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:
- Conjunction is a class of word, and in SFL theory, word is a unit on the lexicogrammatical rank scale, not a semantic phenomenon.
- 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.
- 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