Filozofia antyczna wobec problemu interpretacji. Rozwój alegorezy od przedsokratyków do Arystotelesa

The present work examines the beginnings of ancient hermeneutics. More specifically, it discusses the connection between the rise of the practice of allegoresis, on the one hand, and the emergence of the first theory of figurative language, on the other. Thus, this book investigates the specific historical and cultural circumstances that enabled the ancient Greeks not only to discover the possibility of allegorical interpretation, but also to treat figurative language as a philosophical problem. By posing difficulties in understanding the enigmatic sense of various esoteric doctrines, poems, oracles and riddles, figurative language created the context for theoretical reflection on the meaning of these “messages”. Hence, ancient interpreters began to ponder over the nature and functions of figurative (“enigmatic”) language as well as over the techniques of its proper use and interpretation. Although the practice of allegorical interpretation was closely linked to the development of the whole of ancient philosophy, the present work covers only the period from the 6th to the 4th century B.C. It concentrates, then, on the philosophical and cultural consequences of allegoresis in the classical age. The main thesis advocated here has it that the ancient Greeks were in-clined to regard allegory as a cognitive problem rather than merely as a stylistic or a literary one. When searching for the hidden meanings of various esoteric doc-trines, poems, oracles and riddles, ancient interpreters of these “messages” assumed allegory to be the only tool suitable for articulating certain matters. In other words, it was their belief that the use of figurative language resulted from the necessity of expressing things that were otherwise inexpressible. The present work has been organized in the following manner. The first part contains historical and philological discussions that provide the point of departure for more philosophical considerations. This part consists of two introductory chapters. Chapter one situates the practice of allegorical interpretation at the borderline of two different traditions: the rhetorical-grammatical and the hermeneutical. In order to clearly differentiate between the two, chapter one distinguishes between allegory and allegoresis, on the one hand, and allegoresis and exegesis, on the other. While pointing to the conventionality (and even arbitrariness) of such distinctions, the chapter argues, nevertheless, for their heuristic usefulness. The remaining part of chapter one focuses on a historical and philological reconstruction of the most important conceptual tools of ancient hermeneutics. Discussing the semantics of such terms as allēgoría, hypónoia, ainigma and symbolon proves important for at least two crucial reasons. Firstly, it reveals the mutual affinity between allegoresis and divination, i.e., practices that are inherently connected with the need to discover the latent meaning of the “message” in question (whether poem or oracle). Secondly, these philological analyses bring to light the specificity of the ancient understanding of such concepts as allegory or symbol. It goes without saying that antiquity employed these terms in a manner quite disparate from modernity. Chapter one concludes with a discussion of ancient views on the cognitive value of figurative (“enigmatic”) language. Chapter two focuses on the role that allegoresis played in the process of transforming mythos into logos. It is suggested here that it was the practice of allegorical interpretation that made it possible to preserve the traditional myths as an important point of reference for the whole of ancient philosophy. Thus, chapter two argues that the existence of a clear opposition between mythos into logos in Preplatonic philosophy is highly questionable in light of the indisputable fact that the Presocratics, Sophists and Cynics were profoundly convinced about the cognitive value of mythos (this conviction was also shared by Plato and Aristotle, but their attitude towards myth was more complex). Consequently, chapter two argues that in Preplatonic philosophy, myth played a function analogous to the concepts discussed in chapter one (i.e., hidden meanings, enigmas and symbols), for in all these cases, ancient interpreters found tools for conveying issues that were otherwise difficult to convey. Chapter two concludes with a classification of various types of allegoresis. Whilst chapters one and two serve as a historical and philological introduction, the second part of this book concentrates on the close relationship between the development of allegoresis, on the one hand, and the flowering of philosophy, on the other. Thus, chapter three discusses the crucial role that allegorical interpretation came to play in Preplatonic philosophy, chapter four deals with Plato’s highly complex and ambivalent attitude to allegoresis, and chapter five has been devoted to Aristotle’s original approach to the practice of allegorical interpretation. It is evident that allegoresis was of paramount importance for the ancient thinkers, irrespective of whether they would value it positively (Preplatonic philosophers and Aristotle) or negatively (Plato). Beginning with the 6th century B.C., the ancient practice of allegorical interpretation is motivated by two distinct interests. On the one hand, the practice of allegorical interpretation reflects the more or less “conservative” attachment to the authority of the poet (whether Homer, Hesiod or Orpheus). The purpose of this apologetic allegoresis is to exonerate poetry from the charges leveled at it by the first philosophers and, though to a lesser degree, historians. Generally, these allegorists seek to save the traditional paideia that builds on the works of the poets. On the other hand, the practice of allegorical interpretation reflects also the more or less “progressive” desire to make original use of the authority of the poet (whether Homer, Hesiod or Orpheus) so as to promote a given philosophical doctrine. The objective of this instrumental allegoresis is to exculpate philosophy from the accusations brought against it by the more conservative circles. Needless to say, these allegorists significantly contribute to the process of the gradual replacing of the mythical view of the world with its more philosophical explanation. The present book suggests that it is the philosophy of Aristotle that should be regarded as a sort of acme in the development of ancient hermeneutics. The reasons for this are twofold. On the one hand, the Stagirite positively values the practice of allegoresis, rehabilitating, thus, the tradition of Preplatonic philosophy against Plato. And, on the other hand, Aristotle initiates the theoretical reflection on figurative (“enigmatic”) language. Hence, in Aristotle we encounter not only the practice of allegoresis, but also the theory of allegory (although the philosopher does not use the term allēgoría). With the situation being as it is, the significance of Aristotle’s work cannot be overestimated. First of all, the Stagirite introduces the concept of metaphor into the then philosophical considerations. From that moment onwards, the phenomenon of figurative language becomes an important philosophical issue. After Aristo-tle, the preponderance of thinkers would feel obliged to specify the rules for the appropriate use of figurative language and the techniques of its correct interpretation. Furthermore, Aristotle ascribes to metaphor (and to various other “excellent” sayings) the function of increasing and enhancing our knowledge. Thus, according to the Stagirite, figurative language is not only an ornamental device, but it can also have a significant explanatory power. Finally, Aristotle observes that figurative expressions cause words to become ambiguous. In this context, the philosopher notices that ambiguity can enrich the language of a poet, but it can also hinder a dialectical discussion. Accordingly, Aristotle is inclined to value polysemy either positively or negatively. Importantly, however, the Stagirite is perfectly aware of the fact that in natural languages ambiguity is unavoidable. This is why Aristotle initiates a syste-matic reflection on the phenomenon of ambiguity and distinguishes its various kinds. In Aristotle, ambiguity is, then, both a problem that needs to be identified and a tool that can help in elucidating intricate philosophical issues. This unique approach to ambiguity and figurative (“enigmatic”) language enabled Aristotle to formulate invaluable intuitions that still await appropriate recognition.

The principle of least effort within the hierarchy of linguistic preferences: external evidence from English

The thesis is an investigation of the principle of least effort (Zipf 1949 [1972]). The principle is simple (all effort should be least) and universal (it governs the totality of human behavior). Since the principle is also functional, the thesis adopts a functional theory of language as its theoretical framework, i.e. Natural Linguistics. The explanatory system of Natural Linguistics posits that higher principles govern preferences, which, in turn, manifest themselves as concrete, specific processes in a given language. Therefore, the thesis’ aim is to investigate the principle of least effort on the basis of external evidence from English. The investigation falls into the three following strands: the investigation of the principle itself, the investigation of its application in articulatory effort and the investigation of its application in phonological processes. The structure of the thesis reflects the division of its broad aims. The first part of the thesis presents its theoretical background (Chapter One and Chapter Two), the second part of the thesis deals with application of least effort in articulatory effort (Chapter Three and Chapter Four), whereas the third part discusses the principle of least effort in phonological processes (Chapter Five and Chapter Six). Chapter One serves as an introduction, examining various aspects of the principle of least effort such as its history, literature, operation and motivation. It overviews various names which denote least effort, explains the origins of the principle and reviews the literature devoted to the principle of least effort in a chronological order. The chapter also discusses the nature and operation of the principle, providing numerous examples of the principle at work. It emphasizes the universal character of the principle from the linguistic field (low-level phonetic processes and language universals) and the non-linguistic ones (physics, biology, psychology and cognitive sciences), proving that the principle governs human behavior and choices. Chapter Two provides the theoretical background of the thesis in terms of its theoretical framework and discusses the terms used in the thesis’ title, i.e. hierarchy and preference. It justifies the selection of Natural Linguistics as the thesis’ theoretical framework by outlining its major assumptions and demonstrating its explanatory power. As far as the concepts of hierarchy and preference are concerned, the chapter provides their definitions and reviews their various understandings via decision theories and linguistic preference-based theories. Since the thesis investigates the principle of least effort in language and speech, Chapter Three considers the articulatory aspect of effort. It reviews the notion of easy and difficult sounds and discusses the concept of articulatory effort, overviewing its literature as well as various understandings in a chronological fashion. The chapter also presents the concept of articulatory gestures within the framework of Articulatory Phonology. The thesis’ aim is to investigate the principle of least effort on the basis of external evidence, therefore Chapters Four and Six provide evidence in terms of three experiments, text message studies (Chapter Four) and phonological processes in English (Chapter Six). Chapter Four contains evidence for the principle of least effort in articulation on the basis of experiments. It describes the experiments in terms of their predictions and methodology. In particular, it discusses the adopted measure of effort established by means of the effort parameters as well as their status. The statistical methods of the experiments are also clarified. The chapter reports on the results of the experiments, presenting them in a graphical way and discusses their relation to the tested predictions. Chapter Four establishes a hierarchy of speakers’ preferences with reference to articulatory effort (Figures 30, 31). The thesis investigates the principle of least effort in phonological processes, thus Chapter Five is devoted to the discussion of phonological processes in Natural Phonology. The chapter explains the general nature and motivation of processes as well as the development of processes in child language. It also discusses the organization of processes in terms of their typology as well as the order in which processes apply. The chapter characterizes the semantic properties of processes and overviews Luschützky’s (1997) contribution to NP with respect to processes in terms of their typology and incorporation of articulatory gestures in the concept of a process. Chapter Six investigates phonological processes. In particular, it identifies the issues of lenition/fortition definition and process typology by presenting the current approaches to process definitions and their typology. Since the chapter concludes that no coherent definition of lenition/fortition exists, it develops alternative lenition/fortition definitions. The chapter also revises the typology of phonological processes under effort management, which is an extended version of the principle of least effort. Chapter Seven concludes the thesis with a list of the concepts discussed in the thesis, enumerates the proposals made by the thesis in discussing the concepts and presents some questions for future research which have emerged in the course of investigation. The chapter also specifies the extent to which the investigation of the principle of least effort is a meaningful contribution to phonology.