Monroe C. Beardsley’in Absürtlük Teorisi’nin Oğuz Atay’ın “Unutulan” İsimli Hikâyesinden Misaller ile İzahı

Öz

Metaforun “Absürtlük Teorisi” kapsamında bir hikâyeyi değerlendirmek, bilhassa metnin gerçeklik karşısında sorgulanmasını ve gerçeklik karşısında edindiği konumun kendi içinde oluşturduğu gerçeklik çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesini gerekli kılar. Dolayısı ile “rüyâ” ve “hayal” içerikli hikâyeler bu teorinin izahı için oldukça müsaittir. Oğuz Atay’ın “Unutulan” isimli hikâyesinde de her iki katman kendi içlerinde oluşturdukları süreklilik ile üst üste konuşlandırılmıştır. Gerçekliğin bükülmesi, kırılması, düğümlenmesi ve yeniden biçimlendirilmesi arasındaki farkları da vurgulayarak “absürtlük” kavramını teorik olarak izaha çalışmak ile mühim bir kavramsal kargaşaya da temas etmiş olacağız

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Monroe C. Beardsley,Oğuz Atay,absürtlük,metafor

Explanation of the Theory of Absurdity by Monroe C. Beardsley with Examples from The Story "The Forgotten" by Oğuz Atay

Öz

Evaluating a story within the framework of the "absurdity theory" of metaphor requires questioning the text in comparison to reality and evaluating the position it has taken within the framework of its own reality versus reality. Thus, stories that include "dream" and "imagination" are very appropriate for explaining this theory. In the story "The Forgotten" by Oğuz Atay, both levels were positioned one above the other, along with the continuity they create within. In emphasizing the differences between bending, breaking, knotting, and reshaping reality, we would have mentioned an important conceptual chaos in explaining the concept of "absurdity."

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Monroe C. Beardsley,Oğuz Atay,absurdity,metaphor

Kaynakça

1. Aristoteles (1982/ 1994a): Poetik, Üb. Manfred Fuhrmann, Griechisch/ Deutsch, Reclam, Stuttgart.
2. Aristoteles (1999): Rhetorik, Üb. u. Hg. Krapinger Gernot, Reclam.
3. Asch, Solomon E. (1955): On the Use of Metaphor in the Description of Per- sons, On Expressive Language, ed. H. Werner, Worcester.
4. Asch, Solomon E. (1958): The Meta¬phor: A Psychological Inquiry, Person, Perception, and Interpersonal Behaviour, edd. R. Tagiuri/L. Petrullo, Stanford.
5. Atay, Oğuz (1987): Korkuyu Beklerken (Hikâyeler), 2. Baskı, İstanbul: İletişim.
6. Beardsley, M. C. (1962): The Metaphorical Twist, in: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 22, s.293-307; (1983/ 1996) Die metaphorische Verdrehung, in Theorie der Metapher, Haz. Anselm Haverkamp, çev. Ellen Karge, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, s.120-141.
7. Beardsley, Monroe C. (1958): Aesthetics. Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace und World, S.114-147.Brooks, Cleant (1947): The Well Wrought Um, New York 1947, s.29 [çev. Paradoxie im Gedicht - Zur Struktur der Lyrik (Frankfurt 1965), s.51].
8. Brown, Roger (1958): Words and Things, Glencoe/III, s.145-154.

9. Duman, Mehmet Akif (2018): Von der Rhetorik zum belâgat, vom mecâz zur Metapher (Die Suche nach einer terminologischen Äquivalenz zum Begriff Der Metapher im Türkischen durch Vergleich von Rhetorik und belâgat), Berlin: Logos Verlag.
10. Eliot, T.S. (1953): Four Quartes, New York.
11. Henle, Paul (ed.) (1958): Metaphor, in: Language, Thought, and Culture, Ann Arbor 1958, s.173-195; Almancası: (1969): Sprache, Denken, Kultur, Frankfurt = Theorie der Metapher, s.80-105. Görüşlerin devamı, daha doğrusu geliştirilmiş ve modifiye edilmiş hâli: The Problem of Meaning, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 1953-54, Vol. 28 (Yellow Springs 1954); (1996) Die Metapher, in Theorie der Metapher, Haz. Anselm
12. Haverkamp, çev. Friedhelm Herborth (Kap. 5-7’yi,), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, s.80-105.
13. Hungerland, Isabel (1958): POetic Discourse, Berkeley/ Los Angeles, s.108-110.
14. Kittay, Eva Feder (1987): Metaphor. Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15. Kubczak, Hartmut (1978): Die Metapher. Beiträge zur Interpretation und seman¬tischen Struktur der Metapher auf der Basis einer referentiellen Bedeutungsdefinition. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
16. Kubczak, Hartmuth (1986): Metaphern und Metonymien als sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsgegenstände, in: ZfdPh 105, S.83-99.
17. Nemetz, Anthony (1958): Meta¬phor: The Daedalus of Discourse, Thought 33 (August 1958), s.417-442.
18. Pap, A. (1958): Semantics and Necessary Truth, New Haven, s.327.
19. Percy, Walker (1958): Metaphor as Mistake, Swanee Review 66 (Winter 1958), s.79-99.
20. Ransom, John Crove (1947a): II. The Final Cause, Kenyon Review 9, s. 640-658
21. Ransom, John Crove (1947b): Poetry: I. The Formal Analysis, Kenyon Review 9, s.436-56;
22. Scriven, Michael (1958): Definitions, Explanations and Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II: Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem, ed. Herbert Feigl/Michael Scriven/Grover Maxwell, Minneapolis, s.105-107.
23. Searle, J. (1975/ 1982): Indirect Speech Acts, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, S.59-82; Deutsch (1982): In, Ders. Ausdruck und Bedeutung, Frankfurt a.M., S.51-79.
24. Searle, John R. (1969): Speech Acts- An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Searle, John R. (1979): Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge.
26. Searle, John R. (1979/1982): „Metaphor“. In: Ders. (1979), Cambridge University Press, S.76-116= in: Metaphor and Thought, 2.Aufl. Ed. Andrew Ortony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, S.83-112. Deutsch (1982): „Metapher“. In: Ders. (1982), Ausdruck und Bedeutung, Untersuchungen zur Sprechakttheorie, Frankfurt a.M., S.98-138.
27. Searle, John R. (2005a): Bilinç ve Dil, Istanbul: Litera Yayıncılık.
28. Searle, John R. (2005b): Söz Edimleri, Üb. Levent Aysever, Ankara: Ayraç Yayınları.
29. Searle, John, R. (1987): Intentionalität. Eine Abhandlung zur Philosophie des Geistes, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
30. Stevens, Wallace (1955): The Motive for Metaphor”, Collected Poems, New York, s.286.
31. Taylor, Jeremy (1847): Of Holy Living II 3, in Works, ed. C. P. Eden, Vol. III, London, s.56.
32. Waismann, Friedrich (1945): Verifiability, Proceedings of the Anstotelian Society, Supplementary Vol. XIX, London, s.119-150.
33. Weinrich, Harald (1963/1976/1996): „Semantik der Kühnen Metapher“, Zuerst erscheinen in: Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift 37 (1963), S.325-344; Sprache in Texten, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, S.295-316; in. Haverkamp, Anselm. Theorie der Metapher, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, S.316-339.
34. Weinrich, Harald (1976): Sprache in Texten. Stuttgart: Klett.
35. Weinrich, Harald (1980): „Metapher“. In: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philoso¬phie. Bd 5. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, S.1179-1186.
36. Wimsatt, William K. (1941): The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson, Ney Haven.
37. Wordsworth, William (1950): Notes Toward an Understanding of Poetry, Kenyon Review 12 (Sommer 1950), s.498-519.
38. Wright, Georg Henrik von (1951): A Treatise on Induction and Probability, London, ch. 6, § 2, und Pap, op. cit., chs. 5, 11.