DOC

Modes of Expression in Grammatical Metaphor

By Kathryn Nichols,2014-09-02 10:07
8 views 0
Modes of Expression in Grammatical Metaphor

    Modes of Expression in Grammatical Metaphor

    Contents

    Abstract…………………………………………………………i 摘要………………………………………………………………ii Contents…………………………………………………………iii Introduction………………………………………………………1 1. The definition of grammatical metaphor……………………2 2. The basic modes of grammatical metaphor…………………3

     2.1 Ideational metaphors ………………………………………4

     2.1.1 Metaphors of transitivity…………………………………5

     2.1.2 Ideational metaphors and nominalization…………………7

     2.2 Inter personal metaphors ……………………………………10

     2.2.1 Metaphors of modality ……………………………………11

     2.2.2 Metaphors of mood…………………………………………12 Conclusion………………………………………………………14 Bibliography……………………………………………………15 Acknowledgement………………………………………………16

     1

    Abstract

    Grammatical metaphor is used widely. It can reveal lots of problems which people didnt notice or consider before and it will bring apocalypses to analyzing text. But, it is difficult to distinguish the congruent form and metaphorical form. A special form is a metaphorical for an other form, maybe not for the forth. In addition to, different forms of showing bring different meaning because of showing is meaning. So strictly speaking, different showing has different meaning. In this article, it mainly analyses these aspects systematically to help us distinguish the different meaning of grammatical metaphor correctly.

    Grammatical metaphor can fall into two types: ideational metaphors and interpersonal metaphors. According to the view of Halliday, nominalization is the main method of ideational metaphors. They connected with each other closely. Interpersonal metaphors have two expressions of mood and modality. Nothing but mastering these definitions correctly, it can help you to distinguish the congruent from and metaphorical form and to understand the different meaning showed by different forms.

    Textual metaphor is still a debatable question by far which is waiting for us to probe deeply.

    Key words: grammar; metaphor; nominalization; forms

    i 2

    

    功能语法中的语法隐喻的应用范围非常广(通过分析语法隐喻可以提示很多原先人们没有注意到或考虑到的问题(并会给语篇分析带来启示。但是(在确定一致式、隐喻式时有时不那么容易。一个特定的形式对于另一个形式可以是隐喻式(但对于另一个可能就不一定是这样。此外(因为表达就是意义(不同的表达形式就会带来不同的意义。所以严格说(有不同的表达式就有不同的意义。本文主要就这些方面作了系统的阐述(以便帮助人们正确区分语法隐喻所表达的真正含义。

    语法隐喻可以分为概念语法隐喻和人际语法隐喻。根据韩礼德1994,的观点(名物化是概念语法隐喻的重要手段(两者是息息相关的。而人际隐喻可以分为情态隐喻和语气隐喻。只有正确掌握了这些定义(才能有助于区分一致式和隐喻式(以及不同的表达式所隐含的不同意义。

    语篇隐喻到目前为止仍是一个争议的话题(还有待进一步的探索。

    关健词;语法、隐喻、名物化、形式

    ii

     3

Introduction

    According to some of the analyses, especially of transitivity, we have run up against problems in deciding how best to code certain wordings. These problems have arisen for a number for reasons; but one of the most common sources of difficulty is metaphor. Metaphor is a familiar concept, and it is generally taken to be easy to recognize. In the following sentence, for example, it is clear that crippled and burden are being used metaphorically:

    The north is crippled with the burden of the industrial revolution to an extent that the south hardly begins to understand.

    A typical analysis of the metaphors will point out that crippled has a

    literal meaning of lame ,while burden literally means something heavy‟.

    In this view, metaphor is seen as relating to the way a particular word is used, and the term metaphor is seen as relating to the way a particular word is used, and the term metaphorical is used as the opposite of literal, to describe the meaning of the word.

     What discussed in this article is Grammatical Metaphor that main in function grammar which is different form ones said by other schools. We can therefore give a provisional definition of grammatical metaphor as: the expression of a meaning through a lexica-grammatical form which originally evolved to express a different kind of meaning. The expression of the meaning is metaphorical in relation to a different way of expressing of the meaning is metaphorical in relation to a different way of expressing the

     4

     same meaning which would be more congruent. Here, the text is used to probe metaphorical modes for expression.

1. The definition of grammatical metaphor

    Among the figures for speech recognized in rhetorical theory are a

    number of related figures having to do with verbal transference of various kinds. The general term for these is metaphor. Metaphor is usually described as variation in the use of words: a word is said to be used with a transferred meaning. Here, however, we are looking at it from the other end, asking not how is this word use? but how is this meaning expressed? A meaning

    may be realized by a selection of words that is different from that which is in some sense typical or unmarked. From this end, metaphor is variation in the expression of meanings.

     If something is said to be metaphorical presented as a one-way relationship such at to some metaphorical meaning that is said to be literal.

    Here, however, we are looking at metaphor not from below, as variation in

    the expression of a giving meaning; the concept of literal is therefore not

    very appropriate, and we shall refer to the less metaphorical variant as congruent. In other words, for any given semantic configuration there will be some realization in the lexica-grammar-some wording-that can be considered congruent; there may also be various others that are in some respect transferred, or metaphorical.

     5

    This is not to say that the congruent realization is better, or that it is frequent, or even that it functions as a from; there are many instances where a metaphorical representation has become the norm and this is in fact a natural process of linguistic change. Nor is it to suggest that a set of variants of this kind will be totally synonymous; the selection of metaphor is itself a meaningful choice, and the partial metaphor selected adds further semantic features. But they will be systematically related in meaning, and therefore synonymous in certain respects.

    Metaphorical modes of expression are characteristic of all adult discourse. There is a great deal of variation among different registers in the degree and kinds of metaphor that is encountered, but none will be found entirely without it. The only examples of discourse without metaphor that we normally meet with are in young childrens speech, and in traditional

    childrens rhymes and songs that seem to survive for that very reason: that they lack grammatical metaphors. Otherwise, any text of more than minimal length is almost certain to present us with instances where some metaphorical element needs to be taken into account.

2. The basic modes of grammatical metaphor

    There are two basic modes of grammatical metaphor: ideational metaphors and interpersonal metaphors.

     6

2.1 Ideational metaphors

    First, lets use a framework to interpret the clause in its ideational function, as the representation of process. There were three steps involved in (i), (ii) and (iii):

    (i) selection of process type: material, mental ,relational, with their various intermediate and secondary type ;realized as.

    (ii) configuration of transitivity functions: Actor, Goal, Sensor, Manner etc. representing the process, its participants ,and any circumstantial elements; realized in turn as

    (iii) sequence of group-phrase classes: verbal group, nominal group, adverbial group, prepositional phrase, and their various sub-classes.

    When we use such as a framework, as a way of getting from the meaning to the wording, we make the assumption that there are typical ways of saying things: that there is a systematic relationship among steps (i), (ii) and (iii) such that for any selection in meaning there will be a natural sequence of steps leading towards its realization. For example, if I want to talk about what Mary saw, I will present this (i) as a mental of process of perception, having (ii)a structure of process +sensor +phenomenon, this being (iii) realized as nominal group(conscious being) + verbal group(perception) +nominal group(any thing or fact); e.g. Mary saw something wonderful.

    There is an important sense in which this assumption is true. we do not know whether language evolved initially along these lines, beginning with

     7

    congruent modes of representation and gradually elaborating them-we only start thinking of these as congruent, of course ,when metaphorical ones

    develop a long side them. It is possible that metaphoric variation has been inherent in the nature of language from the very beginning. But, either way, we are able to recognize the congruent forms for what they are, as the typical way in which experience is construe.

    Knowing what are the typical ways of saying things is part of knowing

    a language. This is not as simple a concept as it sounds: the typical might be

    the way you first learn to say something in your mother tongue, or the way it is most commonly said, or the way it is said in the absence of any special circumstances; and these will not always coincide. But there are what speakers recognize as typical patterns of wording, and it is these that we are calling congruent forms. Since construing experience in the form of

    language is already an inherently metaphorical process, it is no surprise to find a further dimension of metaphor present within language itself. So as well as recognizing what is congruent, we also recognize that there are other possibilities, what the typical pattern ahs no been used and the speaker or writer has chosen to say things differently.

    2.1.1 Metaphors of transitivity

    So, for example, instead of Mary saw something wonderful, I may

    choose to say Mary came upon a wonderful sight, where the process has

    been represented as a material process came upon and the perception has

     8

been tuned into a participant a sight. Or I may say a wonderful sight met

    Marys eyes, with the process of perception split up into Actor a sight, material process meet and Goal eyes; and Mary represented simply as the

    processors of the eyes. These are all plausible representations of one and the same non-linguistic state of affairs. They are definitely not synonymous; the

    different encodings all contribute something different to the total meaning. But they are potentially co-representational, and in the respect form a set of metaphorical variants of an ideational kind.

    Here is a rather absorb example invented to illustrate the kinds of grammatical variation that can arise. Among the social events in the local paper we might find it reported that:

    (1) The guests supper of ice cream was followed by a gentle swim.

    We might unscramble this as:

    (2) In the evening the guests ate ice cream and them swam gently.

    The reworded version is not noticeably better or worse; but it is obviously different. The two versions are analyzed below from (iv) to (viii):

    (iv) the process of eating and the circumstance in the evening have

    been fused into the noun supper functioning as Head/Thing in a nominal

    group functioning as Identified;

    (v) the participants „the guests and ice cream have been embedded as

    (1) modifier/Deictic: possessive and (2) Modifier/Qualifier: Appositive in this nominal group;

     9

    (vi) the process of swimming has been encoded as a noun swim

    functioning as Head/Thing in a nominal group functioning as Identifier.

    (vii) The circumstance gently ahs been encoded as a Modifier/Epithet

    within this nominal group; and

    (viii) The circumstance then has been encoded as a verbal group was

    followed by, functioning as a Relational process of the circumstantial/ Identifying type.

    Although these are all in origin metaphorical, in the sense in which we are using the term, each one taken by itself is entirely natural, we would say:

     We had supper there,

    rather than:

     We ate there in the evening;

    Circumstances are often encode as processes.

    It seems that in most types of discourse, both spoken and written, we tend to operate somewhere in between these tow extremes. Something which is totally congruent is likely to sound a bit flat;

    2.1.2 Ideational metaphors and nominalization

    The example discussed in the last section was concerned with a material process of a concrete kind, namely building viaducts; and it was taken from a book written to be read by children. There was some degree of grammatical metaphor in it, e.g. early engineers, notable viaducts, but not a great deal.

    The original version has two nominal groups: the argument to the

     10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com