Ways of thinking about Tropes

Is a trope a way of thinking or is a trope separate from a way of thinking?  This seems to be an easy answer after reading Killingsworth’s “Appeal Through Tropes”, but I had a moment of confusion through two statements found in this article. 

As Killingsworth looks at where tropes emerge in the history of modern rhetoric, he states that “a second response to the critique of rhetoric in modern philosophy and science has involved reducing the number of key tropes and revisiting their functions, considering tropes not merely as embellishments of language but as ways of thinking” (122).  He then goes on to say that Kenneth Burke was one of the “leaders in this movement” (122).  Then Killingsworth decides to write the rest of his article using Burke’s findings with a “slight reinterpretation” (123).  So it seems that Killingsworth is agreeing with how Burke looks at tropes, but he just wants to build on it to show a connection with the “theory of appeals” (123).  And, Burke seems to see tropes as inherently functioning as ways of thinking.  Thus far it seems straight forward.

Then when getting into metaphors, Killingsworth references Lakoff and Johnson who are “theorists” that take metaphor “as the root of all tropes” (123).  “According to Lakoff and Johnson, the cognitive power of metaphor—its significance not only as a trope but a way of thinking—has to do with the tendency of al metaphors to connect the world to the body, to relate unfamiliar things to familiar experience of physical existence” (124).  So in essence, Killingsworth seems to be pointing out that these theorists also see tropes as ways of thinking.  However, I can’t get past the way that it is stated.  They seem to be separating trope from a way of thinking.  They state “not only as a trope but a way of thinking”.  So it seems that they don’t think that a trope is inherently equated with a way of thinking.  They seem to be saying that a metaphor should be thought of as a trope, and a metaphor should also be thought of as a way of thinking.  Killingsworth and Burke seem to be saying that if a metaphor is thought of as a trope then it’s assumed to be thought of as a way of thinking, because tropes are ways of thinking.

I think that Killingsworth was using Lakoff and Johnson to support his findings, and that he just breezed over this small difference in how it’s stated.  I didn’t even catch it until I was reading the article for the second time.  I suppose the meaning is still there.  I still get the purpose of the article and how Lakoff and Johnson do seem to support Killingsworth, because they both associate some sort of trope with a way of thinking.   I just wonder if Lakoff and Johnson think that metaphor is the only trope that can be seen as a way of thinking, or if they would see metonymy, irony, synecdoche, etc. as being ways of thinking as well.