Metonymy beyond reference: how nominal metonymy vehicles carry speaker’s attitude

Metonymy is typically treated as a referential device, yet nominal metonymic expressions often convey more than reference: by naming a person through an attribute, speakers foreground a particular perspective and implicitly signal evaluative stance. Little empirical work has examined how metonymy contributes to attitudinal content in meaning. This study investigates how 1) the linguistic form of metonymy and 2) the speaker’s vehicle-selection process shape comprehenders’ interpretations of speaker attitude. Experiment 1 tested whether speaking metonymically versus literally about the same attribute influences perceived attitude when no selection is involved. Participants read short scenarios and rated the speaker’s attitude toward the target. Results show that metonymic conditions were judged as conveying more negative (or less positive) than literal ones, even though both highlighted the same attribute, suggesting a depersonalising and feature-tagging effect. Experiment 2 examined whether selecting a metonymic vehicle from more than one available attribute further modulates evaluation. Results showed only a weak influence of selection, likely reflecting limited sensitivity to the presence of additional attributes. Together, the findings demonstrate that metonymy systematically shapes attitudinal interpretation beyond lexical valence and motivates further investigation into how different attribute types and selection configurations contribute to attitudinal meanings in metonymy.