MONROE C. BEARDSLEY’İN ABSÜRTLÜK TEORİSİ’NİN OĞUZ ATAY’IN “UNUTULAN” İSİMLİ HİKÂYESİNDEN MİSALLER İLE İZAHI

Metaforun “Absürtlük Teorisi” kapsamında bir hikâyeyi değerlendirmek, bilhassa metnin gerçeklik karşısında sorgulanmasını ve gerçeklik karşısında edindiği konumun kendi içinde oluşturduğu düzen çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesini gerekli kılar. Bir kelimenin toplum içi bir uzlaşmayla -o toplumun bütün fertleri için- tek bir anlama gelecek ve bu anlamın tamamını gösterecek şekilde bir manaya delâlet etmesi (lafzın vaz’î delâleti) ile başlayan metaforik süreç “mantıksal zıtlık” ve “kendi içinde çelişenlik” ile devam eder. Metaforun tanımı, uygunluk, tesadüfilik ve zaman gibi mevzular absürtlük için hemen daima bir muhalefet tavrı içinde yürür. Absürtlük teorisi bu bakımdan hakikat ve hakikat algısı ile sürekli bir hesaplaşma içindedir. 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.

EXPLANATION OF THETHEORY OF ABSURDITY BYMONROE C. BEARDSLEY WITHEXAMPLES FROM THE STORY"THE FORGOTTEN" BY OĞUZATAY

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 system versus reality. The metaphorical process which begins with a socially consensus on the meaning of a word – a word means the same for all individuals of a society – continues with “logical contrast” and “inner contradiction”. Subjects like the definition of metaphor, compatibility, randomness and time are always causing a opposition inside of absurdity. The theory of absurdity in this regard is in a conflict with reality and perception of 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.”

PDF

___

Aristoteles (1982/ 1994a). Poetik, çev. Manfred Fuhrmann, Griechisch/ Deutsch, Stuttgart: Reclam.
Aristoteles (1999). Rhetorik, çev. Krapinger Gernot, Stuttgart: Reclam.
Asch, Solomon E. (1955). On the Use of Metaphor in the Description of Persons, On Expressive Language, ed. H. Werner, Worcester.
Asch, Solomon E. (1958). The Metaphor: A Psychological Inquiry, Person, Perception, and Interpersonal Behaviour, edd. R. Tagiuri/L. Petrullo, Stanford.
Atay, Oğuz (1987). Korkuyu Beklerken (Hikâyeler), 2. Baskı, İstanbul: İletişim.
Austin, John Langshaw (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Deutsch (1972). Zur Theorie der Sprechakte, Stuttgart: Reclam)
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.
Beardsley, Monroe C. (1958). Aesthetics. Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace und World, s.114-147.
Bormann, Claus von (1993). Unglückliche Begegnungen. Gadamers philosophische Hermeneutik und Lacans psychoanalytische Theorie der Deutung, Abhandlung, im Dilthey-Jahrbuch 8/1992-93, s.11-56.
Brooks, Cleant (1947). The Well Wrought Um, New York 1947 [çev. Paradoxie im Gedicht - Zur Struktur der Lyrik (Frankfurt 1965), s.51].
Brown, Roger (1958). Words and Things, Glencoe/III, s.145-154.
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. Çev. “Figurative Rede und figurative Akte”. In: Haverkamp, Anselm (ed.) (1998), s.29- 48.
de Saussure, Ferdinand ([1916]/ 1995). Cours de linguistique générale, Grande bibliothèque Payot.
de Saussure, Ferdinand (1974). Cours de linguistique générale, Edition critique par R. Harrassowtitz, Wiesbaden: Engler.
de Saussure, Ferdinand (1982). Coins tie Linguist it tie Generale. Hg. v. Charles Bally/Albert Sechehaye. Kritische Ausgabe. ed. Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.
de Saussure, Ferdinand (2001). Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. ed. Charles Bally/Albert Sechehaye. çev. Herman Lommel. 3. Aufl. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Derrida, Jacques (1967/1974). Grammatologie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Duman, Mehmet Akif (2015). Sorites Paradox/ Yığın (Küme) Paradoksu, Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Yıl: 3 , Sayı: 12, Haziran, ss. 413-424.
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.
Eliot, T.S. (1953). Four Quartes, New York.
Hake, Günter; Grünreich, Dietmar und Meng, Liqiu (2002). Kartographie Visualisierung Raum-zeitlicher Informationen, Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.
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 Haverkamp, çev. Friedhelm Herborth (Kap. 5-7’yi,), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ss.80-105.
Hungerland, Isabel (1958). Poetic Discourse, Berkeley/ Los Angeles.
Kittay, Eva Feder (1987). Metaphor. Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kubczak, Hartmut (1978). Die Metapher. Beiträge zur Interpretation und semantischen Struktur der Metapher auf der Basis einer referentiellen Bedeutungsdefinition. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Kubczak, Hartmuth (1986). Metaphern und Metonymien als sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsgegenstände, in: ZfdPh 105, s.83-99.
Lacan, Jacques (1997a). “Metapher und Metonymie (I). Seine Garbe war nicht geizig, noch von Haß erfüllt”, In: Lacan, Jacques (1997), s.253-262.
Lyons, J. (1991). Bedeutungstheorien (Theories of Meaning). In: Stechow, Arnim von/ Wunderlich, Dieter (Hrsg.). Semantik/Semantics (HSK Bd. 6). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter , s. 1-24.
Martinich, A. P. (1984). “A Theory of Metaphor”. In: Journal of Literary Semantics 13, 35-56. Aynı yazı: Martinich, A. P. (ed.) (1985/1996). The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nemetz, Anthony (1958). Metaphor: The Daedalus of Discourse, Thought 33 (August 1958), s.417-442.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1999). “Kommentar zu Band 1-13”, Samtliche Werke Kristische Studienausgabe in 15 Banden (KGW), Bd. 1, Hg. Giorgi Colli, Mazzino Montinari, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag de Gruyter, “Wille zur Macht”, s. 383-400; “Menscliches, Allzumenschliches”, Samtliche Werke Kristische Studienausgabe in 15 Banden, Bd. 2, s.30-31; “Nachgelassene Schriften 1870- 1873”, Samtliche Werke Kristische Studienausgabe in 15 Banden, Bd. I, “Über Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne”, s. 875-890.
Pap, Arthur (1958). Semantics and Necessary Truth, New Haven.
Percy, Walker (1958). Metaphor as Mistake, Swanee Review 66 (Winter 1958), s.79-99.
Putnam, Hilary (1975). “The meaning of meaning”. In: Ders. (1975). Mind, Language, and Reality. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Cambridge: University Press, s.215-271.- çev. Die Bedeutung von ,Bedeutung'. Frankfurt a. M.: Vittorio Klostermann 1979. (PDF) (1996). in: The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam's The meaning of ‘meaning’, Ed.Andrew Pessin, Sanford Goldberg, Armonk u.a./ Sharpe, s.3-52.
Ransom, John Crove (1947a). II. The Final Cause, Kenyon Review 9, s. 640- 658
Ransom, John Crove (1947b). Poetry: I. The Formal Analysis, Kenyon Review 9, s.436-56.
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.
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.
Searle, John R. (1969). Speech Acts- An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. (1979/1982). “Metaphor”. In: Ders. (1979), Cambridge University Press, s.76-116, aynı yazı: 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.
Searle, John, R. (1987). Intentionalität. Eine Abhandlung zur Philosophie des Geistes, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Searle, John R. (2005a). Bilinç ve Dil, Istanbul: Litera Yayıncılık.
Searle, John R. (2005b). Söz Edimleri, Üb. Levent Aysever, Ankara: Ayraç Yayınları.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1976). “Translator’s Preface.” Of Grammatology, By Jacques Derrida. çev. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Stevens, Wallace (1955). The Motive for Metaphor”, Collected Poems, New York.
Taylor, Jeremy (1847). Of Holy Living II 3, in Works, ed. C. P. Eden, Vol. III, London.
Waismann, Friedrich (1945). Verifiability, Proceedings of the Anstotelian Society, Supplementary Vol. XIX, London, s.119-150.
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.
Weinrich, Harald (1976). Sprache in Texten. Stuttgart: Klett.
Weinrich, Harald (1980). “Metapher”. In: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Bd 5. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, s.1179-1186.
Wimsatt, William K. (1941). The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson, Ney Haven.
Wordsworth, William (1950). Notes Toward an Understanding of Poetry, Kenyon Review 12 (Sommer 1950), s.498-519.
Wright, Georg Henrik von (1951). A Treatise on Induction and Probability, London, ch. 6, § 2, und Pap, op. cit., chs. 5, 11.
Zemach, E. M. (1976). “Putnam's Theory on the Reference of Substance Terms”, Journal of Philosophy 73, s. 116-127