Pragmatik ve bilişsel olmayan metafor tanımlarının karşılaştırmalı incelemesi
The comparative inquiry of the pragmatic and non-cognitive definitions of metaphor
Yazar: TUNCAY TURNA
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. ÖZGÜÇ GÜVEN
İstanbul Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Felsefe Ana Bilim Dalı
Derece: Doktora, 2022
Konu: Felsefe = Philosophy
Dizin: Dil felsefesi = Philosophy of language ; Edimbilim = Pragmatics ; Felsefe = Philosophy ; Metafor = Metaphor ; Pragmatik anlam = Pragmatic meaning ; Pragmatizm = Pragmatism

Özet:
Metafor yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısıyla beraber dil felsefesinde bağımsız bir konu haline gelmiş ve birçok metafor kuramı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu kuramlar çoğunlukla geleneksel metafor kuramları olarak bilinir. Bu çalışmada geleneksel kuramlar, semantik, pragmatik ve bilişsel olmayan kuramlar diye sınıflandırıldı. Kuramları incelemeye geçmeden önce, metaforun benzetme, eğretileme, düzdeğişmece vb. gibi edebi sanatlarla ilişkisine bakıldı. Bu kapsamda Türkçe edebiyat, dilbilim, felsefe kaynakları ve İngilizce iki edebi terimler sözlüğü incelendi. Semantik kuram olarak gösterilen Richards, Black, Beardsley ve Fogelin'ın kuramları, betimleyici bir şekilde ve kuramcıların dil görüşleriyle ilişkilerine değinmeden gösterildi. Sonrasında Pragmatik kuram olarak Searle'ün kuramının incelemesi yapıldı. Searle'ün kuramına geçmeden önce onun dil görüşü ve anlam kuramı betimleyici bir şekilde ele alındı. Metafor kuramı, dil ve anlam görüşleriyle birlikte ve eleştirileri göz önüne alarak gösterildi. Ardından bilişsel olmayan metafor kuramı olarak Davidson'ın yaklaşımı gösterildi. Searle'de olduğu gibi Davidson'ın da öncelikle dil görüşü ve anlam kuramı betimleyici bir tarzla verildi. Metafor görüşü de kendi anlam kuramı ve metafor kuramına gelen eleştiriler göz önüne alınarak incelendi. Son bölümde ise Searle ve Davidson'ın metafor kuramları karşılaştırmalı olarak incelendi. Ayrıca, ele alınan kuramlardan elde edilen sonuçlardan hareketle, metafor hakkında bir kuram önerisi ileri sürüldü. Metafor dil olarak adlandırılan bu öneride, Fogelin, Searle ve Davidson kuramlarından etkiler görmek mümkündür. Buna göre metaforlar ayrı bir dil gibi ve tek anlamlı olarak düşünülebilir. Bu yaklaşım Fogelin gibi düz anlamdan ayrı bir mecaz alan varsayar, Searle gibi metafordaki ilgilerin benzetmeden fazlası olduğunu savunur ve Davidson gibi tek anlamlı bir yaklaşım sunar. Bu bölümde metafor dil savları, metaforla ilgili önemli sorulara cevaplar ve metafor dilin sorunlarına yer verildi.

Abstract:
Metaphor had never been a serious topic in the philosophy from Aristotle to the early twentieth century philosophers. However by the second half of the last century, philosophers from many different traditions have started to write about metaphor. Max Black is the author of one of the first well-builded theory about metaphor in the analytic tradition. He follows the claims of the interaction theory of Ivor A. Richards however he improves it by various aspects. The thories about metaphor at twentieth century are mostly known as the traditional theories of metaphor. These theories are mostly shown in three groups as semantic, pragmatic and non-cognitive theories of metaphor. There is a fourth group named comparativist theories but I placed them to the group of semantic theories as well. The aim of this study is to examine the theories and to reach some conclusions about the nature of metaphor and finally to offer an account which has theoretical aspects influenced by the theories of metaphor which have been shown in this study.
To reach to the aim, firstly I have studied on the figures of language as simile, irony, metonymy, synecdoche etc. I have searched the sources of the literature, linguistics and philosophy in Turkish. I have also checked two dictionaries of figures in English to see the similarities and differrences between Western and Eastern Rhetorics. On this part, it turns out that it's important to make a distinction between metaphor as figure of rhetoric and metaphor as more general notion as a phenomenon of the language. Especially the difference between 'eğretileme' and 'mecaz' in Turkish which are given as a translation of metaphor by various sources, makes the point more dramatic. Also it helps to understand metaphor, to make another distinction between the force metaphors and the expression metaphors. Force ones like open ended poetic metaphors are mostly appeared by aesthetic causes as a purpose of metaphor itself. Expression ones like ordinary language metaphors are mostly appeared as instrument to explain something more better. To put these distinctions and to remark the way is highly important for a study about metaphor. These are the things that I have pointed in first chapter.
At second chapter I examine the semantic theories such as Richards, Black, Beardsley and Fogelin by a descriptive way. The idea here was more like the idea in the first chapter. The first chapter functions as a basement to talk about metaphor in Turkish among the other figures of language. Second chapter aims to build another basement which shows the main problems and concepts of the topic of metaphor in philosophy. By the respect of this aim I have pointed from Aristotle to Fogelin by showing the historical background of metaphor as well. 
Third chapter is related with pragmatic theories but specifically the theory of Searle. I have firstly explained the ideas of Searle about language and his theory of meaning in a descriptive way. So I point the ground of language in his ontology and give a detailed explanations of speech acts theory. The idea here is to examine his theory of metaphor by the virtue of his own theory of meaning. So at second part I have studied on the pragmatic theory of Searle on metaphor by showing relations between his own theory of meaning/language and by showing the critics of the pragmatic theory of metaphor of Searle.
On the fourth chapter, the topic is non-cognitive theory of metaphor by Davidson. Here as well, like the third chapter, firstly I have explained the language view of Davidson and his theory of meaning in a descriptive way. I have tried to show how Davidson sees the language. Then I give the definition of truth and explain the central role of truth in his truth theoritical meaning theory. In the second part of this chapter I examine the theory of metaphor of Davidson – as I did in the chapter of Searle – by showing the relations with his own theory of meaning and the critics about his theory of metaphor.
On the fifth and last chapter firstly I compare the theories of Searle and Davidson. Finally they have never refered to eachother in the topic of metaphor. So I try more to show possible critics and replies. This part of the chapter points out the differences and similarities of these two theories of metaphor.
At the second part of the chapter, I claim a theoretical offer about metaphor which I believe that avoids many problems of the theories which I examined in this study. I call it as metaphor language. I think that the metaphor language explains the nature of metaphor more better than the theories showed in this study. By the way this claim has roots from the theories of Fogelin, Searle and Davidson. I try to give some arguments about this claim to enforce it. And also I answer some main and important questions about metaphor and to show the attitude of the claim about some main problems of metaphor.