantee certain rights to the people in it. The
constitution in this context is, however, specified to
laws dealing with the punishment for coup and
disobedience acts in the form of death sentence.
Furthermore, Republika mentioned one word for
the type of general for specific metonymy. Watt
stated in (Niam, 2010, p.293) ‘Ulama’ is a plural
form of ‘alim, participle used as a noun. It is derived
from the root of ‘ilm, knowledge; it is anglicized as
ulema. W. Montgomery Watt rendered this word in
his book, Muslim Intellectual: A Study of Al-
Ghazali, as “scholar-jurist”.
The Analysis of Metonymy in On-line Indonesian National Newspapers
567
6 FREQUENCY OF METONYMIC
USE
From the above data analysis, it can be seen that
Kompas and Republika have different points of view
regarding the Turkey’s issue where the former gave
stressing on Erdogan reaction toward the coup,
while the later mostly highlighted Turkish
government’s policy to the coup and Gullen’s
involvement within it as seen the explanation below.
Table 8: Frequency of Metonymic Use in Kompas and Republika.
No.
Types of Metonymy
Kompas
Republika
1
Institution for Person in Charge
3
5
2
Person for Institution
1
2
3
Position for Incumbent
1
2
4
Means for Product
2
1
5
Level for Person
1
0
6
General for Specific
3
1
The table showed that both Kompas and
Republika use the same number of metonymy with
different metonymic types. There are also the exact
same metonymic words used by both of them. For
example, the use of ‘Turkey’ which refers to the
people in Turkish government, ‘pembersihan and
aksi bersih-bersih’ aimed to describe the president
Erdogan’s effort to remove the opponent groups of
people from their position in the government
institutions by arresting, accusing, and jailing after
the unconstitutional military coup. The word
‘hakim’ is stated too in both media to appoint people
in court institution who are againts the elected
democtratic government of Turkey.
The different perspectives may appear from
different media for the same issue. This due to
ideology. Ideology penetrates every corner of the
language. A certain ideology always takes the
language as a carrier. Metonymy also undertakes a
certain kind of ideological meaning. Because
ideology is a part of our cognition, that is, the social
cognition, so the analysis of basic cognition features
in cognitive linguistics could be regarded as a useful
tool in analyzing different ideologies and provides
the analytical basis on analyzing the performance of
ideology in languages (Zhang, 2014, p.67).
7 CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings, it can be concluded
that the use of metonymy in the online news can be a
means to convey meaning-based pragmatic function
mapping derived from two entities existing in one
frame of experience. The pragmatic function
mapping is a key of metonymy in which the basic
mapping is an association between two entities
where a single entity can represent other entity.
Meanwhile in the context of Kompas and Republika
online news, there are 22 metonymies with different
6 metonymic types; Institution for Person
metonymy, Person for Institution metonymy,
Position for Incumbent metonymy, Means for
Product metonymy, Level for Person metonymy,
and General for Specific metonymy
REFERENCES
Barcelona, A. (ed.). 2000a. Metaphor and Metonymy at
the Crossroads, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Diez Velasco, Olga Isabel. 2001. Methapor, Metonymy
and Image-Schemas: An Analysis of Conceptual
Interaction Pattern. Journal of English Studies-Volume
3(2001-2), 47-63
Evans, Vyvyan dan Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive
Lingusitics. An Introduction. Edinburg: Edinburg
University Press.
Gärdenfors, Peter. “Some tenets of cognitive semantics”
dalam Allwood, Jens dan Peter Gärdenfors (peny.).
2001. Cognitive semantics. Meaning and Cognition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution
Lakoff, George dan Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We
Live By. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive Lingusitics. An Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lehmann, Alise.
2000. Introduction à la lexicologie. Sémantique et
morphologie. Paris: Nathan.
Niam, Khoirun. The Discourse of Muslim Intellectuals A
Historical Overview. Journal of Indonesian Islam Vol
04, Number 02 December 2010
Radden, G. 2000. “How metonymic are metaphors?.” In:
Barcelona, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the
Crossroads, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin: 93–105.
Radden, G. & Z. Kövecses. 1999. “Towards a theory of
metonymy.” In: Panther, K. U. & G. Radden (eds.),
Metonymy in Language and Thought, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam: 17-59.
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
568
Rodman, George. 2008. Mass Media in a Changing
World, Second Edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Saeed, J. 2003. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Saifullah, Aceng Ruhendi. 2015. Issues of Terrorism on
the Internet in the Wave of Democtratization of Post-
Reform Indonesia. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 5 No 2, January 2016, pp.305-313
Sri Apriliana, Weni and Nopriansah. 2015. An Analysis of
Metonymy in Column World of Jakarta Post
Newspaper. Literary Criticism Journal Vol. 2 No. 2
Zhang, Qiang. 2014. Ideology in Critical Metonymy
Analysis. International Journal of English
Linguistics; Vol. 4, No. 3.
The Analysis of Metonymy in On-line Indonesian National Newspapers
569