Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor As An Interaction Of Logical & Experiential Metaphors

Martin (1992: 407):

Logical and experiential metaphors interact as what might be termed ideational metaphors when external conjunctive relations, typically consequential ones, are realised metaphorically.  This interaction produces a high level of abstraction in text, making it inaccessible to large sections of the community.  A good example of this process is found in [6:23k].  There, two experiential metaphors, the enlargement of Australia's steel–making capacity and the demands of war are causally connected by the logical metaphor owed.

[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. 

Recoded congruently as a clause complex, this clause translates as follows:

[6:24]	a.	alpha	Australia could make more steel, chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
	b.	beta	partly because (people) demanded them
	c.	gamma	to fight the war.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In SFL theory, ideational metaphor is not the interaction of experiential and logical metaphors. Ideational metaphor occurs, for example, when

• a semantic sequence is realised grammatically by something other than a clause complex,
• a semantic figure is realised grammatically by something other than a clause,
• a semantic element is realised by something other than its congruent group/phrase (e.g. process as nominal group instead of verbal group, relator as verbal group instead of conjunction group).

See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 227ff).

[2] The text does not exemplify the interaction of experiential and logical metaphors.  From a semantic perspective, it exemplifies the general tendency in ideational metaphor to move from the logical to experiential being–&–having.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 293):

… the general tendency in the metaphorical move away from the congruent is away from the logical towards the experiential; and within the experiential towards the domain of participants in figures of being & having.

[3] As the congruent rendering (almost) demonstrates, the metaphorical grammatical realisation is a consequence of a semantic figure being realised by (all of) a nominal group.

congruent: figure as clause

Australia	produced	more steel, chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles
Actor	Process: material	Goal

metaphorical: figure as nominal group

The	enlargement	[of Australia’s steel-making capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles]
Deictic	Thing	Qualifier