Tuesday 26 January 2016

Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor

Martin (1992: 411-2, 491n):
This means that abstract text, especially that textured by ideational metaphor, is often best unpacked in steps, up to the point where the analysis is sufficient for the deconstruction in which the analyst is engaged.  One such unpacking strategy involves first unpacking logical metaphors and any experiential metaphors necessary to render them, then moving on [to] unpack the remaining experiential metaphors and finally turning to any interpersonal ones.  This strategy is illustrated below for [6:23k].

[6:23k]
The enlargement of Australia’s steel-making capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles all owed something to the demands of war.
(i) UNPACKING IDEATIONAL METAPHOR
(rendering logical metaphors as conjunctions and unpacking any experiential metaphors necessary to accomplish this) 
alpha
Australia’s steel-making capacity enlarged, alongside that of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
beta
partly because war demanded it. 
(ii) UNPACKING REMAINING EXPERIENTIAL METAPHORS
alpha
Australia’s capacity to make steel got bigger, alongside that of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
beta
partly because war demanded it.
 (iii) UNPACKING INTERPERSONAL METAPHORS
alpha
Australia could make more steel, chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
beta
partly because people said
gamma
Give us materials
delta
so that3 we can fight the war”
3 The conjunction so that has been selected here since it codes the meaning of inclination; see Chapter 4 above.


Blogger Comments:

[1] In terms of SFL theory, this is a semantic sequence of at least three figures incongruently realised as a single clause at the level of grammar:

The enlargement of Australia’s steel-making capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles all
owed
something
to the demands of war
Token/Identifier
Process: possession
Value/Identified
Beneficiary

A more congruent grammatical realisation might be something like the following complex of three clauses:

Australia
ended up being able to produce
more steel, chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
to some extent
because
it
had needed to be able to produce
them
in order to
fight
the war
a
x b cause: reason
a
x b cause: purpose
Actor
Process: material
Goal
Manner: degree

Actor
Process: material
Goal

Process: material
Scope: process


[2] This is not unpacking interpersonal metaphor.  Interpersonal metaphor involves modality or speech function being construed as a proposition, as when realised grammatically by a projecting clause, or involves incongruent (grammatical) realisations of (semantic) speech functions, as when a command is realised by indicative mood.  See Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 626-35) and the following critiques.

[3] The conjunction group so that realises a logico-semantic relation of cause: purpose between the two clauses in the nexus.  It does not function interpersonally to "code the meaning of inclination". See previous critiques, e.g. here and here.

No comments:

Post a Comment