مفهوم شناسي تطبيقي استعاره در غرب و بلاغت اسلامي

The Concept of Metaphor in the West and Islamic Rhetoric

تعریف استعاره در بلاغت اسلامی با نظریه‌های استعاره در غرب شباهت‌هایی دارد. با این‌ حال، به صرف وجود شباهت نمی‌توان گفت كه همان نظریۀ سنتی می‌تواند امروزه نیز كارایی خود را داشته باشد و دیگر نیازی به بازاندیشی در تعریف سنتی و ارائۀ تعاریف نو نیست. چنین رویكردی قطعاً راه به‌جایی نخواهد برد و به ایجاد دیدگاهی نو منتج نخواهد شد. نتیجۀ این‌گونه تلاش‌ها محصور كردن استعاره در حوزۀ بلاغت و لفظ خواهد بود. در غرب استعاره دیگر خاص شعر و ادبیات و ابزاری برای آراستن كلام نیست، بلكه استعاره¬ها به حوزۀ اندیشه و شناخت وارد شده‌ و در مركز تفكر بشری قرار گرفته‌اند. همچنین استعاره در غرب از چشم اندازهای مختلفی مانند زبان‌شناسی، فلسفه، روان‌شناسی و غیره مطالعه و در بسیاری از علوم به كار گرفته شده است. این مقاله بر آن است تا ضمن ارائۀ سیر تطور تاریخی مفهوم استعاره در بلاغت اسلامی و در غرب، معایب و مزایای بررسی تطبیقی استعاره را نیز بیان كند.

1. Introduction Metaphor definition in Islamic rhetoric has similarities with the theories of metaphor in the West. These similarities do not mean that the traditional definition still works so that rethinking of definition and providing new definitions is not necessary anymore. Such an approach certainly will not be promising. The result of these efforts will enclose metaphor in the realm of rhetoric and word. In the West metaphor is not only limited to poetry and literature and is not a tool for garnishing the words but also it has been imported to the realm of thought and knowledge and is placed at the center of human thinking. Moreover, in the West metaphors have been studied from various points of views such as linguistics, philosophy, psychology, etc. and are used in many sciences. This paper aims at presenting the historical evolution of the concept of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric and in the West along with highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the comparative analysis of metaphor. 2. Methodology This study is relied on the descriptive analysis by using library research and taking advantage of the resources available in a qualitative approach. The present investigation tries to deal with the following questions: 1. How is the historical evolution of the concept of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric and in the West? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of comparative analysis of metaphor? 3. What are the similarities and differences between metaphor definition in Islamic rhetoric and in the West? 3. Results and Discussion In general, there is a definite definition for each device in Islamic rhetorical tradition and this definition has been almost constant in the course of its history. For example, considering all proposed definitions of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric, a comprehensive definition of it can be gained. Most of our rhetoricians’ have endeavored to classify metaphors while they have focused on its beauty. Besides, most measures they have done were about the structure and production process and understanding of metaphor, accordingly. On account of comparing the disparate metaphor definitions, it should be noticed that rhetoric in Iranian and Islamic definitions are bound to one type of trope literature (the use of figurative language). However, the west definition of metaphor is boarder and more inclusive of different types of tropes, metonymy, and irony. Perhaps, this is due to the long-standing interest of Persian rhetoricians in creating more categories of the rhetorical devices. In the West, metaphor has transcended the restrictions of words and rhetoric by entering into the realm of thought and understanding. There are different theories of metaphor in the West, while in Islamic rhetoric we can offer a fairly comprehensive definition for all the proposed definitions on metaphor. Through the comparative analysis, novel ideas in the works of Islamic rhetoric can be achieved. There are similarities between theories of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric and the West. For example, Jurjani asserts that metaphors are more than a simple simile and max black to be reduced to the corresponding simile. Seemingly, Jurjani’s approach adheres somewhat to the theory of conceptualist. Sakkaki’s view has something in common with Donald Davidson. Subtle points like these may be revealed in reading the works of our classic rhetoricians, however, the mere existence of such similarities cannot provide a comprehensive comparative review. So, what should be considered is a critical review of metaphor theory in Islamic rhetoric, while trying to find novel ideas leading to the creation of new theories.