Reducing All Grammatical Metaphor To Elemental Metaphor

Martin & Rose (2007: 106-7):

Difficulties arise when processes are nominalised so that activities are coded as if they were things. An example is the nominal group the beginning of a beautiful relationship, in which the activity of two people relating to each other is nominalised as the Thing relationship, and so too is the phasing of this activity, as the Focus the beginning of... Halliday describes such patterns as grammatical metaphors, in which a semantic category such as a process is realised by an atypical grammatical class such as a noun, instead of a verb. In order to analyse such nominalisations in activity sequences, we can unpack them back to the processes from which they are derived, as follows:

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by 'activity' here, Martin & Rose mean 'process'.  The problem with the term 'activity' is that it takes a material perspective on all processes.  Clearly, other process types, which are not activities, such as the 'relational' and 'existential', can also be "coded as if they were things" (possession, existence).

[2] To be clear, inceptive time-phase is realised grammatically at group rank as a relation of elaboration between verbal groups in a complex (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 569).

[3] To be clear, the term 'Focus' is the authors' rebranding of Halliday's 'extended Numerative', though applied by them (inconsistently) to nominal groups where Thing and Head are not conflated; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 390-6). 

[4] To be clear, this reduces grammatical metaphor to one type: the elemental (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 244-9). More broadly, ideational grammatical metaphor involves a directional remapping of meaning and wording. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 712-3):

… grammatical metaphor within the ideational metafunction involves a ‘re-mapping’ between sequences, figures and elements in the semantics and clause nexuses, clauses and groups in the grammar. In the congruent mode of realisation … a sequence is realised by a clause nexus and a figure is realised by a clause. In the metaphorical mode, the whole set of mappings seems to be shifted ‘downwards’: a sequence is realised by a clause, a figure is realised by a group, and an element is realised by a word.

[5] To be clear, in this instance of grammatical metaphor, a semantic figure is realised by a nominal group serving as Identifier/Value of the clause It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

When A Sequence Of Activities Is Neither An Activity Sequence Nor A Series Of Events

Martin & Rose (2007: 106):

 

In this text, activities are taxonomically related by part or class; goannas are first classified as hunters, and the activities run, climb, swim are implicitly construed as components of hunting. But there is no implied series of events, rather the sequence is expected by the field of animal behaviours, and the descriptive report genre, so that feeding behaviours are expected by hunting behaviours, followed by breeding behaviours.

Blogger Comments:

Reminder:

All goannas are daytime hunters, They run, climb and swim well. Goannas hunt small mammals, birds and other reptiles, They also eat dead animals. Smaller goannas eat insects, spiders and worms. Male goannas fight with each other in the breeding season. Females lay between two and twelve eggs.

[1] As noted in the preceding post, the taxonomic relations between Processes that Martin & Rose propose in this analysis do not withstand close scrutiny.

[2] To be clear, Martin & Rose claim that this text involves 'activities' and a 'sequence', but not an 'activity sequence' on the grounds that there is no implied 'series of events'.

[3] To be clear, goannas are classified as 'daytime hunters', and this class membership is construed by the attributive clause.

[4] To be clear, this misunderstands the text.  The processes run, climb and swim are not construed as parts of 'hunting' any more than they are construed as parts of 'escaping predators'.  The point made in the text is that they do such things well.

[5] To be clear, fields and genres do not expect anything, because they are not conscious beings.  If this misleading metaphor is unpacked, then the claim is that people who are familiar with the field of animal behaviours and people who are familiar with report genres expect the sequence of activities — as opposed to an activity sequence or series of events — in the text.

While it may be true that people who are familiar with the field may have such expectations, it is less likely to be true of people who are merely familiar with report genres; but, more importantly, the expectations of readers are irrelevant to what the author of the text actually wrote.  Text analysis is the analysis of text.

[6] To be clear, the authors' claim here is that 'hunting behaviours' expect 'feeding behaviours' followed by 'breeding behaviours'.  A sympathetic unpacking of this incongruous metaphor might be that people who are familiar with the field of animal behaviour and people who are familiar with report genres expect the sequence — but not 'activity sequence' or 'series of events' — 'hunting, feeding, breeding'.

However, people who are actually familiar with animal behaviour know that most hunts are unsuccessful and are thus not followed by feeding, and that feeding is a frequent activity that is only rarely followed by breeding (during the mating season).

Misapplying Their Own Model Of Nuclear Relations [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 105-6):

Some texts or text phases consist of activities but do not construe activity sequences; rather their primary function is classifying and describing. An example is the behaviour phase of the Goannas report above. A nuclear and activity analysis for this phase is displayed in Table 3.5. The central column includes both Process and Range:class/part. The nuclear column to the left includes both Agent in effective clauses and Medium in non-effective clauses, while the nuclear column to the right includes Range:entity/quality. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the claim here is that the text in question construes activities, but does not construe activity sequences, despite the fact that the text consists of a sequence of activities, and despite the fact that Martin & Rose analyse the taxonomic relations between 'central' elements of different activities, as they do for activity sequences.

[2] For clarification, the text is:

All goannas are daytime hunters, They run, climb and swim well. Goannas hunt small mammals, birds and other reptiles, They also eat dead animals. Smaller goannas eat insects, spiders and worms. Male goannas fight with each other in the breeding season. Females lay between two and twelve eggs.

[3] To be clear, the 'central' column omits the attributive Process of the first 'activity' are, and includes the Manner circumstance well, which in the authors' scheme is peripheral (in the verbal group).  Moreover, it makes false claims about the relations between its elements, specifically that:

• there is a part-whole relation between daytime hunters and run, climb and swim well;
• there is a part-whole relation between run, climb and swim well and hunt;
• the material Processes hunt and eat are co-hyponyms of 'behaviour';
• the material Processes eat and fight are co-hyponyms of 'behaviour';
• the material Processes fight and lay are co-hyponyms of 'behaviour'.

[4] To be clear, the agency of the clause, effective or middle, was not presented as a factor in determining the nuclearity of elements.  Moreover, in the authors' own scheme (p95), Agents (Goannas, They, Smaller goannas, Females) are marginal, not nuclear.

[5] To be clear, there are no instances of Range:entity/quality in the the right-hand 'nuclear' column.  As the analysis below shows, the only element that is not a Medium is the Accompaniment circumstance, which, on the authors' scheme, is peripheral, not nuclear.

All goannas	are	daytime hunters
Medium Carrier	Process	Range Attribute
nuclear	central	central

They	run, climb and swim	well
Medium Actor	Process	Manner: quality
nuclear	central	peripheral

Goannas	hunt	small mammals, birds and other reptiles
Agent Actor	Process	Medium Goal
marginal	central	nuclear

They	also	eat	dead animals
Agent Actor		Process	Medium Goal
marginal		central	nuclear

Smaller goannas	eat	insects, spiders and worms
Agent Actor	Process	Medium Goal
marginal	central	nuclear

Male goannas	fight	with each other	in the breeding season
Medium Actor	Process	Accompaniment: comitative	Location
nuclear	central	peripheral	peripheral

Females	lay	between two and twelve eggs
Agent Actor	Process	Medium Goal
marginal	central	nuclear

Ignoring all the misunderstandings and inconsistencies in the authors' nuclear relations model, as previously identified, if they had analysed the text using their own model, it would have looked as follows:

marginal	central	nuclear	peripheral
	are	All goannas
	daytime hunters
	run, climb and swim	They	well
Goannas	hunt	small mammals, birds and other reptiles
They	eat	dead animals
Smaller goannas	eat	insects, spiders and worms
	fight	Male goannas	with each other
			in the breeding season
Females	lay	between two and twelve eggs

Misrepresenting Their Nuclear Relations Analysis

Martin & Rose (2007: 104-5):

 

 

The analysis displays the following patterns…

• Relative centrality, agency and ‘voice’ of people are explicitly displayed in the analysis. The narrator is the predominant Medium but never an Agent. The policemen act on and talk to Leonard, but his actions and locutions affect nobody. 

• In the peripheral column, the chair stands out as the location of torture.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the nuclear relations analysis, even when properly understood, merely labels elements of clause structure in terms of their degree of participation in the Process.  The actual rôles undertaken by participants are identified by the ergative functions (Medium, Agent, etc.) that Martin & Rose have inconsistently rebranded as nuclear, marginal, etc.

[2] To be clear, Martin & Rose have classified Agent as marginal in the exposition of "their" theory, but classified it as nuclear in their text analysis.  Moreover, all but two of the Agents were inserted into the text by Martin & Rose, thereby misrepresenting the text.

[3] To be clear, 'voice' is a feature of clauses and verbal groups, not 'people', and it serves a textual function, not an experiential function.  Moreover, 'voice' is not explicitly displayed in the analysis, and is actually hidden by the omission of the Finite element of the verbal groups serving as Processes (e.g. abused instead of was abused, slapped around instead of was slapped around, and 11 more).

[4] To be clear, Martin & Rose classify the narrator as Medium even when he construes himself as Beneficiary (the Receiver of the verbal Processes was told (twice) and was questioned) and Location (orientation) of the behavioural Process was screamed.

[5] To be clear, there are no locutions (verbal projections) in the text, by the narrator or anyone else.

[6] To be clear, the peripherality of the circumstances featuring the chair merely construes it as an indirect participant in various Processes. It is the transitivity of the clause that construes the Locations of the Processes:

• in a chair as the Location of the Process sit
• off the chair as the Location of the Process jumped
• on the chair as the Location of the Process put (back)
• through the chair as the Location of the Process handcuffed.

Adjusting A Taxonomic Relations Analysis To Fit Theoretical Claims

Martin & Rose (2007: 104-5):

 

The analysis displays the following patterns:

• Taxonomic relations between processes organise the activity sequence into distinct phases. … Such taxonomic relations are the basis for expectancy between processes. 

• Boundaries between phases are realised lexically, by a break in taxonomic relations between processes, or by a lexical contrast between processes, such as the converse relation between (Leonard) started fighting back and (policemen) knocked down viciously.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here again, as throughout, Martin & Rose confuse grammar (processes) with lexis, and present the lexicogrammatical confusion as discourse semantics.

[2] As can be seen from the analysis below, this is not true.  On the one hand, processes that don't fit the claim are ignored (sit) or omitted from the analysis (arriving, carried on).  On the other hand, relations between processes within phases are misinterpreted in order to fit the claim.  For example:

• in the 'problem 1' phase, behavioural (screamed at), verbal (abused) and material Processes (was slapped around, was punched) are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate;
• in the 'reaction' phase, the material Processes jumped (up) and started fighting back are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate;
• in the 'effect' phase, the material Processes knocked (down), put (back), handcuffed and could not get up are falsely analysed as co-hyponyms of an unidentified superordinate.

Processes	Taxonomic Relation	Phase
arriving	<not analysed>
changed		setting
was screamed at	co-class	problem 1
abused
was slapped around
was punched
was told	co-class	problem 2
to shut up
sit
was questioned	co-class
answered
was told
was lying
was smacked		problem 3
carried on	<not analysed>
jumped	co-class	reaction
started fighting back
knocked (down)	converse	effect
put (back)	co-class
handcuffed
could not get up
was smacked and punched		unnamed

[3] As previously noted, any 'expectancy' is a mental process of listeners or readers of a text, not a relation in a text projected by a verbal process of its author.  Collocation and logogenetic patterns of instantiation are another matter.