It's legit to say that, but I prefer to understand metonymy as a use of the factual connection between two things. I think Wiki defines synecdoche as substitution of two words from one lexical field. But still, being part of one lexical field would be a connection that in my opinion qualifies for metonymy.
You use "the part names the whole" as an example of metonymy but I've been taught that that is synecdoche. Does this mean synecdoche is a specific type of metonymy, similar to the square-rectangle relationship?
You're correct, "part of a whole" is synecdoche, but the overall concept of metonymy is that two things have a logical connection, so the meronymic relationship that comes out in synecdoche is such a connection. So yes: Synecdoche is a special kind of metonymy.
If you look up the definitions of metonymy: "thefreedictionary . com/ metonymy" and synecdoche: "thefreedictionary . com/ synecdoche" you will notice that by these definitions, synecdoche can be included into the definition of metonymy
+janic cain Cheers! Listening to myself in that video makes me cringe so hard, though... Those were the days in 2012 :D If there's any other linguistic topic that you'd like me to cover, feel free to make lots of suggestions!
I could do that, though the point of these videos is not to provide references, but to explain key concepts of linguistics in a less academic approach.
