According to the classical definition，metonymy is a figure of speech in which one word is substituted for another on the basis of some material，causal，or conceptual relation. Some typical substitutions include author for work，place for a characteristic product of that place，object for possessor，abstract features for concrete entities，etc. Some examples are：

（4） Have you ever read Shakespeare?

（5）Wary wants Burgundy (red or white wine from the Burgundy area of France).

（6）The crown objects to the proposal.

（7）I want my love to be with me all the time.

However，the rhetorical treatment of metonymy faces an interesting paradox. On the one hand，it captures a lot of phenomena which continue to be productive and wide-spread in a variety of languages；in addition，these seem to be produced and understood naturally and spontaneously. On the other hand，it regards metonymy as a figure of speech，that is，a departure from the linguistic norm，serving ornamental and literary purposes and demanding suitable training for its successful use and comprehension.

When we turned to a cognitive view of figurative language，we only paid attention to the role of metaphor but not that of metonymy，in the construction of abstract categories. However，metonymy does play a very important part in the structures of emotion categories. For example，we have a general metonymic principle：THE BODILY SYMPTOMS OF AN EMOTION STAND FOR THE EMOTION. According to this principle， we can find that there are indeed bodily symptoms which seem to be helpful for a description of the conceptual structure of emotions because they are peculiar to one particular emotion：drop in temperature for FEAR (e.g.“I was chilled to the bone.”)，erect posture for PRIDE (e.g.“He swelled with pride.H)> drooping posture for SADNESS (e.g.“My heart sank.”)，and jumping up and down for JOY (e.g.“He was jumping for joy.”). Obviously these physiological phenomena help us conceptualize these emotions.

Metonymy differs from metaphor in a cognitive theory，but they also work together. As a matter of fact，the main claims made by cognitive linguists in the description of metaphor also apply to metonymy：(i) both are regarded as being conceptual in nature；(ii) both can be conventionalized (i.e. automatic，unconscious，effortless and generally established as a model of thinking)；(iii) both are means of extending the resources of a language；and (iv) both can be explained as mapping processes. The main difference between them is that metaphor involves a mapping across different conceptual or cognitive domains while metonymy is a mapping within one conceptual domain. In metonymy，one category within a domain is taken as standing for another category in the same domain. The main function of a metonymic expression is to activate one cognitive category by referring to another category within the same domain (see examples (4)——(7))，and by doing that，to highlight the first category or the subdomain to which it belongs. Consider the following three examples of partwhole relations (Croft，1993：350)：

（8）We need a couple of strong bodies for our team.

（9）There are a lot of good heads in the university.

（10）We need some new faces around here.

Obviously，in each of the three sentences above a reference to human beings is being made. What is interesting here about them is that in each case one particular relevant aspect of a human being is highlighted. In the sports context of the first example，the domain PHYSICAL STRENGTH related to the category BODY is highlighted and in the university context the domain INTELLIGENCE is related to HEAD. The category FACE is particularly appropriate in the context of new people， because this is what we usually perceive first when we meet strangers.

So，given the observations above，we can offer the cognitive linguistic definition of metonymy. Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one cognitive category，the source，provides mental access to another cognitive category，the target，within the same cognitive domain，or idealized cognitive model (ICM). This understanding of metonymy can be represented as the following figure：

Generally speaking，the most commonly used conceptual metonymies are as follows：

（11）THE PRODUCER FOR THE PRODUCT (THE AUTHOR FOR THE WORK)

She loves Picasso.

Does he have any Hemingway in his collection?

I'm reading Mark Twain.

（12）THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT

America doesn't want another Pearl Harbor.

Watergate changed American politics.

（13）THE PLACE FOR THE INSTITUTION

Washington is negotiating with Beijing.

Wall Street is in a panic.

Hollywood is putting out terrible movies.

（14）THE CONTROLLER FOR THE CONTROLLED

Nixon bombed Hanoi.

Ozawa gave a terrible concert last night.

（15）AN OBJECT USED FOR THE USER

The sax has the flu today.

We need a better glove at the third base.

Thus，we can say that one kind of entity，such as the one referred to by the word Hemingway，the AUTHOR or PRODUCER，“stands for”another kind of entity， such as the one referred to by the expression one of Hemingway's works，the WORK or PRODUCT. In the same way，we get the PLACE for the EVENT，the PLACE for the INSTITUTION， the CONTROLLER for the CONTROLLED，etc. Metonymies，then，similar to metaphors，are conceptual in nature，and the conceptual metonymies are revealed by metonymic linguistic expressions. There are many other conceptual metonymies besides the ones above；for example，we have PART FOR WHOLE (as in “We need some good heads on the projecf ”)；WHOLE FOR THE PART (as in“America is a powerful country”)； INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION (as in“She shampooed her hair”)；EFFECT FOR CAUSE (as in“It's a slow road”)；DESTINATION FOR MOTION (as in“He porched the newspaper”).