Martin (1992: 134):
The incongruence between participants, nominal groups and the explicit realisation of deixis is summarised in the following table.
# NOMINAL GROUPS
|
# PARTICIPANTS
|
PHORICITY MARKED
|
|
structural it
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
idioms
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
indefinite negation
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
Attribute
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
Range
|
1
|
0/1
|
-/once
|
Extent
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
Role
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
possessive Deictics
|
1/2
|
2
|
once
|
Pre-D/N/E/C
|
2
|
1/2
|
once/twice
|
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, 'incongruence' refers to the relation between semantics and lexicogrammar in cases of grammatical metaphor. So the unintended claim here is that all these cases are examples of grammatical metaphor. To demonstrate that these are genuine cases of grammatical metaphor, it would be necessary to provide the congruent (non-metaphorical) counterpart of each.
Martin's use of the term here is strategic, and misleading, because grammatical metaphor is a genuine motivation for stratifying the content plane of language into semantics and lexicogrammar, and Martin is trying to justify his system, IDENTIFICATION, as the semantic counterpart of grammatical reference.
[2] For some of the misunderstandings that invalidate the claims of this table, see the previous fifteen posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment