Reducing Ideational Metaphor To The Transcategorisation Of Elements

Martin (1992: 410, 411):

Metaphorical qualities and actions are illustrated in the following clauses from [6:23]. Their function there is mainly to package experiential meaning for realisation as New.

[6:23]	m.	The war had also revealed inadequacies in Australia’s scientific and research capabilities.
	n.	After the war strenuous efforts were made to improve these.
	o.	The Australian National University was established with an emphasis on research.
	p.	The government gave its support to the advancement of science in many areas, including agricultural production.

Table 6.18. Unpacking experiential metaphors in text [6:23:m-p]
	metaphorical	congruent
quality	inadequacies	inadequate
	capabilities	capable
process	efforts	try to do
	emphasis	emphasise
	research	research
	support	support
	advancement	advance
	production	produce
participant	scientific	science
	agricultural	agriculture
	strenuous	strain

Blogger Comments:

[1] The grammatical metaphor in (m), involves a semantic figure being incongruently realised as a nominal group (inadequacies in Australia’s scientific and research capabilities) instead of congruently as an attributive clause (Australia’s scientific and research capabilities are inadequate) — whose Carrier also involves the metaphorical realisation of a figure as a nominal group (Australia’s scientific and research capabilities).

The grammatical metaphor in (n) involves a semantic process being incongruently realised grammatically as the Thing (efforts) of a nominal group, thereby giving the 'process thing' modal responsibility by serving as Subject.  The word strenuous is not metaphorical, since it is a quality realised congruently as an adjective.

The grammatical metaphor in (o), involves a semantic figure being incongruently realised grammatically as a prepositional phrase (with an emphasis on research) instead of congruently as a clause (emphasising research).

The grammatical metaphor in (p) involves a semantic process being incongruently realised grammatically as the Thing (support) of a nominal group, and semantic figures being incongruently realised as nominal groups (the advancement of science, agricultural production).

[2] Neither of the 'process thing' metaphors (effort, support) are packaged as New information here; the unmarked New in the respective information units is improve and in many areas. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 401) explain the discourse function of ideational metaphor as follows:

But ideational grammatical metaphors typically have a discourse function of this kind; they are as it were pressed into service by the textual metafunction, to provide alternative groupings of quanta of information.

[3] As the table illustrates, ideational metaphor is viewed here only from the perspective of elemental metaphors arising from transcategorisation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 242ff).

Misconstruing Technical Terms As Grammatical Metaphors

Martin (1992: 409-10):

Note that incongruence can flow against the nominalising semantic drift which characterises much abstract discourse in English; fields like personal computing for example contain a number of verbalised participants as technical terms: computerise, boot, format, log on, paginate, scroll, tab and so on.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, nominalisation is a grammatical process; instances of other classes of grammatical form are transformed into nominals. The semantic drift of ideational metaphor is from logical to experiential meaning. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 269):

We can say therefore that grammatical metaphor is predominantly a ‘nominalising’ tendency. But if we look at it semantically we can see that it is a shift from the logical to the experiential: that is, making maximum use of the potential that the system has evolved for classifying experience, by turning all phenomena into the most classifiable form — or at least into a form that is more classifiable than that in which they have been congruently construed.

[2] Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 286) explain the relation between grammatical metaphors and technical terms:

Almost all technical terms start out as grammatical metaphors; but they are grammatical metaphors which can no longer be unpacked. When a wording becomes technicalised, a new meaning has been construed — almost always, in our present-day construction of knowledge, a new thing (participating entity); and the junction with any more congruent agnates is (more or less quickly) dissolved.

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.