The social dimension of grammatical metaphor

Miriam Taverniers

Ghent University

 

In this paper I will explore ideational grammatical metaphor in terms of social meaning construction, focusing on two tensions:

(1) grammatical metaphor vs. transcategorization;

(2) grammatical metaphor as ‘empowering’ vs. ‘estranging’.

            (1) Grammatical metaphor is a corrollary of languages being dynamic open systems, with multiple levels of encoding (stratification) that are related through metaredundancy (Taverniers, 2017a, 2019): grammatical metaphor, like all metaphor (cf. Taverniers, 2017b), is a means of “using existing resources more than once” (Martin & Matthiessen 1991, p. 350). Transcategorization, or the shift from one category to another, including conversion (where transcategorization is unmarked), is likewise a typical feature of metaredundancy systems.

            What is the difference between those two phenomena? This question is especially relevant from the perspective of the social construction of meaning, since grammatical metaphor is typical of knowledge-based discourse formations, including especially academic genres, while transcategorization is a general feature of languages (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999, p. 242), and also occurs in languages without elaborate academic repertoires, including emergent creoles (Blank, 2001). I will explore the difference between ideational grammatical metaphor and transcategorization, in terms of their grammar as different types of signs, and in terms of possible differences in the social communities using those sign types, by taking work on the social dimension of language change (Trudgill, 2011; Dąbrowska 2015) as a basis. A question to be addressed here is: How did grammatical metaphor ‘emerge’ and stick in scientific discourse, and how is this process of innovation in academic languages different from and/or similar to the use of transcategorization in non-academic languages?

            (2) The (popular) research on the use of grammatical metaphor in specific text genres (which forms a substantial strand of research for ideational metaphor) starts from the premise that “ideational metaphor equals power” (Halliday, 1990, p. 71) and oscillates between two ideological perspectives, one highlighting grammatical metaphor as a mechanism that has enabled (and that has even been essential in) the advancement of modern science (e.g. Goatly, 1996), and another view that focuses on the nominalized discourse of the expert as “a language of power and technocratic control” (e.g. Halliday, 1998, p. 228) that creates a distance between scientific knowledge and the everyday experience of life, between the expert and the layman or the learner. This tension too is highly relevant in relation to the social construction of meaning, especially in terms of access to knowledge discourse in societies that are increasingly knowledge based. I will explore it here in the context of language pedagogy, especially the teaching of writing, with a focus on English for academic purposes.

 

References

Blank, Andreas (2001). Pathways of lexicalization. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.) Language Typology and Language Universals (vol. II, pp. 1596-1608). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Dąbrowska, Ewa (2015). Language in the mind and in the community. In Daems, Yocelyne, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.) Change of Paradigms — New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp. 212-235). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Goatly, Andrew (1996). Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, or Language and the myth of power, or Metaphors we die by. Journal of Pragmatics 25(4), 537-560.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1990). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In Pütz, Martin (ed.) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution (pp. 59-95). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [Also published, 1993, in Halliday, M.A.K. Language in a Changing World (Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Occasional Papers 15).]

Halliday, M.A.K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In Martin, J.R. & Robert Veel (eds.) Reading Science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. (1999). Construing Experience through Meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. (Open Linguistics Series.) London: Cassell/Continuum.

Martin, James R. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. (1991). Systemic typology and topology. In Christie, Frances (ed.) Literacy in Social Processes (pp. 345-383). Northern Territory University, Darwin: Centre for Studies in Language and Education.

Taverniers, Miriam (2017a). Grammatical metaphor. In Bartlett, Tom & Gerard O’Grady (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 354-371). London: Routledge.

Taverniers, Miriam (2017b). Metaphor in pragmatics. In Barron, Anne, Gu Yueguo & Gerard Steen (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 323-340). London: Routledge.

Taverniers, Miriam (2019). Semantics. In Thompson, Geoff, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine and Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Trudgill, Peter (2011). Sociolinguistic Typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford UP.