Self-Contradiction On Modelling Grammatical Metaphor [New]

Martin (1992: 17):

Note that it is not being suggested here that a semantics be set up to generate meanings which are then expressed congruently or metaphorically in grammatical forms (see Martin 1991a for further discussion). Rather, taking semantics as point of departure, choosing an metaphorical realisation means encoding additional layers of meaning; it is not just a question of choosing an untypical means of expression. The grammar makes meaning, irrespective of whether it constitutes, or participates as one level, in the content plane.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, even though this suggestion would indeed be inconsistent with Martin's proposal — see previous post — this is precisely what Martin does do, despite the claim above, as demonstrated by his discussion of his only experiential semantic unit, the message part. Martin (1992: 326):

A message part is realised congruently as a lexical item and incongruently through one of the elaborating structures defined above. These are reviewed in Table 5.19.

(Note also the absence of metaphor in the "incongruent" grammatical realisations, and the confusion of lexical item with grammatical function.)

[2] To be clear, for Martin, grammatical 'form' means the grammar, not just the rank scale. He uses 'content form' (p401) to refer to the content plane as a whole.

[3] To be clear, this is true, but not in a sense understood by Martin, or accounted for in his model of discourse semantics. As Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 288) explain, grammatical metaphor involves an internal "stratification" within the semantic stratum, with the congruent meaning (Value) realised by the metaphorical meaning (Token):

The metaphorical relation is thus similar to inter-stratal realisation in that it construes a token-value type of relation. Here, however, the relation is intra-stratal: the identity holds between different meanings, not between meanings and wordings. The metaphor consists in relating different semantic domains of experience…

[4] To be clear, here Martin confuses semogenesis (the grammar making meaning) with stratification (the grammar realising meaning), a confusion that runs through this entire publication.

Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor [Revised]

Martin (1992: 17):

Stratifying the content plane provides one mechanism for handling semantic layering of this kind.  The level of grammar can be used to provide an interpretation of the "literal" meaning of metaphorical structures and the meaning of congruent ones; the level of semantics can then be deployed to construct additional interpretations for metaphorical expressions (their "figurative" or "transferred" meaning).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Martin proposes that, in his stratification of the content plane, congruent construals of experience are located at the level of lexicogrammar, and metaphorical construals of experience are located at the level of semantics. There are two fundamental problems that undermine this proposal:

1. On this model, there are no semantic systems unless there are instances of grammatical metaphor in a text.
2. On this model, the levels of symbolic abstraction are upside down. Martin locates the lower level construal, the metaphorical, at the higher level, and the higher level construal, the congruent, at the lower level. A metaphorical construal stands for (realises) the congruent construal — not the reverse.

As this demonstrates, and will be seen later, Martin understands neither stratification nor grammatical metaphor.