Gibi Edatının Tahkiyeli Üslupta Kullanımı Çevresinde Paul Henle’nin Metafor Anlayışının Tahlili

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 1 - 23, 29.06.2019

Mehmet Akif Duman

Öz

Paul Henle’ye göre metafor üstüne söylenecek fazla yeni bir
şey yoktur. Metafor teorileri hâlâ temel prensiplere göre ayrılmaktadır. Yani
“geçici ikâme” (substitution) ve “mukayese” (vergleich) teorileri temel kabul
edilip bunlara göre istikamet bulmaları sağlanmaktadır. Daha muteber ve yol
gösterici olan ise etkileşim teorisidir. Tasnifteki zorluğun temeli olan bu
“sınırlandırılamazlık” metaforun temel özelliklerindendir. Dolayısı ile yeni
bir teorinin yahut bakışın temel tavrı (1) tamirat ve tadilat yahut (2)
muhalefet ve tamirat şeklinde olacaktır. Paul Henle’nin metafor idraki çok fazla öne çıkmasa da ciddi
anlamda sağlam ve yorumlanmaya müsait bir kavramsal temele sahiptir. Bilhassa
benzetme esaslı kullanımların metaforik yapısının tetkikindeki “poetik”
kıymetin mikyas olarak öne çıkarılması bu bakışın temellerindendir. Konuyu
teorik bakımdan mukayese etmek yerine “gibi” edatını merkeze alarak misaller
üzerinden derinleştirmeye çalıştık. Böylece belirlenen misaller “geçici ikâme”
ve “mukayese” teorilerine göre “etkileşim teorisi”nin konumunu anlamaya da
yardımcı olacaktır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gibi edatı, Paul Henle, metafor, tahkiye

The analysis of Paul Henle's understanding of the metaphor in the context of using the preposition "like" in the style of the narrative

Öz

According to
Paul Henle, there is not much new to be said about the metaphor. Metaphor
theories are still divided by fundamental principles. In other words, the
theories of substitution and comparison (vergleich) are accepted as basic and
are provided to show directions. The more valid and guiding one is the theory
of interaction. This state of non-limitation, which is the basis of the
difficulty in the classification, is a key feature of the metaphor. Therefore,
the basic attitude of a new theory or view will be (1) repair and renovation or
in the form of (2) opposition and repair. Although Paul Henle's perception of metaphor is not
too prominent, it has a very stable and interpretable conceptual foundation.
Especially the highlighting of the poetic value as a benchmark in the analysis
of the metaphorical structures of comparison-based uses, is a basis of this
view. Instead of comparing the topic from a theoretical point of view, I have
tried to take the preposition “like” to the center and to deepen it with
examples. Thus, the particular examples will help to understand the state of
the interaction theory much better as compared to the substitution and
comparison theories.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Preposition like, Paul Henle, metaphor, narrative text

Kaynakça

• Aristoteles (1982/ 1994a): Poetik, Üb. Manfred Fuhrmann, Griechisch/ Deutsch, Reclam, Stuttgart.
• Aristoteles (1999): Rhetorik, Üb. u. Hg. Krapinger Gernot, Reclam.
• Austin, John Langshaw (1962): How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Deutsch (1972): Zur Theorie der Sprechakte, Stuttgart: Reclam)
• Black, Max ([1954]/1983): „Die Metapher“. In: Haverkamp, Anselm (ed.) (erste Ausg. 1954) (1983/1996); (1983): „Die Metapher“, In: Haverkamp, Anselm (Hg.): Theorie der Metapher, Darmstadt.
• Black, Max (1962): Models and Metaphors. Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Deutsch (1996): Die Metapher. Üb. Margit Smuda. In: Haverkamp, s. 55-79.
• Black, Max (1977/ 1996): „More about Metaphor“, in Dialectica 31 , 431-457; (Deutsch: Mehr über die Metapher, Üb. Margit Smuda, ln: Haverkamp 1996, s. 379-413).
• Blumenberg, Hans (1960/1996): „Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie“, Bonn: Bouvier. (Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 6), Einleitung und Kap. VI-VIII (s.7-11;69 [gekürzt]; s.84-105); (1996): In: Haverkamp, Anselm (Hg.), Theorie der Metapher, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, s.285-315.
• Blumenberg, Hans (1971): Beobachtungen an Metaphern , in: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, Vol. 15, s.161-214.
• Blumenberg, Hans (1979): Die Lesbarkeit der Welt, Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.
• Blumenberg, Hans (1979/ 1996): „Ausblick auf eine Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit“, Schiffbruch mit Zuschauer. Paradigma einer Daseinsmetapher. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 75-93; In: Haverkamp, Anselm (Hg.) Theorie der Metapher, s.438-454.
• Brooks, Cleanth (1947): The Well Wrought Um, New York, s. 181.
• Burke, Kenneth (1945): A Grammar of Motives, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
• Bühler, Karl (1927/1978): Die Krise der Psychologie. Berlin: Ullstein.
• Bühler, Karl (1934/1978): Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Berlin: Ullstein.
• Campbell, George (1859): Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York.
• Cohen, Morris R. (1946): A Preface to Logic.
• Cohen, Ted (1973): Illocutions and Perlocutions, in: Foundations of language 9/ 1972-1973, s.492-503.
• Cohen, Ted (1975): „Figurative Speech and Figurative Acts“. In: The Journal of Philosophy 71 (1975), s.669-684. = Johnson, Mark (ed.) (1981), s.182- 199. Üb: „Figurative Rede und figurative Akte“. In: Haverkamp, Anselm (ed.) (1998), s.29-48.
• Debatin, Bernhard (1995): Die Rationalität der Metapher. Eine sprachphilosophische und kommunikationstheoretische Untersuchung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Duman, M. Akif (2016): Dilde Belirsizlik ve Eş Anlamlılık, Istanbul: Litera.
• 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.
• Empson, William (1951): The Structure of Complex Words, London.
• Henle, Paul (1958/ 1975): “Metapher”, In Sprache, Denken, Kultur, Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp, s.235-63. Orig. (1958): In Language, Thought and Culture, ed. Paul
• Henle, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, s.173-195; (1996): in Haverkamp, Theorie der Metapher.
• Herschberger, Ruth (1943): The Structure of Metaphor, Kenyon Review 5.
• Homeros: Odyssee, XI.
• Keat, John (1817): “To Hope”, in Poems.
• Lausberg, Heinrich (1990): Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, Vorwort: Arnold Arens, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
• Murry, John Middleton (1931): Countries of the Mind, 2. Series, Oxford.
• Peirce, Charkes S. (1967-1970): Schriften I/ II, yay. Karl- Otto Apel, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, C.I, 157-231.
• Peirce, Charkes S. (1982): Writing of Charles Sanders Peirce. A Chronological Edition, ed. Max H. Fisch, Christian W. Kloesel vd., Bloomington: Indiana Unv. Şimdiye kadar bu seriden dört kitap yayınlandı: 1 (1857-1866), 2 (1867-1871), 3 (1872-1878) ve 4 (1879-1884).
• Peirce, Charles Sanders (1931-1935): Collected Papers, 8 Cilt, yay. C. Hartshorn ve P. Weiss, C.1-6, Cambridge: Harvard University Press; (1958): yay. Arthur W. Burks, The Belknap Press of Harvard Uni. Press.
• Peirce, Charles Sanders (1983): Phänomen und Logik des Zeichens, yay ve çev. Helmut Pape, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
• Peirce, Charles Sanders (1986/1990): Semiotische Schriften, (II Cilt), yay. C. Kloesel ve H. Pape, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Şimdi 3 cilt olarak basıldı. Kapsam şu şekilde: 1.Cilt: 1865-1903, 2.Cilt: 1903-1906, 3. Cilt: 1906-1913.
• Richards, Ivor A. (1936/ 1965): The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press. (l983/1996): „Die Metapher“. In: Haverkamp, An¬selm (ed.) Üb. Margit Smuda. In: Theorie der Metapher, S. 31-52.
• Shakespeare: Antonius und Kleopatra, II 2.
• Woolf, Virginia (1941): Between the Acts, New York, s.9; (1963): Zwischen den Akten, alm. Çev. Marlies und Herbert Herlitschka, Frankfurt.