3.2.3 Grammatical metaphor
Grammatical grammar is about the interstratal relationship between semantics and lexicogrammar within the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar(Matthiessen et al,2010:109).
Figure 3.5 Grammatical metaphor as interstratal relation between semantics and lexicogrammar based on semantic junction(Matthiessen et al.,2010:110)
In Figure 3.5,to the concept of grammatical metaphor,Matthiessen(2010:110)supposes that in the congruent case,semantic category a is realized by grammatical category m,and semantic category b is realized by grammatical category n.Comparatively,it is suggested that in the metaphorical case,semantic category a is realized as if it were semantic category b,by grammatical category n.This“realized as if”relationship construes a semantic junction between category a and b(Halliday & Matthiessen,1999;Matthiessen et al.,2010).
Halliday & Matthiessen(2004:631)point out that interpersonal metaphor is part of a principle of interpersonal iconicity:metaphorical variants create a greater semiotic distance between meaning and wording,and this enacts a greater social distance between the speaker and the addressee.For instance,in expressing the obligation in a proposal,the congruent lexicogrammaical form is either by a finite modal operator such as you should know that or by an expression of the Predicator such as you are supposed to or I am anxious to.However,CMs,which are supposed to connect grammatical resources and to organize the text,could also express interpersonal obligation.For example,
(27)Because the rest of LAMMPS knows nothing about the child class,but only the interface defined by the parent class,all capabilities of the existing code can effectively use the new feature as a black box.(N,AEs)
In Example(27),by using the causal conjunction because,the author initiates the action i.e.,the rest of LAMMPS knows nothing about the child class and makes something happen i.e.,all capabilities of the existing code can effectively use the new feature as a black box,so it involves a kind of obligation(Eggins,1994).The author sets up his/her expectation within the proposal.
Furthermore,when expressing the degree of probability in a proposition,the congruent grammatical form could be a finite operator such as will,or a modal adjunct such as probably,possibly or certainly,or both together,such as that’ll probably be John.In fact,conjunctive markers such as conditional conjunctions could also express such a kind of probability.Considering the following example,
(28)If you make it easy for users to add such capabilities,they will be more likely to use your code,and more likely to contribute code they write,for you and others to take advantage of.(N,AEs)
In Example(28),the proposition leading by the conditional conjunction if is irrealis.The probability will be determined by the condition,but has not yet ensured.The feeling of desire is implicit in this example,but could be read according to the linguistic context.
As Chapter 2 reviews,Martin(1992:229)points out that the internal conjunctions could be paraphrased metaphorically into projective clauses with the following patterns:verbal process+locution,behavioural process+act,and identifying relational process+assigner+act,etc.Thus,because in Example(27)can be paraphrased as a projective clause It has been proved that...,which is considered as occupying objective explicit modal orientation with reference to obligation.If in Example(28)can be paraphrased as a projective clause I suppose/assume that...,which is of subjective explicit modal orientation with the reference of probability.
Compacting the realization and making it less explicit in a number of respects,interpersonal metaphor“is used to give an explicitly subjective orientation to speech functions and to different kinds of modal assessment”(Matthiessen et al,2010:111).According to Matthiessen et al.(2010),interpersonal metaphor typically leads to expanded wordings:the more we need to attend to negotiating relationships,the more we tend to draw on relatively complex grammatical choices.According to this kind of interpretation,CMs can be considered as implicit interpersonal resources without the explicit subjective orientation.Considering the following instance,
(29)Finally,in terms of support for GULP there is a major difference from an open source code.Users with a commercial license have an assurance that they will receive a rapid response to their queries,and the availability of a graphical interface specifically designed for the package removes many of the input syntax or data post processing issues that otherwise arise.(N,AEs)
(30)First of all,in the Italian case the same external shock brought a very different situation.After the 1930s,families were still relevant controllers among large Italian firms but the creation of IRI introduced the government as a new,influential and relevant shareholder in sections of the domestic industry.On the other hand,they were unable to easily collect resources from the banking system(the largest banks could only provide short-term credit)or from the stock market,which remained structurally reduced in size.(H,AEs)
Based on the mechanism of grammatical grammar,a projective clause can represent a CM to construe the interpersonal assessment.Finally in Example(29)actually means that I’ll finishing by noting that which shows the explicit source of subjective assessment,and the action he initiates,which is a kind of obligation.On the other hand in Example(30)could be metaphorically paraphrased as I also suggest that,in that the author aims to add more information or to compare the following information with what he/she has said before.
On the surface,interpersonal metafunction could be realized by lexicogrammatical resources such as modal verbs,adjuncts,etc.And CMs are cohesive signals to express logical or textual metafunction.However,according to interpersonal metaphor,CMs could be paraphrased more concretely with the explicit subjective assessment and orientation,so as to express the authors’stance towards the issue or claim.
All in all,based on interpersonal metaphor,it is possible to interpret CMs into mental,verbal and relational clauses.So it is reasonable to claim that CMs are implicitly evaluative and could help to express authorial stance.