One peculiarity of referential metonymy is that metonymic subjects and their predicates need not agree as to number. Nor need there be gender agreement between metonymic expressions and anaphoric pronouns. In this respect metonymies differ from metaphors.To account for the apparently erratic syntax in utterances containing referential metonymies, it is first suggested that these involve implicit extensions which together with the explicit metonymic element form referential units. This suggests that metaphorical and metonymic mapping processes are fundamentally different. The focus of the paper is next the question of what determines choice of anaphoric pronouns. It is argued that what is perceived to be topic is an important factor.