Article/Publication Details
Views: 5602

PAUL RICŒUR
THE RULE OF METAPHOR. STUDY 7. METAPHOR AND REFERENCE

Abstract
The seventh study of the «Rule of Metaphor» deals with the problem of the reference of metaphoric statement. Poetic statements do not just constitute accentuating the message for its own sake. Far from being restricted to the emotive function, poetry also has a heuristic function which takes away the strong opposition between the internal and external, the subjective and objective. Metaphor re-describes reality and makes it possible to see it in a different way, «to see as...» Metaphor is based on the tension between two poles: «is» and «is not». Ricœur considers the nature of our phenomenological experiencing of the world in the language. He shows how the meaning emerges directly from our existence. The relationship between meaning, language and reality is the field of work of metaphor, in which we originally find ourselves. In this study Ricoeur takes up the question of reference on two different levels: semantic and hermeneutical ones. While the first presupposes the difference of semantics and semiology, the nature of predication, the second lets us shift from language to ontology and regard the problem as an ontological one. Here Ricœur addresses Frege's and Benveniste's theories of references, pointing the ideas they have in common. Approaching the hermeneutical research of reference, we face the necessity of postulating a special discursive entity, that is, the text. Concerning the discursive production Ricœur analyzes such categories as production and labor, disposition and codification, style and individuality, singularity. By considering the structure of the piece of work as its meaning and the world of the work as its denotation, hermeneutics regulates the transition from the structure to the world. Interpretation means revealing world, which the given work addresses, based on its composition, style and genre.

Key words
Reference, denotation, semantics, hermeneutics, poetic function, reality, metaphor, emotive function.

References

• Aristotel', (1983). Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Collected Works in Four Volumes. Volume 4]. Moscow: Mysl'. (in Russian).
• Bacon, F. (1935). Novyi Organon [Novum Organum]. Leningrad: OGIZ.
• Barfield, O. (1964). Poetic Diction: A Study in Meaning. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Beardsley, M. C. (1958). Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
• Benveniste, E. (1967). La forme et le sens dans le langage. In Le Langage, Acte du XIII Congrès des sociétés philosophiques de langue française (29–47). Neuchâtel: La Baconnière.
• Benveniste, E. (1974). Kategorii mysli i kategorii yazyka [Categories of thought and categories of language]. In Obshchaya Linguistika [General linguistics] (104–114). Moscow: Progress.
• Berggren, D. (1962). The Use and Abuse of Metaphor. Part 1. Review of Metaphysics, 16 (1), 237–258.
• Berggren, D. (1963). The Use and Abuse of Metaphor. Part 2. Review of Metaphysics, 16 (2), 450–472.
• Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Cohen, J. (1966). Structure du langage poétique. Paris: Flammarion.
• Dubois, J., Edeline, F., Klinkenberg, J. M., Minguet, P., Pire, F., & Trinon, H. (1970). Rhétorique générale. Paris: Larousse.
• Frege, G. (1977). Smysl i denotat [On sense and reference]. SiI, (8), 181–210. (in Russian).
• Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art, an Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.
• Granger, G. G. (1968). Essai d'une philosophie du style. Paris: Armand Colin.
• Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1953). The logic of explanation. In H. Feigl, M. Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (319–352). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Henry, A. (1971). Métonymie et Métaphore. Paris: Klincksieck.
• Hesse, M. B. (1965). The explanatory function of metaphor. In Y. Bar-Hillel (Ed.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (249–259). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
• Hester, M. B. (1967). The Meaning of Poetic Metaphor. Paris: Mouton.
• Jakobson, R. (1963). Results of the Conference of Anthropologists and Linguists. Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics, 19 (2), 554–567.
• Kassirer, E. (2001). Filosofia simvolicheskih form. Tom 1. Yazyk [The Philosophy of symbolical Forms. Vol. 1. Language]. Moscow-Saint-Petersburg: University Book Publ.
• Langer, S. (1953). Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
• Le Groupe μ: Dubois, J., Edeline, F., Klinkenberg, J. M., Minguet, P., Pire, F., & Trinon, H. (1970). Rhétorique générale. Paris: Larousse.
• Le Guern, M. (1973). Sémantique de la métaphore et de la métonymie. Paris: Larousse.
• Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses. Oakland: University of California Press.
• Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rétoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ricœur, P. (2008). De l'homme faillible à l'homme capable. Paris: PUF.
• Ruyer, R. (1955). L'expressivité. Revue de métaphisique et de morale, 1 (2), 69–100.
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Stanford, B. (1936). Greek Metaphor. In Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.
• Todorov, T. (1967). Littérature et Signification. Paris: Larousse.
• Toulmin, S. (1953). The Philosophy of Science. London: Hutchinson.
• Turbayne, C. M. (1962). The Myth of Metaphor. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Wheelwright, Ph. (1962). Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Wheelwright, Ph. (1968). The Burning Fountain. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Wimsatt, W. K. (1954). The Verbal Icon. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge.