A metaphor is a figure of speech
in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not
literally applicable. Some examples of metaphors are “he drowned in a sea of
grief” or “she is fishing in troubled waters.” How and where does one come
across a sea that is filled not with water, but with grief? All these
expressions have one thing in common: a situation is compared to a real thing,
although the “situation” is not actually that particular thing. In this week’s reading
Killingsworth suggest that his readers approach metaphors a bit differently
than we may have in the past, "Instead of thinking of metaphor as a
comparison that leaves something out, try thinking of it as an identification,
a way of bringing together seemingly unlike things" (Killingsworth 123). When an author utilizes a metaphor, he is
urging the readers to identify the relationship between two words. While
reading Killingsworth's “Appeal Through Tropes”, I found myself often mixing up
how a metaphor works and how a trope works. According to Killingsworth, the
metaphor function is identification. The synonym of trope is defined as
metaphor, but there seems to be some other implications when using the word
trope that metaphor does not have.
Trope is a word or expression used in a figurative sense. “The idea of troping, or turning a phrase, captures a truth about rhetorical appeals that we are reliable to forget; They always involve swerves, indirections, substitutions, twists, and turns of meaning” (Killingsworth 121) They have the power to enhance what the writer is trying to say, but in my opinion can cause confusion to the reader. They are seen very important to Killingsworth. They are so varied, that in any way shape or form, a writer can use them to his or her advantage. "Tropes help us classify and study other functions of appeals. They suggest how one position (author, audience, or value) can relate to another" (Killingsworth, 121). (I don’t necessarily understand this quote)
While reading Killingsworth I found myself battling to differentiate a Trope and a Metaphor, come to realize that both terms were actually one. Correct me if I am wrong, but a metaphor is a figure of speech, and the definition of trope is “a figure of speech” which in the end connects the two. Through research on the different types of tropes, such as irony a trope in which a word or phrase is used to mean the opposite of its literal meaning and Metonymy a trope that substitutes an associated word for one that is meant. I come to conclude that Metaphor branch of a trope (Go figure) and tropes are persuasive because they in a way dress up ordinary language. is being persuaded by different words coming together to create images that we find entertaining.
Trope is a word or expression used in a figurative sense. “The idea of troping, or turning a phrase, captures a truth about rhetorical appeals that we are reliable to forget; They always involve swerves, indirections, substitutions, twists, and turns of meaning” (Killingsworth 121) They have the power to enhance what the writer is trying to say, but in my opinion can cause confusion to the reader. They are seen very important to Killingsworth. They are so varied, that in any way shape or form, a writer can use them to his or her advantage. "Tropes help us classify and study other functions of appeals. They suggest how one position (author, audience, or value) can relate to another" (Killingsworth, 121). (I don’t necessarily understand this quote)
While reading Killingsworth I found myself battling to differentiate a Trope and a Metaphor, come to realize that both terms were actually one. Correct me if I am wrong, but a metaphor is a figure of speech, and the definition of trope is “a figure of speech” which in the end connects the two. Through research on the different types of tropes, such as irony a trope in which a word or phrase is used to mean the opposite of its literal meaning and Metonymy a trope that substitutes an associated word for one that is meant. I come to conclude that Metaphor branch of a trope (Go figure) and tropes are persuasive because they in a way dress up ordinary language. is being persuaded by different words coming together to create images that we find entertaining.
But I have a few question: Is a trope a way of thinking or
is a trope separate from a way of thinking?
How do they function differently in language? How are tropes rhetorical?
Im guessing it can be considered rhetorical because it can be persuasive.
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeal Through Tropes.” Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary- Language Approach. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 121-135.
Marjulie,
ReplyDeleteI must say that I found myself in a battle between more than just a tropes and a metaphor. I somewhat found myself in a battle between all of the tropes. For some strange reason as I was reading I began to see how it could be possible for all of the tropes to connect or intertwine together. I do know and understand that as the reading states that metaphor is the most common and somewhat the foundation for all of the other tropes being metonymy, synecdoche and irony, but these concepts seemed to me to be able to create beautiful language when connected together. I get the purposes of each trope alone, but how great a recipe of language use they could be when connected together. For some reason I feel as if we should get out of our norm of looking at every concept for language as a separate concept. I do feel that learning the concepts separately are okay until we become familiar with the purpose of the concept, but afterwards we must not be afraid to connect and recreate language and its uses. I feel that we would not encounter the battle if we would open our minds to this concept of connection; For example, the metaphor says that “my love is like a rose”, which says that my love has passion, but also the metonymy may suggest that “my love is like a boulder rock”, which is a figure of speech for my love is strong. So if we connect them together, “my love is like a boulder rock covered in roses”; this says that love is strong, stable and passionate and sensual. To me this ends the battle between the metaphor and metonymy. I must admit that I’m not exactly sure if this is accurate, but it is my theory……..just think about it.
LaRhonda / Marjulie,
DeleteI am struggling to (properly) connect all of the tropes together under one common concept - besides the idea that they do improve upon language figuratively - and find that your ideas may contribute to my (now developing) idea that they do all relate and, as you put it, intertwine. Your examples, whilst helpful and descriptive, may also need some tweeking. "My love is like a rose," and My love is like a boulder rock," are not metaphors, but are actually similes. Regardless, they have still furthered my understanding of the significance of metaphor, and the major differences it garnishes to metonymy. The symbolism of the metaphor of the rose-covered boulder, or the rhetorical understanding that I acquire as your audience, is strengthened because of the bodily/human depiction of the rose "covering" the boulder. This gives the audience the idea of something being completely covered - or immersed - in another thing. This is a notion and feeling that the audience inherently has, and that the author is seemingly taking advantage of. The covered item, the boulder, represents the idea that the love is strong and unfaltering. The covering item, the roses, represent the passion of the love. When something is completely covered by something else, we, as your audience, gain this sensation of an all-encompassing and attentive emotion - that is even furthered by the representation of what is covering the item (boulder) - roses. But metonymy, in my eyes, functions differently (but still seems to make use of figuartive language).
Using your boulder-rose theme, I would call this an application of metonymy: calling my official soccer team "the boys," rather than my "soccer team." This substitution could also (I think) be highlighted with a metaphor (trope, using figurative language): "the boys are a riot," which could suggest that my soccer team (the boys) are acting up and being fools... which believe me... the boys are a real riot... - this, to me, relates back to what Marjulie asserts; that metaphor could also potentially confuse an audience. This could be supported by Marjulie's (or any potential member of an audience) hypothetical interpretation of my statement "the boys are a riot" that they are literally rioting and causing havoc and real damage, when in reality, I meant to figuratively express their safe and comedic interactions with each other. What's to say that metonymy couldn't also confuse an audience, too? I would argue that it could.
You have a lot of great points here. I think Tropes are 100% persuasive and that humans use them to take an idea and make it possible to conceptualize in our minds. Killingsworth repeats again and again how trope are not merely a loose tie between two unrelated things, but a clear identification, a new way of thinking. So to answer your question, I think to Killingsworth, tropes are a common way of thinking and he wants to try to explain why and what their impact on rhetoric is. When reading the essay I too was confused by the idea that there can be different kinds of tropes but to Killingsworth they all function generally in the same way. To your questions about a trope verse metaphor, I came to the conclusion that a metaphor was just merely a category of trope.
ReplyDeleteYou pull out a lot of great points from "Appeal Through Tropes" and I agree that after reading it I was still questioning some of Killingsworth's thoughts too. Does he consider tropes to be a bad thing? A nuisance to language? or is he just struggling to understand them and their function?
Marjulie – I am relieved to find that you are making some similar connections in regards to the relationship shared between the terms “metaphor” and “trope.” Whilst reading the text by Killingsworth,I also came to the conclusion that the two are essentially the same. You stated that you feel that the two are one and the same – as they are both technically “figures of speech” that seem to “dress up ordinary language” in a manner that allow an audience to interpret and connect with the depth of a given rhetorical situation. I agree with this assertion, especially when researching the term “trope” elsewhere (besides Killingsworth’s text).
ReplyDeleteBut are the two the exact same term and concept? I dare to think that they are. We both have seemingly discovered that Killingsworth associated metaphor with a “way of thinking,” and I feel that this was an important facet to understand when unpacking this text. “In this way, we can see that metaphor is not merely one technique among many but is instead a crucial way of thinking, attempt to bridge conceptual gaps, a mental activity at the very heart of rhetoric” (123) is a quote that would support our discovery – and is one that is especially relevant to our understanding of our own relationship with the concept of trope and the use of figurative language when attempting to express certain rhetorical situations. Figurative language – or language that’s meaning deviates from its literal meaning – is a common proponent of any use of metaphor but is it always present in the use of a trope? I want to say yes, but I am not too sure… can other types of tropes (such as irony, metonymy, etc.) be accomplished and effective with the use of literal language? I have this (unsupported) feeling that whilst a metaphor should always be considered a trope – a trope does not always have to be considered metaphorical. Irony, another facet of what a trope could be and do, does not have to be metaphorical. I conclude that metaphor (trope), is (by Killingsworth) considered to be a method of thinking all on its own – with its purpose stemming from the mental activity that comes associated with the attempt of “bridging (the) conceptual gaps” that an author intends his/her author to be exposed to.
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeal Through Tropes.” Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary - Language Approach. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 121-135.
“While reading Killingsworth I found myself battling to differentiate a Trope and a Metaphor, come to realize that both terms were actually one. Correct me if I am wrong, but a metaphor is a figure of speech, and the definition of trope is “a figure of speech” which in the end connects the two.”
ReplyDelete--I can totally relate to this because I faced the same problem at first, because they’re both technically “figure’s of speech”. But, I now see a metaphor as a subcategory of a trope. Maybe I’m wrong, but I felt that the essay was about how tropes are important because of how different they are and how important they can be to a piece. Imagine if a trope was a slice of bread, and a metaphor was just wheat bread, while metonymy would be something like honey oat bread. They’re all from the same family (bread/trope) but they each have their own characteristics. I see that later on in the essay you also reach this conclusion, which is awesome.
“But I have a few question: Is a trope a way of thinking or is a trope separate from a way of thinking? How do they function differently in language? How are tropes rhetorical? Im guessing it can be considered rhetorical because it can be persuasive.”
--I think that trope isn’t a way of thinking persay, but it’s more of a detail that adds a new layer to one’s understanding. If anything it enhances your way of thinking since it allows for you to “see” more. Like with the Moby Dick example in the text, because of the understanding of tropes, certain things in the book are more appreciated and understood compared to before. Your experience while reading is enhanced because of this greater understanding. Trope’s function however the author would like for them to function in language I suppose. They’re so versatile to a degree that it’s fairly easy to incorporate a trope into language---that’s a reason why they’re so powerful. And regarding if a trope is a rhetorical, I don’t believe that the trope itself on it’s own is rhetorical, but how it’s used and it’s purpose—that’s what makes it rhetorical.
I agree with you in that the tropes/metaphors (the actual classification means little) are in a sense, the basic forms of thinking that builds language and connects the physical and nonphysical. While they do offer insight into how we think, they do seem to provide many people with confusion (even if they do not realize they are confused).
ReplyDeleteFor your questions,
Is a trope a way of thinking or is a trope separate from a way of thinking?
I think tropes are the basic contextual forming of language that embody our way of thinking.
How do they function differently in language? How are tropes rhetorical?
Trope function in rhetorical language by showing the relationships that we form in our thinking between higher things (Feminine, spiritual, immaterial, mind, consciousness) and a lower things (Masculine, physical, material, body, egocentrism).