The reading also talks about how all knowledge and even conventional uses of language are built upon an original foundation of wordplay and figuration, I can somewhat agree because wordplay has been the foundation for language, I do feel that this is how language came to be a learned behavior. Understanding that tropes tend to connect abstract to the concrete, this is okay, but how effective is this type of blending. Abstract and concrete language originates from two completely different genres of language, and I just wonder how this connection would affect the outcome of the language.
In the area of metaphor I actually
think that sometimes metaphors are somehow confused with the concept of a
figure of speech. I figure of speech to me explains meaning, and a metaphor can
create or redirect meaning.
If a metonymy is often used with symbols, icons and logos; I understand that these aspects could or do have cultural indicators, but I do wonder why Burke would go so far as to say that metonymy can be used as a stereotype? I don’t think that the metonymy is about stereotyping at all, but I do however have this theory that it is somewhat about appealing to a certain audience. The synecdoche’s objective is to simplify and focus attention, so connected together with the metonymy should allow for a serious language "fiesta" with abstract and concrete connections.
If a metonymy is often used with symbols, icons and logos; I understand that these aspects could or do have cultural indicators, but I do wonder why Burke would go so far as to say that metonymy can be used as a stereotype? I don’t think that the metonymy is about stereotyping at all, but I do however have this theory that it is somewhat about appealing to a certain audience. The synecdoche’s objective is to simplify and focus attention, so connected together with the metonymy should allow for a serious language "fiesta" with abstract and concrete connections.
Works Cited
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeal Through Tropes.” Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary-Language Approach. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 121-135.
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeal Through Tropes.” Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary-Language Approach. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 121-135.
LaRhonda,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you've kind of associated “tropes” with something other than expressions; maybe all four“tropes” can go beyond rhetoric? Possibly imagery? Your second paragraph is key, what affects does it have on the outcome of language? The example in the next paragraph is suitable: differentiating metaphors and figures of speech. But LaRhonda, in what ways can they be misinterpreted or confused exactly? I'll disagree with your last statement about metonymy and how stereotypes isn't connected with that particular trope. Remember, language reflects that of a contemporary society; slang is included. So any discourse that we associate with an idea can fall under the umbrella of a stereotype.
I find it interesting as well that you have associated the tropes with a turning point, or something that redirects language. When you say that wordplay has been the foundation for language, do you mean the actual words themselves, their uses, or their interpretations? Or all three if that makes sense too? Abstract and concrete are in some ways the opposite of each other, so their oppositions is what relates them. The connection affects language in ways like the Daniel's hypertext essay. Her constant use of opposites in the title, subtitles, and color scheme represent the abstract and concrete of her claims and the project as a whole.
ReplyDelete