Ricoeur, Gay, and Merleau-Ponty discuss the creative function of metaphoric language.

They
each believe that when used correctly that metaphor can add new meanings to the polysemy of a word
or phrase. By using this linguistic tool in a positive manner, Gay believes that we may have the ability to
alleviate certain forms of oppression. I would like to compare the different methods used by these
philosophers to create new meanings. Linguistic creativity is crucial to the formation of a non-oppressive
language. I will use Gays, Analogy and Metaphor to expand on positive creations of new meaning. The
meaning of a word/ phrase is partially contained in the ideological context the language is used in. With
the goal of alleviating oppression, this is very important when discussing new meanings in language
because we desire to avoid negative ideology that distorts our view of reality. In the proceeding
paragraphs, I will summarize the three philosophers conception of language and their understanding of
the origin of meaning.
Merleau-Ponty understands that the meaning in language does not arise from some
transcendent, metaphysical place outside of reality. He points out that in a particular word meaning
arises only in contrast to other words. Meaning is always limited by more language. (Merleau-Ponty,
Pg. 42) In other words, a sign only has meaning when contrasted to other signs. A pure or
metaphysical meaning does not exist for Merleau-Ponty. It is only within a set of context and
comparison that we can understand the significance of a particular sign. It is within language that our
thoughts take form. To reiterate his point about a transcendent meaning not existing, he explains that
humans would not form coherent thoughts if not for language. He means that out thinking and
formation of language occur simultaneously. Without a direct correlation between meaning and sign,
Merleau-Ponty believes that language is always allusive and incomplete. It is incomplete in the sense
that there are always new meanings that can be added to a statement. There is not simply one meaning
taken away from a sign; it has and is a multitude of differing meanings in relation to other signs.
Merleau-Ponty explains that thought is expressed and signified through language. Language allows itself
to be taken apart and reorganized in a manner that signifies human thought. (Merleau-Ponty Pg. 44) He
is attempting to make a connection between the objective and subjective nature of language. In other
words, he is pointing out that there are both objective and subjective qualities of language. The
subjective being the interjected thoughts and the objective is the actually used language.
Merleau-Ponty distinguishes between empirical language and creative language. Empirical
language is the already established and commonly used system of signs. Empirical language is only
possible by the use of creative language. The opportune recollection of already established use of a
sign is empirical speech. Authentic or creative speech, on the other hand, is using signs in a manner that
reflects most accurately the intended meaning or thought being expressed. It is the act of choosing what
to say and what to leave unspoken, that constitutes creative language. It is this premeditated choose of
signs that allows for meaning to be signified and expressed in a creative manner. Merleau-Ponty offers
different origin of meaning that is not found within the self-contained system of language, but is
interjected through human thought. Merleau-Ponty recognizes that many forms of communication are
successful apart from gesture and word. He focuses on the concept of inter-subjectivity to make the
point clear. Inter-subjectivity is a form of mutual understanding between two or more people through a
form of communication. Communication is a matter of selecting and deselecting which signs, words,
gestures to utilize with the purpose of most accurately expressing a persons thoughts. To explain inter-
subjectivity in philosophical terms, this is when a person expresses or communicates their subjective
thoughts in a manner that allows another being to understand and have partial access those thoughts.
Although this is not easily achieved, there are times when we believe that we have reached a state of
inter-subjectivity with another being. He describes language as silence; there is no embedded meaning
with simple signs. In other words, without the interjection of human thought, signs and language would
have no meaning; they would be as meaningful as silence. The meaning arises from the intention and
implication of the chosen organization and utilization of words. Our thoughts and subjective
consciousness utilize language as a method of expression.
Ricoeur also discusses the creative function of language. He uses Wilhelm Von Humboldts
quote that, language is an infinite use of finite means, to describe creative language. (Ricoeur, Word,
Polysemy, and Metaphor Pg.120) Ricoeur believes that with the utilization of metaphor as a creative
tool we can successfully add new meanings to the lexicon. Ricoeur begins his argument by distinguishing
between semiotic and semantic language. Semiotic sings are simply the individual entities in a given
system of language. In other words, these are syntactic rules contained within a syntactic system. Similar
to Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur believes that these signs are defined by their relationship in contrast to other
entities in the same system. He describes this system of semiotic signs as closed; the individual entities
are not defined by their relationship to any extra-linguistic qualities pertaining to reality. Humboldts
quote describes these semiotic signs as a finite means because there are a limited number of words,
signs, entities to choose from when formulating a sentence. The semantic is what constitutes the infinite
portion. There is an unlimited and infinite amount of meanings possible when constructing a sentence.
Ricoeur explains that using the finite semiotic system that we call language; we can develop an infinite
number of meanings. He calls semantic discourse, the event, which he believes is an open process
between the human mind and the world around us. He thinks that semantic discourse the practice of
expressing and giving form to the thoughts of our individual minds and the reality we share. The
sentence, in this way, has become open to the world; allowing for new possibilities of meaning. The
depths of individual fields of experience on the part of the speaker and the listener allows for subjective
interjection of meaning and personal significance. Ricoeur considers the word as the portion of the
sentence that creates reference to something in reality. It is here that he wishes to discuss polysemy, or
the coexistence of a multitude of possible meanings for a given word. He treats metaphor as creative
tool of polysemy. In his theory, metaphor works to preserve polysemy in an effective way. Metaphor is
the act of substituting a word in a given phrase for another word of personal choice. This substitution
allows for the interjection of meaning not normally thought about in the common understanding of
those words. Ricoeur states, The dynamics of metaphor consists in confusing the established logical
boundaries for the sake of detecting new similarities which previous categorization prevented our
noticing. In other words, the new use of the word in a metaphorical fashion can call attention to
similarities between two or more things not typically thought about as similar. This process extends the
logical boundaries of our understanding of words in relation to each other.
Dr. Gay critically analyzes Ricoeurs creative process of metaphorical language. He determines
that the creative function of metaphor can serve as a method of expanding our understanding of reality
or distorting it. When analyzing the creative and distortive forces of language, Gay believes that we
mush approach both metaphor and ideology in a comparative manner. To discuss metaphor or ideology
individually is a reductive method that does not account for the full range of distortive affects these
tools have on our reality. The two linguistic devises should be considered jointly because they share a
similar origin based in the, sometimes excessive, distortion of the way words shape our perception of
reality. Gay distinguishes between two types of distortion, namely, creative distortions and distortive
creations. He believes that we can distinguish between these positive and negative distortions of typical
perceptual associations. The difference between the two, lies within their ability to expand (enrich) or to
constrict (limit) our semiotic perceptual fields. In other words, creative distortions will add new
understandings of the meaning of signs while distortive creations will limit the understood meanings of
signs. The polysemy will be either expand upon or constricted depending on the type of distortion taking
place. The focus on metaphor alone, as a creative force, without recognizing that language is
ideologically charged, allows for a nave acceptance of distortive creations. Expanding on Ricouers idea
of the necessity of polysemy, Gay understands that metaphor can tear down typical understandings of a
word or sentence and create a new understanding of meaning that in turn, affect our perception and
reflection on reality. He explains that ideology can utilize metaphor in a perceptual manner as a tool for
distortion. Gay recognizes that some distortions of signs can appear to expand but actually limit our
perceptual awareness. He warns against adding new meanings into the polysemy that limit our
awareness, especially when these meanings are ideologically charged. He explains that metaphor, which
Ricoeur sees as the primary creative tool, is very often charged with negative ideology. On the other
hand, to assume that all ideology is a function of domination (negative distortion) without critically
assessing the specific cases would limit the possibility of positive ideology (Ricoeur). Gay desires to warn
us against the emphasis on metaphor alone as the creative and authentic instrument or on ideology as
strictly negatively distortive. He believes that with a comparative study of ideology and metaphor and
their impact on our semiotic-perceptual field, we can avoid these potential tribulations.
Gays critique of Ricoeurs theory is that he disregards distortive creations that work to
perpetuate pejorative ideologies. This is incredibly important when expanding the lexicon. I strive for
the elimination of oppression in our society. Although I may be over optimistic, I believe that Gays
model provides and adequate method of linguistic creativity that does not perpetuate oppression and
pejorative ideologies. If we can identify the negative, distortive, creations and their embedded
ideologies, a successful attack against oppression is possible. The difficult task to accomplish is actually
identifying the ideologies that perpetuate discrimination and domination. Once identified there is still
the mission to eliminate them from mainstream discourse. The listener and the speaker have a moral
obligation to deconstruct sentences, words, arguments, etc. even if initially they do not appear
oppressive in nature. Many negative ideologies are difficult to recognize especially for members of the
dominate class that experience very little oppressive forces.
With the combined ideas of Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, and Gay, we may be able to establish a
non-oppressive, creative tool, in language. Considering that language plays such a crucial role in our
perception and understanding of reality, it is important to be aware of the consequences of expanding
meaning in particular ways. I think it is important to emphasize the role of the listener of speech.
Although mentioned, I believe that listeners of speech also have a moral obligation to recognize
negative and distortive ideologies. To take it further I believe that, with the goal of alleviating forms of
oppression the listener interjects their own ideologies and worldviews when interpreting speech and
must recognize that. Similar to the way art and music may be interpreted in a multitude of ways; the
listener of speech also adds their own subjective understanding to the overall meaning. Eco describes
this process in art as open work. This happens when the intentions of the author or artist is completed
by the interpretation of the audience. Classical music is commonly used as a concrete example of open
work. Different artists have played the same pieces of music through history. Each new artist
reorganizes and changes the song in a particular fashion. Although the original form of this work is
preserved, each new interpretation of this song is an expansion of the possibilities of what could be
played.