Sunday, 29 September 2019

Misrepresenting Elemental Ideational Metaphor As Logical Metaphor

Martin & Rose (2007: 115-6):
Finally section 4.6 discusses what happens when conjunctions are realised by other kinds of grammatical classes, such as verbs and nouns; this kind of grammatical metaphor is known as logical metaphor. A method is presented for unpacking logical metaphors to analyse activity sequences.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand grammatical metaphor as a realisation relation between word classes and present this intra-grammatical relation as discourse semantics.  There are three obvious problems with this:
  1. Conjunction is a class of word, and in SFL theory, word is a unit on the lexicogrammatical rank scale, not a semantic phenomenon. 
  2. Word classes are all at the same level of symbolic abstraction, whereas realisation is the relation between different levels of symbolic abstraction, as for example, between strata. 
  3. Grammatical metaphor is a relation between strata, semantics and lexicogrammar, not a relation between word classes within the lexicogrammatical stratum.
[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand elemental ideational metaphor as logical metaphor.  The reason that such metaphor cannot be restricted to the logical metafunction is that the metaphor involves realising a logico-semantic relation as experiential elements: circumstance, process, quality or thing.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 245):

No comments:

Post a Comment