Matafora jako marzenie języka. Koncepcja metafory Donalda Davidsona

• Authors: Filipczuk, Magdalena

Title variants

PL

Metaphor is the dreamwork of language… some remarks concerning Donald Davidson's concept of metaphor

Abstracts

EN

In his article What metaphors means Donald Davidson points out that there is an "error and confusion" in claiming "that a metaphor has, in addition to its literal sense or meaning, another sense or meaning". Metaphor has no special meaning, says Davidson and gives a number of arguments to support his controversial thesis. "If a metaphor has a special cognitive content, why should it be so difficult or impossible to set it out?" – he asks rhetorically. Davidson makes many remarks about the effects of a metaphor; he shows that metaphor belongs exclusively to the domain of use and denies that the metaphorical sentences have any special cognitive content. "For a metaphor says only what shows on its face – usually a patent falsehood or an absurd truth... given in the literal meaning of the words". In the first part of my paper, I analyse Davidson’s concept of metaphor in terms of his own assumptions. First, I argue that Davidson narrows the commonsense use of “meaning”, which is much wider than he makes it out to be. Secondly, if metaphors belong exclusively to the domain of use, it is only when language is used in a peculiar, untypical way (drawing our attention to the paradoxical coincidence of words within metaphor) that a sentence can be considered metaphorical. If so, all we do is violate the everyday use of language, or even modify its rules, and let the context influence the meaning of words within the metaphor. We don't make those words mean something other than they usually mean. The last part of my paper deals with Davidson's claim that interpretation is the work of imagination and creation. I argue that the understanding of metaphor has a dynamic structure. If metaphorical sentences say something with suggestive indefiniteness, it is because metaphor is a kind of task that lies before a reader or a listener, a variant of ancient gnome. It is true that it is all about the effect but usually the effect is not instantaneous. Following Coleridge, I view understanding in terms of growth. It leads an individual to undertake an attempt to grasp certain objective truths. What we notice thanks to extraordinary metaphors in literature and philosophy is that they illuminate us somehow. Our task is then to express this effect in language. Therefore, contrary to what Davidson claims, the possibility of multiple interpretations do not necessarily question the objective cognitive content of a metaphor.

Keywords

EN

Donald Davidson; metaphor; language; metaphoric meaning; metaphor’s effect

PL

Donald Davidson; koncepcja metafory; metaforyczne znaczenie; użycie; działanie metafory; porównanie

• Publisher: Bialystok University Press
• Journal: IDEA. Studia nad strukturą i rozwojem pojęć filozoficznych
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 28/1
• Pages: 217-243

Dates

published

2016

Contributors

author

Filipczuk, Magdalena

References

• W. Szekspir, Henryk IV, cz. 1 i 2, w: tegoż, Dzieła wszystkie, t. VIII, Kroniki 2, tłum. M. Słomczyński, Kraków 2004;
• W. Szekspir, Henryk IV, cz. I i II, tłum. S. Barańczaka, Kraków 1998;
• W. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, King Lear, Henry IV w: [in:] idem, Complete Works, Leicester, U.K. 1991;
• D. Davidson, What metaphors mean, „Critical Inquiry”, t. 5, nr 1, Special Issue on Metaphor (Autumn, 1978);
• M. Black, Metafora, „Pamiętnik Literacki” LXII, 1971, z. 3;
• M. Black, How Metaphors Work: A Reply to Donald Davidson, “Critical Inquiry”, t. 6, nr 1 (Autumn, 1979);
• J. Wawrzyniak, Czym jest teoria znaczenia w: tegoż, Znaczenie i wartość w filozofii Johna McDowella i Barry'ego Strouda. Przedmiot refleksji czy redukcji?, Kraków 2015;
• P. Ricoeur, Metafora i symbol [w:] idem, Język tekst interpretacja, Warszawa 1989;
• Thomas Leddy, Davidson's Rejection of Metaphorical Meaning, „Philosophy & Rhetoric”, t. 16, nr 2 (1983);
• L. Wittgenstein, Dociekania filozoficzne, tłum. B. Wolniewicz, Warszawa 2000, s. 75.

Identifiers

URI

http://hdl.handle.net/11320/5514

DOI

10.15290/idea.2016.28.1.11