Under-Representing The Scope Of Ideational Metaphor

Martin (1992: 409-10):

Experiential metaphor is a complex process, which cannot be examined in detail here.  Some of the more common types of grammatical metaphor associated with actions, qualities and participants are outlined in Table 6.17.

Table 6.17. Congruent and metaphorical realisations of experiential meaning
Action:
congruent	finite Process	use	deceive
	non-finite Process	using	deceiving
metaphorical	Thing	use	deception
	Epithet	useful	deceitful
Quality:		(experiential)	(attitudinal)
congruent	Epithet	quick	sad
metaphorical	Adjunct	quickly	sadly
	Thing	speed	sadness
	Process	quicken	sadden
Participant:
congruent	Thing	disaster	computer
metaphorical	Epithet	disastrous
	Process		computerise

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, ideational metaphor is an incongruent realisational relation between the strata of semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording), as when (semantic) sequences are realised by (grammatical) clauses instead of clause complexes, and (semantic) figures are realised by (grammatical) nominal groups instead of clauses.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 646):

… the general tendency for ideational metaphor is to ‘downgrade’ the domain of grammatical realisation of a semantic sequence, figure or element — from clause nexus to clause, from clause to group/phrase, and even from group or phrase to word.  Such downgrading affects both the unit whose domain of realisation is downgraded, and the units of which it is composed: the downgrading proceeds down the rank scale by a kind of ‘domino effect’.

[2] The types presented here are limited to incongruent grammatical realisations of semantic elements by means of transcategorisation (for which, see Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 242-3).

[3] On a pedagogical note, the table layout seems designed to obfuscate.  For example, the finite/non-finite and experiential/attitudinal distinctions are redundant, as is the second column of examples, and the inclusion of speed instead of quickness adds an inconsistency with regard to the otherwise use of transcategorisation.

[4] In SFL theory, the types of semantic element are process, participant, circumstance and relator. Quality, like thing, is a type of participant; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 58-64, 175-226).

[5] The term Adjunct is inappropriate for a discussion of ideational metaphor because it is an interpersonal function.  The relevant experiential term is Manner: quality.  Note that Martin (1992: 316) relocates circumstances of Manner: quality from the clause to the verbal group — though only if they are realised by adverbial groups, not if they are realised by prepositional phrases.  See critique here.  Despite relocating these functions to group rank, Martin here uses the clause rank function Adjunct to label them.