Metonymy is based on a different type of relation between the dictionary and contextual meanings, arelation based not on identification, but on some kind of association connecting the two concepts which these meanings represent. Thus, the word crown may stand for 'king or queen', cap or glass for 'the drink it contains', woolsack for 'the Chancellor of the Exchequer who sits on it, or the position and dignity of the Lord Chancellor', e.g., "Here the noble lord inclined his knee to the Woolsack." Here also the interrelation between the dictionary and contextual meanings should stand out clearly and conspicuously. Only then can we state that a stylistic device is used. Otherwise we must turn our mind to lexicological problems, i.e. to the ways and means by which new words and meanings are coined. The examples of metonymy given above are traditional. In fact they are derivative logical meanings and therefore fixed in dictionaries. However, when such meanings are included in dictionaries, there is usually a label fig ('figurative use'). This shows that the new meaning has not replaced the primary one, but, as it were, co-exists with it. Metonymy used in language-in-action, i.e. context a I metonymy, is genuine metonymy and reveals a quite unexpected substitution of one word for another, of one concept for another, on the .ground of some strong impression produced by a chance feature of the thing, for example:, "Miss Tox's hand trembled as she slipped it through Mr. Dombey's arm, and felt herself escorted up the steps, preceded by a cocked hat and a Babylonian collar." (Dickens)