Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
AND
BINGJUN YANG
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Southwest University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University
(Accepted 4 January 2014)
346
Q. He and B. Yang
By what grammatical steps does such a progression of form take place? And under
what conditions? This may be best explained by grammatical metaphor. Grammatical
metaphor is a theory that offers an account of how such variants of choice have
developed over the three histories of text: over the diachronic development of a
language; over the development of options from childhood to maturity; and over the
accumulation of complexity in the development of the text itself. Grammatical
metaphor in the Hallidayan sense is the recoupling of meaning at the lexicogrammatical stratum. From the perspective of language evolution, the recoupling is
unidirectional. As is pointed out in Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 646), the
general tendency for ideational metaphor is to downgrade the domain of
grammatical realization of a semantic sequence, figure or elementfrom clause
nexus to clause, from clause to group/phrase, and even from group or phase to word
while the general tendency is for interpersonal metaphor to upgrade the domain of
grammatical realization from group rank to clause rank.
However, in recent years, some systemicists began to question the unidirectional
nature of grammatical metaphor and proposed bidirectionality of metaphorical
process. For example, Hu (1996) holds that ideational metaphor can be realized not
only as nominalization of verbs but also as verbalization of nouns. Liu (2005) agrees
on the bidirectional view, but proposes that the transfer direction in interpersonal
metaphor be in reverse to that in ideational metaphor. Lin and Yang (2010) believe
that the semantic mapping and the transfer from the congruent expression to its
metaphorical counterpart are unidirectional from a diachronic perspective, but
bidirectional from a synchronic perspective. The corresponding transfers of other
constituents resulting from such reverse transfers have not been explained in these
studies, e.g. grammatical metaphor syndrome, so these studies are not sufficient to
negate the unidirectionality of recoupling of meaning at the lexicogrammatical
stratum in grammatical metaphor.
The purpose of this article is therefore to address the transfer directions of
grammatical metaphor within the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL). The research question is: whether there is any possibility that
bidirectional transfer could occur in or across the three types of grammatical
metaphor. For this purpose, we shall first offer a sketch of grammatical metaphor.
Then we will explain the interactions between the form and the meaning of language
from two transfer dimensions, followed by a discussion of the transfer directions of
three types of grammatical metaphor. And finally we will look into the relationships
of transfer directions of grammatical metaphor.
The two finite clauses the driver drove the bus too rapidly down the hill and the brakes
failed in example (2a) are both rank-shifted into nominal groups the drivers
overrapid downhill driving of the bus and brake failure in example (2b), and the
conjunction group so verbalized into result in. In the process of nominalization and
verbalization, other lexicogrammatical items are also transcategorized respectively.
The nominal groups the driver, the bus, the adverbial group too fast and the
prepositional phrase down the hill functioning as Actor, Goal, Manner and Location
respectively in the first clause in example (2a), are transcategorized into nominal
groups the drivers, the bus, adjectives overrapid and downhill functioning as
Possessive Deictic, Qualifier, Epithet and Classifier respectively in example (2b),
and the nominal group the brakes functioning as Actor in the second clause in
example (2a) is transcategorized into the nominal group brakes functioning as
Classifier in example (2b). In other words, ideational metaphor is realized through
nominalization, verbalization and transcategorization.
Interpersonal function is realized in the systems of modality and mood, and
interpersonal metaphor can occur in both of the two systems. In the system of
modality, four types of modality are distinguished, i.e. probability, usuality, obligation
and inclination, each of which is realized in four semantic domains, i.e. subjective,
objective, implicit and explicit. Metaphor of modality occurs when the speakers
opinion regarding the probability that his observation is valid is coded not as a modal
element within the clause, which would be its congruent realization, but as a separate,
projecting clause in a hypotactic clause complex (Halliday 1994: 354). That is, in the
four semantic domains of modality, explicit objective modality is essentially
metaphorical (Thompson 1996: 172); see examples (3)(5):
348
Q. He and B. Yang
(3) a. There cant be many candlestick-makers left. (Halliday 1994: 357)
b. It is impossible that there are many candlestick-makers left.
(4) a. It will change right there in front of your eyes. (Halliday 1994: 357)
b. Its usual for it to change right there in front of your eyes.
(5) a. The roads should pay for themselves. (Halliday 1994: 357)
b. Its expected that the roads pay for themselves.
The modality types of probability, usuality and obligation in examples (3a), (4a) and
(5a) respectively are implicit and subjective orientation realized by modal elements
within clauses, and those in examples (3b), (4b) and (5b) are explicit and objective
orientation realized by projecting clauses in hypotactic clause complexes of
projection. Therefore, examples (3b), (4b) and (5b) are metaphors of modality of
examples (3a), (4a) and (5a) respectively.
In the system of mood, the two fundamental types of speech roles are giving and
demanding, and the commodities exchanged are goods-&-services or information.
These two variables, when taken together, define the four primary speech functions of
offer, command, statement and question (Halliday 1994: 69). The four speech functions
can be realized by three types of mood congruently, i.e. declarative, interrogative and
imperative. The speaker can also select other types of mood to realize the speech
functions, that is, transcategorization, hence metaphor of mood occurring. For example:
(6) I want you to have a bit more of the rice, Dano. (Halliday & Matthiessen
2004: 627)
In example (6), the mood of declaration metaphorically realizes the speech function
of command. The congruent realization may be Have a bit more of the rice, Dano!
2.2. Textual Metaphor
Halliday has never mentioned the concept of textual metaphor, so it is debatable
whether the label textual metaphor is really justified (Thompson 1996: 176).
Systemicists like Martin (1992, 1993) and Thompson (1996) believe that textual
metaphor should be included in the study of grammatical metaphor. Certain
discourse elements organize text rather than field, which include meta-message
relation, text reference, negotiating text and internal conjunction, all of which are
text-organizing pro-forms (Martin 1992: 416417). For example, we have that point,
a number of reasons, for example, next, let me begin by etc. These forms can be
regarded as textual metaphor. Textual metaphor is further grouped into metaphorical
Themes and metaphorical News by Martin (1993: 241243). Thompson (1996) takes
thematic equatives and the predicated Theme constructions as textual metaphor.
Besides, five types of textual metaphor are proposed by Lassen (2003a: 43, 2003b:
283): compound nouns, passive voice, reference, non-finite clause and ellipsis.
Within the subcategory of non-finite clause, Yang (2003) argues that non-finite
clauses without conjunctions may be one type of textual metaphor. The four types of
textual metaphor proposed by He (2013) is also centred around non-finiteness:
elaborative non-finite clauses; extensive and enhancing non-finite clauses without
relators; extensive and enhancing non-finite clauses with prepositions as relators; and
enhancing non-finite clauses with prepositionalized non-finite verbs.
However, disagreements arise among systemicists on textual metaphor. Ravelli
(2003) does not accept the text-organizing types of textual metaphor, and holds that
if so, a number of abstract items, such as fact would be netted in to the definition
(Ravelli 2003: 57). Martin (1997: 339) himself distinguishes abstract items from
grammatical metaphor and believes that abstract nouns like fact are not grammatical
metaphors. Huang disagrees with Thompson in treating thematic equatives and the
predicated Theme constructions as textual metaphor, because the presence of
metaphor can be recognised not only by the need for a double analysis of the two
thematic structures but also by the need for a double transitivity analysis (Huang
2002: 4041).
Before we discuss transfer directions in grammatical metaphor, it is necessary to
introduce transfer dimensions between language strata and across grammatical
categories.
3. Language Strata and Grammatical Categories: Transfer Dimensions
As for the relationship between language form and meaning, SFL focuses on the
realization of meaning (semantics) at the stratum of form (lexicogrammar), so the
study of SFL is a top-down activity. Here the top-down is represented from two
aspects. One is from language strata (semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology) and
the other is from rank scale (clause, phrase/group, word and morpheme). The
recoupling of meaning at the lexicogrammatical stratum can be taken as the transfer
between language strata and that across grammatical categories.
3.1. Transfer between Language Strata
The meaning of language, within its evolution process, is construed as the congruent
form at the lexicogrammatical stratum, and then the meaning is rearranged at the
lexicogrammatical stratum through rank-shift or transcategorization as metaphorical
form, which in turn creates new additional meanings. This process is linear in
direction and grammatical metaphor occurs at the stage of transfer from the semantic
stratum to the lexicogrammatical stratum. From a diachronic perspective, the
congruent form always occurs prior to the metaphorical form. In the early stages of
childrens language development, the language contains only two levels: the
expression level and the content level, hence no grammatical metaphors.
From the moment when the content plane became deconstrued into the two strata
of semantics and lexicogrammar, any relationship of form and meaning can be
350
Q. He and B. Yang
decoupled and replaced by a new cross-coupling in which the meaning is now
represented by a different form. (Halliday 1998/2004b: xxiii-xxiv)
352
Q. He and B. Yang
realizing sequence in example (7d) is transferred into a clause, with both finite clauses
shifting into non-finite clauses. The non-finite clauses realize both figure and
participant, hence grammatical metaphor occurring, and the conjunction group
realizing relator is verbalized into leads to, realizing both relator and process. In
example (7e), the two non-finite clauses are both rank-shifted into nominal groups
with non-finite verbs as Head. In example (7f), the two non-finite verbs are further
rank-shifted into mass nouns, which are rank-shifted into countable nouns in
example (7g). The verbal group realizing the logico-semantic relation is nominalized
into Thing, functioning as participant in the relational clause in example (7h). The
relational clause is rank-shifted into a nominal group in example (7i). Therefore,
from example (7a) to example (7i), the two cohesively linked independent clauses are
rank-shifted step by step into a nominal group. This process is a unidirectionally
downward rank-shift.
At the same time, the rank-shift in grammatical categories involves a shift in
metafunctions: textual logical logical + experiential experiential. Here the
meaning of expansion changes with the shift of metafunctional manifestations. The
manifestation of cause changes from rhetorical relation in example (7a) (textual:
consequently) via logico-semantic relation in examples (7b) and (7c) (logical: so,
because) to process in examples (7d)(7g) (logical + experiential: lead to, cause).
Again, the manifestation of cause changes from logico-semantic relation in examples
(7b) and (7c) to relational process in example (7h) (experiential: is) and participant in
example (7i). It thus becomes clear that the shift between metafunctions is also
unidirectional.
4.2. Transfer Direction in Interpersonal Metaphor
The metaphor of modality at the semantic level is manifested as the transfer of the
opinion of the speaker from the subjective category to the objective category and
from the implicit category to the explicit category, that is, to objectify and clarify the
implicit modal meaning in the modal element. These semantic categories are realized
by modal verbs, modal adverbs or prepositions, subjective projecting clauses and
objective projecting clauses. See (8) for example:
(8) a. Tom must be a student. (implicit, subjective)
b. Tom is probably a student. (implicit, objective)
c. I think Tom is a student. (explicit, subjective)
d. It is likely that Tom is a student. (explicit, objective)
The transcategorization at the semantic stratum from the implicit subjective category
to the implicit objective category and that from the explicit subjective category to the
explicit objective category are realized by the transcategorization at the lexicogrammatical stratum. That is, transcategorization from modal verbs to modal adverbs or
prepositional phrases and that from subjective projecting clauses to objective
projecting clauses. The transcategorization at the semantic stratum from the implicit
subjective category is realized by the transcategorization at the lexicogrammatical
stratum from modal verbs to subjective projecting clauses, and the transcategorization at the semantic stratum from the implicit objective category to the explicit
objective category is realized by the transcategorization at the lexicogrammatical
stratum from modal adverbs to objective projecting clauses. Although the explicit
modal elements are separated from the proposition and constitute clause complexes
of the projection type, neither of the two transfers involves rank-shift. The reasons are
as follows:
First, the dominant component of a clause is the verbal group, which determines
the rank status of a clause. In a clause with a modal verb being the finite, the modal
verb determines the rank status of the clause. The transcategorization of the modal
verb to the subjective projecting clause will not lead to the shift of rank. Rank-shift
does not occur in the transcategorization from the modal verb must to the modal
adverb probably.
Second, the modal projecting clauses are not the direct result of rank-shift from
modal verbs or modal adverbs, because there is no formal similarity between them.
Grammatical metaphor occurs only when there is similarity in form between the
congruent form and the metaphorical form (Zhang & Zhao 2008: 29). In other
words, the metaphorical form is directly transferred from the congruent form. There
is no formal similarity between it is likely and probably although they are not at the
same rank. The same is true for must and probably.
The concept of upgrade or downgrade is not the same as that of rank-shift. The
former refers mainly to the change of scale of a language unit, while the latter only to
the shift of rank in the Hallidayan sense. For example, we can downgrade but not
rank-shift a clause complex into a clause since clause is the highest rank at the
lexicogrammatical stratum. When we say the metaphoric strategy is to upgrade the
interpersonal assessment from group rank to clause rank (Halliday & Matthiessen
2004: 626), it does not mean at all that interpersonal metaphor (of modality) occurs
from upward rank-shift.
Therefore, the metaphors of modality are the result not of rank-shift, but of
transcategorization of modal elements from the unmarked form to the marked
form(s)from modal verbs to modal adverbs or modal prepositional groups and
finally to subjective and objective projecting clauses. This transcategorization is
unidirectional.
The metaphor of mood is also the result of transcategorization. The lexicogrammatical categories for proposals are realized as propositions in the metaphors of
mood. See (9) for example:
(9) a. Close the door!
b. Can you close the door?
c. Id like you to close the door.
354
Q. He and B. Yang
In example (9a) the imperative clause realizing the speech function of command is
congruent in mood. In examples (9b) and (9c), the same speech function is realized
by interrogative and declarative clauses respectively. The transcategorized mood types
are marked, so the metaphor of mood occurs. The metaphor of mood can be seen as
a shift of mood from one domain to another (Chang 2001: 7). The transcategorization from the unmarked mood choice to the marked mood choice(s) is the rationale
of the metaphor of mood. This transcategorization is unidirectional.
4.3. Transfer Direction in Textual Metaphor
We would like to take textual metaphor types by Lassen (2003a) as examples here for
the discussion of transfer direction in textual metaphor. Textual metaphor types
proposed by Lassen include compound nouns, passive voice, reference, non-finite
clause and ellipsis. See Lassens examples in (10)(14) (Lassen 2003a: 44):
(10) a. Straw walker rear shaft.
b. (the) rear shaft (which is) (on the) walker (which moves the) straw.
(11) a. The grain is moved to the front of the top sieve.
b. (A mechanism) moves the grain to the front of the top sieve.
(12) Connect (the) pipes to (the) cylinder.
(13) a. Operate the valve, checking for continuous flow.
b. Operate the valve and check for continuous flow.
c. Operate the valve while (you) check for continuous flow.
(14) Cleaning shoe drive belt (is) slipping.
In example (15a), the Subject, the Senser and the Theme of the second clause overlap,
hence an unmarked thematic structure. The it refers back to the silver in the first
clause, hence an unmarked cohesive structure. The pronoun it functions as the given
information, hence an unmarked information structure. In example (15b), the Theme
does not overlap with the Subject and the Senser, hence a marked thematic structure,
and so thematic metaphor occurs. The love in the second clause is the New
information placed at the position of the Given information, hence a marked
information structure, and so information metaphor occurs. These reorganizations at
the lexicogrammatical stratum do not involve rank-shifts required in ideational
metaphor. They are transcategorizations within textual metafunction, so we have
textual metaphor here. The transcategorization from unmarked structure to marked
structure is the rationale for thematic metaphor and information metaphor. This
transcategorization is unidirectional.
Similarly, the logico-semantic relation can be metaphorically realized by various
means of linking, to make the cohesive structure marked. For example, in a clause
complex consisting of a finite clause and a non-finite clause, there may be different
linkers realizing the function of relator:
(16) a. If the work is not
b. Without the work being completed, you wont get away.
c. The work not being
The finite subordinate clause in example (16a) is linked by conjunction if, realizing
the relation of condition. In example (16b), the subordinate clause is non-finite, the
preposition without realizing the double functions of minor process and relator,
hence cohesive metaphor. There is no conjunction in example (16c), and the logicosemantic relation is realized as certain mental representation (Lassen 2003a), hence
cohesive metaphor. Therefore, the transcategorization of the realization forms of the
logico-semantic relation in a clause complex from conjunction through preposition to
zero linker is unidirectional.
356
Q. He and B. Yang
c. Arriving at
d. On arrival at
The subordinate temporal clause in example (17a) is finite, and those in examples
(17b) and (17c) non-finite. In the cline of rank from finite clause to nominal group,
the non-finite verb is lower than the finite verb in rank, hence ideational metaphor.
At the same time, there is no conjunction linking the non-finite dependent clause and
the finite dominant clause (for the criteria of non-finite clause identification, see Yang
(2004)). The transcategorization from conjunction to zero linker results in the
creation of textual metaphor. Example (17c) is both ideational metaphor and textual
metaphor of example (17a), and the rank-shift in ideational metaphor and the
transcategorization in textual metaphor are consistent in terms of transfer direction.
It is the preposition that realizes relator in example (17d), and the non-finite clause is
further rank-shifted into nominal group functioning as the complement of the
preposition. It is lower than the finite clause in example (17a) and the non-finite
clauses in examples (17b) and (17c) in rank, so we have ideational metaphor here.
The logico-semantic relation is not implicit, but the preposition on realizes both
relator and minor process, resulting in the occurrence of textual metaphor. The two
types of transfer can be illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1 shows that examples (17b) and (17c) are at the same rank, and the rank-shift
from the finite verb in example (17a) through the present participle in examples (17b)
and (17c) to the gerund in example (17d) is unidirectionally downward. Figure 2 shows
that the conjunction when in examples (17a) and (17b) realizes relator, and the
transcategorization from conjunction in examples (17a) and (17b) through preposition
in example (17d) to zero linker in example (17c) is unidirectional. However, the relator
in example (17d) is explicit and that in example (17c) is implicit, indicating that example
(17c) is the textual metaphor of example (17d), while example (17d) is lower than
example (17c) in rank, indicating that example (17d) is the ideational metaphor of
Figure 1
Figure 2
example (17c). The transfers in these two types of grammatical metaphor are reverse in
direction.
Both interpersonal metaphor and textual metaphor involve unidirectional transcategorizations, but the two transcategorizations are not the same. The former is
grammatical, and the latter structural. In a declarative structure, the modal verb
follows the Subject, so it is not thematic. After it is transferred into a modal adverb, it
can be placed before the Subject, functioning as the interpersonal Theme. The modal
projecting clause not only can function as the interpersonal Theme, but also has its
own thematic structure. However, the interpersonal Theme does not influence the
thematic structure of the clause, that is, the interpersonal Theme will not make the
thematic structure of the clause marked. The metaphor of mood does not affect the
thematic structure of the clause either. For example, the Theme of the interpersonally
congruent clause in example (9a) is close, and the Themes of the interpersonally
metaphorical clauses in examples (9b) and (9c) are can you and I respectively. Both
are unmarked thematic structures.
The relationship between transfer directions of grammatical metaphor can be
explained via relations between the three metafunctions. According to SFL, language
evolved, in the human species, in two complementary functions: construing
experience, and enacting social processes (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: xi). The
ideational metaphor is a way of knowing the world and construing experiences. The
knowing of the world always follows the from-simple-to-complex principle, and the
construing of experience the from-concrete-to-abstract principle. In connection with
the interpersonal metafunction, there is a realignment of social relationships taking
place (Ravelli 2003: 53). In the process of enacting social relations through language,
people tend to perform their wishes, attitudes and judgments in an objective way, and
to hide their subjective determinations in their objective expressions in a polite and
mild way so as to avoid a direct conflict between the communicators. On the other
hand, the speaker also tends to separate the modal elements from the clause to clarify
the modality. Therefore, the unidirectional rank-shift in ideational metaphor and the
unidirectional transcategorization in interpersonal metaphor are both the reflection
of the diachronic development of language, interrelated and complemented. As
system is itself exclusive, the rank-shift in ideational metaphor and the transcategorization in interpersonal metaphor are not necessarily interrelated. For example, the
nominalization in example (18) construes the modal meaning into an unquestionable
Thing, and conceals the origin of the modality to make it clear and objective, hence
358
Q. He and B. Yang
the metaphor of modality. The ideational metaphor stems from nominalization. For
example:
(18) There is no possibility that Tom is a student.
The text base provides the resources that enable the speaker to produce
contextualized discourse and to guide the listener in interpreting it (Halliday &
Matthiessen 1999: 12), and so it is a second-order mode of meaning (Halliday &
Matthiessen 1999: 398). Therefore, textual metaphor does not mean the occurrence of
ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor in text. For example, the nominalized element functioning as the Theme or Rheme in a clause is still ideational
metaphor; it will not turn into thematic metaphor or rhematic metaphor, or into
information metaphor. The metaphorical Theme and metaphorical new information
proposed by Martin (1992) are both ideational metaphors functioning in text. Modal
verbs are relatively fixed in location compared with modal adverbs, prepositional
phrases and projecting clauses. These metaphorical forms can function as interpersonal Themes or as given information in Rhemes, but the modal elements themselves
cannot change the thematic or the information structures of the clauses. Textual
metaphor occurs in the reorganization of the thematic structure, information
structure or cohesive structure. Thus, the directions of transfer in the three types of
grammatical metaphor are interrelated and complemented. At the content plane, the
three are all manifested as the unidirectional transfer from the semantic stratum to
the lexicogrammatical stratum; and at the lexicogrammatical stratum, they show
different unidirectional transfers.
6. Conclusion
Grammatical metaphor is the reorganization of the meaning at the lexicogrammatical
stratum, and is manifested as the transfer from the semantic stratum to the
lexicogrammatical stratum and that within the grammatical categories. Types of
grammatical metaphor have different transfer patterns. Ideational metaphor is
manifested as unidirectionally downward rank-shift; metaphors of modality as
unidirectional transcategorization from modal verbs through modal adverbs and
modal prepositional phrases to modal projecting clauses; metaphors of mood as
unidirectional transcategorization from the unmarked to marked lexicogrammatical
categories; and textual metaphor as unidirectional transcategorization from the
unmarked to marked structures. The rank-shift of ideational metaphor and the
transcategorization of interpersonal metaphor both reflect the development of
language, but their representations are not necessarily related. The transcategorization
in textual metaphor from conjunction through preposition to zero linker is in
consistency in direction with the rank-shift in ideational metaphor, while the
transcategorization in textual metaphor from preposition to zero linker is reverse in
direction to the rank-shift in ideational metaphor. The transfers in the three types of
360
Q. He and B. Yang