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.