David Rose On Grammatical Metaphor As Stratal Tension

David Rose wrote to sys-func on 6/6/22 at 13:04:

Some recent work on grammatical metaphor and stratal tension

Martin, J. R. (2020). Metaphors we feel by: Stratal tension. Journal of World Languages, 6(1-2), 8-26.

Rose, D. (2021). Reading metaphor: Symbolising, connoting and abducing meanings. Linguistics and Education, 64, 100932.

Blogger Comments:

[1] For evidence that Martin and Rose do not understand grammatical metaphor, see here (English Text), here (Working With Discourse), here (this blog), and below.

[2] To be clear, Martin characterises grammatical metaphor as a "tension" between his discourse semantic stratum and the lexicogrammatical stratum (Martin & Rose 2007: 229). On the one hand, this conception largely does not work for Martin's model, and on the other hand, it misunderstands the notion of metaphor.

On the first point, in Martin (1992), the only discourse system that allows for grammatical metaphor is the interpersonal system of NEGOTIATION, and this is because NEGOTIATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday's semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION. Halliday's original system allows for metaphors of mood, such a command being realised by an interrogative, as in Will you get your feet off the table?.

Martin's other systems, IDENTIFICATION, IDEATION and CONJUNCTION are grammatical systems of the textual metafunction, COHESIVE REFERENCE, LEXICAL COHESION and COHESIVE CONJUNCTION, rebranded as discourse semantic systems. This rules out grammatical metaphor on two criteria. Firstly they are grammatical systems, so the only tension is between the original systems and Martin's misunderstandings of them. Secondly, they are textual systems, and metaphor is restricted to the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 731n):

While some scholars have explored the possibility of grammatical metaphor within the textual metafunction, we do not see any evidence that the textual metafunction engenders metaphor. It is certainly a factor in the metaphorical mode of realisation – particularly, in ideational metaphor, as we have illustrated above; but the origins of metaphor lie in the need to re-construe experience (ideational) and to re-enact roles and relations (interpersonal). The role of the textual metafunction is of a different nature (cf. Matthiessen, 1992).

On the second point, metaphor is more than just a "tension" (incongruence) between semantics and lexicogrammar. Metaphorical grammatical realisations express two levels of meaning on the semantic stratum at once. For example, the nominal group perception realises both a thing and a process, with the thing realising the process. See Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 243, 244, 272, 278, 283, 289) on grammatical metaphor as semantic junction in which a metaphorical Token realises a congruent Value.