The study of the Malay language, particularly in the context of rhetoric, often falls into a shallow descriptive

framework, seemingly neglecting the richness of implied meanings. Frequently, analyses of kinayah (metonymy)

only scratch the surface, failing to uncover its stylistic depth and pragmatic function—a significant gap in

understanding our linguistic heritage. Previous studies have rarely thoroughly explored metonymy through the

lens of Arabic balaghah (rhetoric), leading to limited and superficial interpretations. This research methodology

We often forget that language is not merely a tool for communication. It is a reflection of the soul—a vast field

with thorns and flowers, often mistaken for a flat path. However, amidst the hustle and bustle of modern

communication, the art of meaningful expression is often marginalized, dismissed by analysts who only see its

surface. Unfortunately, many contemporary analysts—especially those influenced by literal Western

paradigms—underestimate figurative forms, considering them merely as 'flavor enhancers' in texts. This is a

major oversight. It cripples our understanding of the rhetorical power inherent in the Malay language itself,

particularly the art of metonymy. No serious effort has been made to study its intricacies. Why does this happen?

Efforts to examine the art of metonymy in the Malay language, though present, often stop at a shallow

intersection, failing to delve into its essence rooted in the discipline of Arabic rethoric. Many scholars—as shown

by Awang Sariyan (2012) and Hashim Musa (2007)—tend to classify metonymy as merely a part of figurative

language, often grouping it with metaphors or similes without clear categorical distinctions. This view, though

Categorizing metonymy alongside isti’arah (metaphor) and tashbih (simile) is a misconception, as emphasized

by Al-Jurjani (1983) in his book, Asrar al-Balaghah, which distinguishes metonymy as a statement whose

explicit meaning is not intended, but rather carries an implied meaning arising from a common association.

AlQazwini (n.d.), another rethoric figure, reinforces this argument with a more detailed classification of

metonymy, dividing it into specific types such as kinayah 'an sifah (metonymy about a quality), kinayah 'an

Furthermore, studies on the persuasive function of metonymy in the context of Malay communication have also

received insufficient attention. Abdul Hamid bin Abdul Aziz (2003), for example, touches upon rhetoric in

classical texts, but his focus is more on sentence structure and word choice rather than the complex impact of

metonymy's meaning. We know that metonymy does not just adorn; it persuades. It changes perception. Studies

by Nik Safiah Karim et al. (2008) on Malay grammar and style, though comprehensive in their descriptive

aspects, rarely discuss how metonymy functions as a strategic tool in debate or negotiation, a characteristic that

Some argue that rethoric is too tied to the Arabic language, and its application to Malay might be less relevant.

This argument proves weak. Haven't many Malay vocabulary and linguistic structures been absorbed from

society thinks, communicates, and even resolves conflicts. Without a strong rethoric framework, our analysis of

metonymy will remain at a superficial level, failing to penetrate the 'veil' of implied meanings that constitute the

richness of the Malay language. This is a great loss. It is a reminder of our failure to unearth our own intellectual

This study is not an experiment, far from it. It is an intellectual immersion, an effort to re-weave the

understanding of the art of metonymy in the Malay language through the lens of a more mature rethoric

discipline. The methods used—namely conceptual analysis and library research—are not merely data collection.

They are a process of deconstruction and reconstruction of thought. To produce a theoretical synthesis, we need

The process begins with the identification and collection of a corpus of primary texts. This includes foundational

works of Arabic rethoric such as Dala'il al-I'jaz by Al-Jurjani (1983) and Al-Idah fi 'Ulum al-Balaghah by

AlQazwini (n.d.), which form the theoretical backbone. We examine how these rethoric experts classified and

elaborated on metonymy, what its differences are from isti'arah or majaz, and what the conditions are for an

expression to be considered metonymy. It is an effort that requires meticulousness. In addition, classical and

of the community. This conceptual analysis process involves several phases: first, comparing the definition of

metonymy in rethoric with definitions in Malay linguistics; second, identifying the main characteristics of

metonymy based on retoric classification; third, analyzing the pragmatic function of metonymy in Malay

This is not just reading books; it is a process of dialoguing with texts, questioning arguments, and seeking

openings to build a new framework. We do not just accept. We question. The justification for this approach is

interviews—would not be able to capture the deep essence of metonymy, as it involves text interpretation and

understanding of complex cultural contexts. Only through careful conceptual analysis, based on strong rethoric

principles, can we unravel the mystery of this art of metonymy. This is the only way to see the light. It requires

Metonymy, as distilled from the discipline of rethoric, is clearly not merely an embellishment of words; it is a

Someone who can use metonymyeffectively demonstrates a high command of language, and even the ability to

think abstractly. This distinguishes it from more literal similes or metaphors that require direct transfer of

meaning. The expression 'berat tulang' (heavy-boned) for 'lazy' is more subtle than stating 'he is lazy' directly—

a significant stylistic difference in the Malay social context that values gentle speech, no matter how bitter the

meaning. Third, metonymy possesses extremely strong persuasive power. Compared to direct statements that

might be offensive or less effective, metonymy can influence an audience without directly provoking opposition.

For example, a leader who wants to criticize without causing conflict might use metonymy, allowing the audience

to make their own inferences, thereby making the message more easily accepted and remembered. This

persuasive power is a key characteristic. It reflects wisdom. Fourth, rethoric's classification of metonymy—such

For example, 'anak emas' (golden child) is a kinayah 'an mausuf, referring to someone who is loved or given

priority, a phrase rooted in cultural context. Fifth, metonymy also serves as a reflection of Malay culture and

values. Many metonymy are rooted in observations of the surrounding nature, customs, and local beliefs, making

them an inseparable part of cultural identity. The expression 'ada udang di sebalik batu' (there's a shrimp behind

should compel us to reflect. So, what does this mean for the real world? It means we have long neglected an

important dimension in the mastery of the Malay language. Grammar instruction in schools, which often focuses

too much on surface structure, needs to be drastically re-evaluated. If we continue to teach language literally, we

will produce a generation that fails to appreciate or even understand the depth of implied meanings in proverbs,

This is a pedagogical catastrophe. It is also very likely that the failure to understand metonymy—both in personal

and public contexts—can lead to serious misunderstandings, especially in a society rich in context and politeness

values like Malaysia. Malays often use *kinayah* to convey difficult or sensitive messages, a technique that, if

not understood, can cause the message to be missed or completely misinterpreted. We need to question, does the

existing curriculum adequately equip students with these skills? I think not. The distinction between metonymy

functions and artistic effects of each type. When a writer uses metonymy they are not just creating an image;

they are building a narrative of indirect meaning, a 'bridge' between what is said and what is actually meant. This

demands a sensitive reader, capable of detecting such nuances. Without a rethoric framework, our analysis of

literary works will remain at a superficial level, failing to penetrate the aesthetic and philosophical depth that the

It is a reflection of intellectual laziness. Furthermore, the persuasive power of metonymy—which can convey

This study also indirectly challenges the view of some linguists who insist on rejecting the Arabic rethoric

framework as irrelevant to the Malay language. Clearly, concepts like metonymy—which are so ingrained in

Malay expression—share strong theoretical roots with rethoric. Ignoring this connection is a great loss, like

discarding a long-existing treasure. It is not a matter of 'Arab' or 'Malay', but a matter of utilizing an intellectual

heritage proven effective in unraveling the mysteries of language. We need to transcend rigid disciplinary

boundaries to truly understand how our language functions, not just to see its structure. This is a call for more

The journey of examining the art of metonymy n the Malay language through the lens of rethoric reveals how

the neglect of rethoric, has led to the continued marginalization of appreciation for the rhetorical richness of the