In view of the needs of contemporary metonymy theory we have set ourselves the following goals: 1. First, we need to characterise metonymy. We need to find a set of reliable criteria which allows us to distinguish metonymy from other related semantic phenomena, especially the boundaries between metaphor and metonymy, and between metonymy and non-figurative uses of language. A well-founded definition of metonymy paves the way for more ambitious incursions into the relationship between metonymy and language. In this respect, we shall consider the connections between metonymy and some grammatical phenomena, on the one hand, and between metonymy and so-called pragmatic inference (including illocutionary activity), on the other hand. 2. Metonymy imposes constraints on grammar (i) First, metonymy has worked its way into the use of grammatical resources, thereby determining the nature of some grammatical choices. (ii) Second, metonymy lies at the base of the value of some grammatical constructions Conversely, a grammatical system is capable of placing constraints on the nature of some metonymic operations, thus there exists full interaction between metonymy as a conceptual device and the grammar of a language. 3.Metonymy, inferences, and illocution. Cognitive linguists have been largely concerned with the conceptual nature of metonymy, but, in contrast, they have not placed much emphasis on the communicative effect of this type of conceptual mapping. Metonymy is observed to be closely linked to the achievement of successful communication: (i) The derivation of inferences. It is our intention to explore the Cognitive Linguistics approach to metonymy as a way of understanding and reasoning about the world in relation to the relevance-theoretic treatment of inference and, more specifically, to the distinction between implicatures and explicatures (cf. Sperber and Wilson, 1995). It will be shown that metonymy lies at the base of the production of explicatures, which, in turn, enable the speaker to draw further weak and strong implicatures. (ii) Production and interpretation of indirect illocutions. It is commonly accepted by cognitive linguists that metonymy is crucial to the derivation of illocutionary meaning. In this theoretical context, our intention is to elaborate and develop the existing scenario-based theories of indirect illocutions in order to increase their explanatory power. We shall systematically describe the propositional idealized cognitive models of a group of directive and commissive illocutions in relation to a number of relevant variables, such as cost-benefit, optionality, directivity, social power, mitigation, and social distance. On the basis of this type of illocutionary cognitive model, it will be shown how the activation of a variable number of attributes accounts for the production of illocutionary acts with different degrees of conventionalization and for subtle differences in meaning. Finally, together with the main goals specified in 2, this book also addresses several other matters of importance within the current debate on metonymy such as its boundaries with literal uses of language, the problem of distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche, the interaction between metonymy and metaphor, and the complex issue of building a systematic taxonomy of metonymy types. (Abridged from 'Introduction/ Research Objectives' by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza and José Luis Otal Campo)