With identification/metaphor, Killingsworth pointed out that all metaphors have a tendency to connect the world to the body, or otherwise, use familiar physical things to describe unfamiliar things of the mind. Rather than a division between mind and body, there is continuity, a continual relationship between the two. Although not always direct, the power of metaphors to invoke the body to understand products of the mind provides a great insight into how we think in connections between the physical and non-physical.
On association/metonymy, we find that effects and their causes can
be substituted in place of one another. The greater idea, the immaterial, is used
to replace the lower idea, the material. Instead of cream removing wrinkles, it
removes time. Instead of drinking whiskey, you consume liquid courage. It’s the
same with the appeal to authority – you replace the perceived lower thing, personal work, with
a greater thing – accredited work with (perceived) established authority.
On representation/synecdoche, the most active part of a thing is
used to represent that thing. It creates emphasis by “simplifying and focusing
attention.” In the act of simplification, the meaning is exaggerated to place
emphasis on a certain thing to in fact be more precise in the description of
what is meant. To ‘lend a hand,’ implies to help, not to physically hand over a
hand. The language moves to simplify, while reinforcing the intended meaning.
For distance/irony, meanings get confusing. It often involves saying
one thing, yet meaning the inverse. This trope relies on the condition of
unequal knowledge, which is a great metaphor for our current condition in
society. The ironic appeal moves to show how context can build one reality, but
in fact be the opposite. Irony is a great teacher in that it illustrates the
importance of a critical attitude; not accept anything at “face value.”
Tropes shouldn’t be treated as simple forms, as they are
representations of the complexities of language and contextualized reality. They
show how rhetoric shapes knowledge in the simplest way. Realizing this may be the
first step to ascending to a higher level of consciousness.
Works Cited:
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeal Through Tropes.” Appeals
in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary- Language
Approach. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 121-135.
I think there are two things that should be brought into question about Killingsworth's convictions about tropes. One pretty abrasive idea is that all types of tropes somehow connect to the physical human body or that physical human body in orientation to the space around it. One that comes to mind to me that doesn't is "the pot calling the kettle black" which is supposed to mean that you are judging someone based on a fault you also have, the same concept as "don't point your finger when your hand's unclean." The second trope is obviously connected to the human body by actual physical things (hands/fingers/state of cleanliness). I don't see why I should connect emotionally (the idea of guilt) with a pot or a kettle or the color black. I think you could reduce those things all day long and they would never tie back to human bodies. Also, I think it shouldn't be taken at face value that tropes help us simplify things. In a lot of ways, they complicate things. They are difficult to explain to different cultures in a way that, in order to understand many tropes you would have to spend your whole life around them and people who use them regularly. Even within the same culture many people don't share the same tropes and I have honestly never really understood the "love is like a red, red rose" metaphor. I don't think of love as being red or a plant. I don't think there is anything romantic about plants. They have thorns to protect themselves from people who would want to pick them and animals who would want to eat them. They're red so bugs will pollinate them. When is the last time anyone has fallen in love and thought "yeah, this is a rose alright. this is EXACTLY like a rose." ?
ReplyDelete