“은유”의 의미에 대한 언어철학적 탐구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Nowadays, the theory of metaphor is highly encouraged by Davidson's philosophical vision. As a philosopher of communication, he condensed his theoretical interest on the principle of exchange of meaning and its practical effect. Davidson's vision is very radical and deconstructive one. In his view, metaphor is nothing but a gesture. It has not meaning, so cannot convey any cognitive information. This argument is somewhat understandable at his side, but it has some undefeatable faults.
If Davidson is right, metaphor must always be dead metaphor, and language can be discriminated into its meaning and use distinctively. But, metaphor is sometime active(ie., active metaphor), and language has no meaning that can be separated from its use.
Davidson endeavored to achieve a completed theory of metaphor, which represented his radical theory of language. But his argument is not perfect. In my view, his project was too logical and rational to anchor in our common language. His two aspects of language/meaning and use) and its exclusive application to the theory of metaphor ruins his whole theoretical construction. Metaphor is not so clear and distinct one. Its identity is very vague and ambiguous, because its position is on the boundary of our linguistic system. Metaphor is not one-dimensional thing. Its vagueness and ambiguity is not faults must be eliminated, it's a very nature of our metaphor.