Literal and Figurative Usage: Metonymy and Types of Metaphor

1. The scope of literal and figurative usage

Literal usage (ḥaqīqah) employs an expression for the meaning assigned to it within the relevant convention. Figurative usage (majāz) employs it for another meaning through a recognized relation. The operative convention of the speakers or discipline matters, not dictionary possibilities alone.

The word “lion” denotes the animal literally. Calling a courageous person a lion uses the animal-name for a person because of courage. The label “metaphor” requires an analysis of convention, intended meaning, and contextual indication—not merely expressive intensity.

2. The definition of literal usage and assignment

«الْحَقِيقَةُ: الْكَلِمَةُ الْمُسْتَعْمَلَةُ فِيمَا وُضِعَتْ لَهُ فِي اصْطِلَاحِ التَّخَاطُبِ»
A literal expression is a word used in the sense assigned to it by the relevant speech convention.

Waḍʿ (assignment) connects an expression with an established meaning. The operative convention determines what counts as literal; the same form may have one literal meaning in ordinary language and another in an established specialized vocabulary.

For example, ṣalāh has a lexical association with supplication, but in legal-religious usage it denotes a particular act of worship. That is a literal technical use within the relevant convention.

3. Lexical, legal, and customary literal senses

A sense can be literal by lexical assignment, by legal or religious convention, or by general or specialized custom. Applying a lexical standard where a technical one is operative may misclassify an expression.

KindBasis of meaning
Lexical literalEstablished usage of the language
Technical-religious literalA specific legal-religious sense
General customary literalWidely prevailing convention
Specialized customary literalThe convention of a particular field

Dābbah has a broad lexical sense, whereas custom may restrict it to a particular kind of animal. Literalness is assessed relative to the speakers' actual convention.

4. Defining figurative usage: relation and indicator

«الْمَجَازُ: الْكَلِمَةُ الْمُسْتَعْمَلَةُ فِي غَيْرِ مَا وُضِعَتْ لَهُ ... مَعَ قَرِينَةِ عَدَمِ إِرَادَتِهِ»
Figurative usage employs a word for a sense other than its assigned sense, together with an indication that the original sense is not intended.

The relation (ʿalāqah) licenses the transferred meaning, whereas the contextual indicator (qarīnah) prevents the literal interpretation. “I saw a lion on the field” is not necessarily a metaphor; without a human-referent indicator it might be an actual lion.

Using an unrelated expression at random is not a valid figurative transfer.

5. Relation versus contextual evidence

A relation connects the assigned and intended senses—for instance, bravery shared by a lion and a courageous person. A qarīnah signals that the animal itself is not intended, as in “The lion delivered a speech.”

A semantic relation may exist without a sufficiently clear contextual cue. Accordingly, not every vivid statement can be labeled a metaphor without analysis.

Calling a human being a lion relies on similarity; using “eye” for a watchman relies on a part or functional connection. The kind of relation determines the classification.

6. Why a genuine relation is indispensable

«فَلَا بُدَّ مِنَ الْعَلَاقَةِ»
A meaningful relation between the two senses is therefore necessary.

Using “book” to mean “horse” without an intelligible conventional or rhetorical connection is not a valid trope. Mere divergence from the original sense is insufficient; the audience must have a principled route to the intended meaning.

An error lacks such a licensed connection. Kināyah is different again: the original sense is not intrinsically excluded even when a further meaning is intended. Its full analysis belongs to its later section.

7. Simple and compound figurative expression

Figurative meaning may lie in the transferred sense of an individual word, or it may concern an entire combination or attribution. The unit of analysis matters.

This section chiefly examines word-level majāz: a noun or a derived expression is employed in a transferred sense. “The situation spoke” can be examined for the transferred meaning of “speaking.”

By contrast, an expression such as “spring made the earth laugh” can invite a separate inquiry into the attribution of an act. Figurative word meaning and figurative predication must not be conflated.

8. Metonymy versus metaphor

«وَالْمَجَازُ مُرْسَلٌ إِنْ كَانَتِ الْعَلَاقَةُ غَيْرَ الْمُشَابَهَةِ»
A word-level trope based on a relation other than resemblance is called majāz mursal.

When the relation is similarity, the figure is istiʿārah (metaphor). Classification therefore depends on the kind of relation, not simply on whether the sense is nonliteral.

“Eye” for a watchman can rest on a part or function; “lion” for a courageous person rests on bravery. Both need contextual support, but their relations differ.

9. Part-for-whole and whole-for-part

Part–whole relations can ground non-similarity transfers. A part may stand for the whole, or a whole for the particular part relevant to an action, provided the usage and context license it.

«يَجْعَلُونَ أَصَابِعَهُمْ فِي آذَانِهِمْ»
They put their fingers into their ears.

The expression mentions whole fingers, although the action concerns their tips. This whole-for-part usage intensifies the scene. The semantic relation is part and whole, not a comparison between similar objects.

10. Cause and effect as figurative relations

A cause can be named when an effect is intended, or an effect can direct attention back to its cause. Rain, for example, can be associated with vegetation and growth through a causal relation.

However, a statement about an actual cause is not automatically figurative. The analyst must determine whether the word truly carries a transferred sense in context.

Ask: What is the assigned sense? Which cause or consequence is actually intended, and how does the context establish the transfer?

11. Former and future states in transferred naming

A person or thing may be referred to by a former state or by an anticipated future state. The relation is temporal, not similarity-based.

«وَآتُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ أَمْوَالَهُمْ»
Give orphans their property.

The order to hand over full control of property applies when recipients have attained the relevant maturity. The term “orphans” retains the earlier designation and emphasizes their rights. Referring to something by a later state works conversely; both are temporal non-similarity relations.

12. Place, occupant, and legitimate semantic links

An expression for a location may designate its inhabitants, or a term for an occupant may direct attention to its setting, provided the transfer is conventional or contextually intelligible.

For example, “The whole town came out to welcome them” normally means the residents, not the buildings. The containing place stands for the people in it.

Such usage exemplifies non-similarity transfer only if the intended referent actually differs from the literal sense. Brevity by itself does not prove metaphor.

13. The defining relation of metaphor

Istiʿārah borrows a term from one referent for another through a recognizable respect of resemblance. A formal simile names both compared things, whereas metaphor transfers a term from one side to the other.

“He is like a lion in courage” explicitly compares; “He is the lion of the battlefield” borrows the animal-name for the brave person. The borrowing does not transfer every property of the animal—only the contextually intended quality, such as courage.

A sentence about a lion hunting prey could be literal; the human interpretation requires a cue.

14. Three elements in metaphorical transfer

Three analytical terms are central. Mustaʿār minhu is the source sense; mustaʿār lahu is the intended referent; the borrowed word is the actual expression transferred.

Example: “I saw a lion giving a speech at the gathering.”
Source sense: the animal lion.
Target referent: the courageous speaker.
Borrowed word: “lion.”
Resemblance: courage.
Contextual indicator: speech at a gathering.

Identifying these separately prevents confusion between a transfer of a term and a mere similarity between concepts.

15. Established referents and metaphorical identification

In realized metaphor, the intended referent is a real or intelligibly determinate entity for which a borrowed expression is used. A courageous human exists; calling that person a lion heightens the attribute of courage.

The language treats the person as though included within the class of lions, but it does not change external reality. The audience recognizes the rhetorical claim and receives the intended quality more forcefully.

That rhetorical identification accounts for the force of metaphor beyond a simple substitution of labels.

16. Metaphorical assertion versus falsehood

Rhetorical metaphor makes a claim of identification for expressive effect. Its indicator tells the listener that literal membership in the source class is not intended. Consequently, it should not be evaluated as if it were an ordinary false factual report.

“He is a lion” can praise a brave person without claiming biological identity. But a deliberately false claim with no recognized figurative context does not become metaphor merely because it is exaggerated.

Distinguish the cases through context, intended meaning, and resemblance.

17. Forgetting the explicit simile for intensification

A simile explicitly says that one thing resembles another; a strong metaphor suppresses that marker and presents the subject under the very name of its counterpart. This is often described as treating the comparison as if forgotten.

“This man resembles a lion” differs in force from “This lion is leading our group.” The latter foregrounds the praised trait through identification.

Such intensity still depends on an apt resemblance and a clear contextual cue; without these, emphasis may become ambiguity.

18. Underived noun as a borrowed expression

The borrowed expression can be an underived generic noun, as with “lion.” The noun moves from the source class to another referent through a relevant quality.

Calling a courageous person a lion is a clear form of explicit nominal metaphor. The listener evokes the animal's bravery or formidable character, while context identifies a human target.

The animal image supplies the rhetorical force; the intended human referent receives the contextually pertinent trait, not every characteristic of the source creature.

19. Metaphor and the treatment of resemblance

Metaphorical classes arise from different analytical dimensions. One may ask whether the shared respect is sensory or conceptual, whether the borrowed expression is an underived noun or a derivative, or whether related expressions accompany it.

Calling a luminous face a sun can emphasize visible brilliance. Calling a distinguished benefactor a sun can concern eminence and broad benefit.

The borrowed noun is the same, but its operative resemblance and rhetorical purpose depend on context.

20. Nonliteral identification and its conceptual force

Some metaphors do more than substitute a lexical label: they create a rhetorical identification. A listener interprets the image rather than treating it as an external physical fact.

“He is an ocean of generosity” does not transfer seawater into a human being. It transfers breadth or abundance to the quality of giving. The human subject and reference to generosity establish the interpretation.

Without a defensible common quality, even a striking identification remains rhetorically weak. Exaggeration magnifies an intelligible relation; it cannot replace one.

21. Verbal and situational indicators of metaphor

A contextual indicator may be verbal—something in the sentence conflicts with the literal meaning—or situational—a setting, addressee, or visible referent that establishes the intended sense.

Verbal example: “The lion presented arguments”; presenting arguments suggests a human speaker.
Situational example: pointing at a brave soldier and saying, “This is a lion.”

Several cues may work together. Their strength determines how securely the nonliteral meaning is recognized.

22. Transfer through opposition and irony

An expression can be used in relation to its opposite to produce irony or reproach. This requires an indicator of the intended reversal, not an arbitrary inversion of meaning.

«فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ»
Give them the glad tidings of a painful punishment.

“Glad tidings” ordinarily concerns welcome news; accompanying “painful punishment” makes the ironic or mocking purpose evident. The audience does not take gladness as the actual message.

The relation of opposition, the contextual signal, and the communicative purpose must be separated.

23. Sensory and conceptual respects of resemblance

The source and target of a metaphor can both be perceptible, both conceptual, or of different kinds. The decisive analytical issue is the shared respect.

Sensory: brilliance shared by a bright object and the sun.
Conceptual: the guiding function shared by a teacher and a lamp.
Mixed: “a wound in the heart,” transferring bodily injury to emotional suffering.

A concrete borrowed expression can convey an intellectual relation; the nature of its source noun alone does not determine the type of resemblance.

24. A shared feature internal or external to the image

The resemblance may be an inherent attribute perceptible in both terms, such as speed, or it may arise through an external configuration linking two scenes.

An internal common feature may be quick movement. An external correspondence may involve the effect produced by an arranged scene rather than one simple shared adjective.

Likewise the respect may be general, such as brightness, or distinctive, such as brightness together with a particular movement, context, or arrangement.

25. Six broad combinations of source, target, and resemblance

Considering whether the source and target are sensory or conceptual, and independently classifying the resemblance, yields several broad configurations. The type of resemblance does not automatically follow from the ontological status of the terms.

Examples include one visible brightness described by another, light standing for guidance, a conceptual emotion represented through observable action, and one mental state represented by another.

A sound analysis first identifies the two referents and then gives a separate reason for calling the shared respect sensory or conceptual.

26. Spatial and sequential images in metaphor

Some metaphors depend on the relationship or sequence of elements rather than one isolated quality. The departure of daylight may be represented through the image of removing a covering.

«وَآيَةٌ لَهُمُ اللَّيْلُ نَسْلَخُ مِنْهُ النَّهَارَ»
A sign for them is the night; We strip the day from it.

The verb evokes the act of stripping. Its application to the separation of day and night evokes a pattern of removal, not only the qualities of light and darkness.

27. Primary nouns and derivative metaphor

An underived noun can be directly borrowed, as with “lion” for a brave person. With verbs, derived adjectives, and other dependent forms, the transferred meaning is analyzed at the level of its underlying action or concept and then reflected in the derived form.

This is the basis of derivative (tabaʿiyyah) metaphor. In “the situation spoke,” conveying information is represented through speaking. The semantic transfer concerns the concept of speech and its expression through a verb.

Naming a verb as metaphorical is incomplete without identifying both the transferred meaning and its derivational connection.

28. How “the situation spoke” functions

«نَطَقَتِ الْحَالُ»
The situation spoke.

A situation does not literally use a tongue. The statement means that its circumstances made a conclusion intelligible. The communicative force of speaking is transferred to indication by circumstances.

Source: communicating through speech.
Target: the situation indicating something.
Resemblance: making a meaning clear.
Indicator: speech attributed to a situation.

Because the borrowed expression is verbal, the analysis is of a derivative metaphor.

29. Qualifying the source or the target

Once a metaphor is established, additional wording may suit the source image or the intended target. Source-related details produce tarshīḥ (reinforcement); target-related details produce tajrīd (abstraction).

After calling a brave man a lion, speaking of claws or roaring elaborates the animal image. Mentioning his reasoned argument returns attention to the human target.

Where neither class of qualifying expressions is supplied, the metaphor is muṭlaqah (unqualified), subject to the precise context.

30. Unqualified metaphor

An unqualified metaphor does not add material elaborating either the source image or the target referent. The basic image stands without the qualifying devices of reinforcement or abstraction.

“I saw a lion on the battlefield,” in a context clearly referring to a brave man, may illustrate this kind when no animal-specific or human-specific embellishment is added.

Muṭlaqah does not mean that the metaphor lacks a contextual indicator. All metaphor requires such an indication. The distinction concerns supplementary expressions, not the existence of a qarīnah.

31. Abstraction through details of the target

A mujarradah metaphor includes additional wording that suits the target referent rather than the borrowed source image. It reminds the audience of the intended entity behind the metaphor.

For example, calling a generous person a cloud and then referring to that person's human gathering can return attention to the target rather than the physical cloud.

Abstraction does not cancel the image. It draws out a target-related trait while the metaphor remains active. Contextual indicators and qualifying details must be analyzed separately.

32. Reinforcement through the source image

«أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلَالَةَ بِالْهُدَىٰ فَمَا رَبِحَتْ تِجَارَتُهُمْ»
They chose error in exchange for guidance, and their trade brought no profit.

Choosing misguidance over guidance is represented by buying and selling. The subsequent terms “trade” and “profit” belong to the same borrowed commercial image, giving an instance of tarshīḥ.

Reinforcement extends the metaphor through vocabulary suited to its source field. It heightens the effect without claiming that a literal commercial transaction occurred.

33. Reinforcement and rhetorical force

Tarshīḥ can strengthen a figure by elaborating the borrowed source image. After “lion,” words evoking claws, roaring, or hunting can make the animal picture more vivid.

But effective rhetoric does not require maximum reinforcement in every context. An unelaborated metaphor can be more apt when the situation calls for brevity.

Whether an expression truly reinforces the source must be determined in context; some descriptions may naturally apply to the target as well.

34. Comparing the three qualifications

ClassDiagnostic criterion
MuṭlaqahNo additional qualifiers of either side
MujarradahQualifying expressions suit the target
MurashshaḥahQualifying expressions suit the source image

These three qualifications must not be confused with the basic distinction between non-similarity transfer and metaphor. One first establishes resemblance as the relation, then considers which side the auxiliary expressions fit.

Every class still requires a contextual indicator of nonliteral intention; that is distinct from tarshīḥ and tajrīd.

35. Applied diagnostic workflow

Start by asking whether the expression retains its sense within the relevant convention. If the sense is transferred, identify the qarīnah and then the relation between literal and intended meanings.

Part–whole, cause–effect, place–inhabitant, or temporal relations point toward majāz mursal. Similarity points toward metaphor: specify the source, target, and respect; then examine whether the borrowed form is a noun or a derivative and whether extra words suit source or target.

“The town woke up” may refer to its inhabitants; “The lion gave a speech” may designate a brave speaker; “The situation spoke” transfers the idea of speaking into a verbal expression.

36. Synthesis and continuation of the metaphor chapter

Literal usage follows the sense assigned by the relevant convention. Figurative usage requires a different intended sense, a valid relation, and a contextual indicator excluding the literal one. Non-similarity grounds majāz mursal; resemblance grounds metaphor.

Metaphor requires identification of source and target. The resemblance may be sensory or conceptual, the borrowed form underived or derivative, and further accompanying wording may make it unqualified, target-oriented, or source-reinforced.

These criteria distinguish literal usage, metonymy, primary and derivative metaphor, and the devices of abstraction and reinforcement. More intricate constructions and consequences of metaphor continue in the next section.