隱喻作為一種說話行動－色爾隱喻理論之批判研究

色爾的隱喻理論有兩大主張，首先，他認為使用隱喻就是透過語句的字面義，表達發言者的意思，隱喻義就是發言者的意思。以肯定式的隱喻為例，作為一種說話行動，它以語句「甲是乙」主張「甲是丙」其中「甲是乙」的真值條件不同於「甲是丙」。色爾主張，隱喻理論必然是理解隱喻理論，所謂理解隱喻，就是理解發言者所要言說的意義。其次，為了證成隱喻作為一種說話行動，色爾以間接說話行動的模式解釋隱喻的運作，認為隱喻和間接說話行動一樣，是一種字面義與發言者的意思分離的情形。本文認為色爾這兩項主張都不能成立，本文主張，隱喻義不是發言者的意思，而是隱喻語句的非字面義。我們可以使用隱喻語句執行任何種類的說話行動。

關鍵字

色爾；間接說話行動；隱喻

並列摘要

There are two dogmas in Searle's theory of metaphor. First, he takes metaphorical meaning as speaker's utterance meaning, which is arrived at by ＂going through＂ literal sentence meaning. The metaphorical meaning must be distinguished from sentence's meaning, or one will fail to distinguish them from literal ones. Take an example of assertive metaphor, a speaker utters a sentence ＂S is P＂ and means metaphorically ＂S is R＂, while the truth conditions of ＂S is P＂ is different from that of ＂S is R＂. Second, he classifies metaphor into the category of indirect speech act. Metaphor, like indirect speech act, the speaker's meaning comes apart from sentence's meaning. The present study will show that the both claims are unsound. Instead of approving Searle's account, we take metaphorical meaning as non-literal meaning of metaphorical sentences. We use metaphorical sentences performing various kinds of speech acts, including direct and indirect speech act.