Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 171):

At around the time we enter secondary school, we begin to use nominal groups not only to construe concrete and abstract entities, but to reconstrue other kinds of meanings as if they were entities. The kinds of meanings that get reworked in this way include processes (collide-collision, perceive-perception, depart-departure...), qualities (strong-strength, brave-bravery, ugly-ugliness...), modal assessments (might-possibility, must-requirement, may-permission...) and logical relations (so-cause, so that-purpose, if-condition...). These nominalisations are interpreted within the general framework of (ideational) grammatical metaphor in IFG Chapter 10. Metaphorical groups involve the grammar ‘dressing up’ a meaning as something else. Consequently, metaphorical nominal groups have to be interpreted grammatically (as entities) and semantically (as the processes, qualities, modal assessments or logical relations we also understand them to be) in order to fully account for their meaning.

Blogger Comments:

This misrepresents the SFL model of grammatical metaphor, as set out in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 227-96). It is not simply a matter of metaphorical nominal groups being interpreted grammatically as entities and semantically as processes etc.

Instead, metaphorical grammatical realisations express two layers 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: 272, 289) on grammatical metaphor as semantic junction in which a metaphorical Token realises a congruent Value.