Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpersonal Meaning: Systemic Functional Linguistics perspectives
Edited by J.R. Martin
[Functions of Language 25:1] 2018
► pp. 164–204

Grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization

The case of metaphors of modality

| Ghent University

The aim of this paper is to explore possible connections between ‘grammatical metaphor’ and ‘grammaticalization’, especially with a view to identifying synergies and fostering cross-fertilization of insights between SFL and ‘grammaticalization theory’. After a characterization of the concepts of grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization, it is argued that the two notions are intricately connected. Their connection is explored at two levels: a theoretical-conceptual and a descriptive level. At the theoretical-conceptual level, it is argued that metaphoricity and codification are two sides of the same coin, providing complementary perspectives on synchronic variation and diachronic ‘change’, which can be deconstructed if one changes the time depth or the angle of the perspective. At the descriptive level it is shown that interpersonal grammatical metaphors can be seen as a breeding ground for grammaticalization. Aspects of the syntagmatic nature of interpersonal metaphors are identified as bridging contexts for their grammaticalization into expressions of epistemic assessment, and two grammaticalization paths are identified on the basis of interacting vectors of grammaticalization and metaphoricity, viz. a path into discourse markers and one into epistemic adverbials.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical metaphor
    • 2.1General features of grammatical metaphor
    • 2.2Grammatical metaphor: The syntagmatic dimension
  • 3.Grammaticalization
  • 4.Situating grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization perspectives on semogenesis
    • 4.1Instantiation and stratification
    • 4.2Delicacy, metafunctions, rank scale
  • 5.Intermediate conclusion
  • 6.Interpersonal grammatical metaphor as a bridging context for grammaticalization: Combining the notions at the descriptive level
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17014.tav
References
Aijmer, Karin
1972 Some aspects of psychological predicates (Stockholm Studies in English 14). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
1994 I think: An English modal particle. Lund: Lund University Manuscript.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1967 The imperative in English. In To honour Roman Jakobson. Vol. 11, 335–362. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
2007 Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3). 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1996 Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse function. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S.
2003 Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Vol. 2 1, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
(eds.) 2004a Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b Introduction. In: Alice Caffarel, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), 1–76.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
2001 What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 231. 113–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin
1994 Fact projection. In Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Perspectives on English: Studies in honour of Professor Emma Vorlat, 259–286. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
1999 Categories of experiential grammar (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 11). Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
Davies, Eirian C.
1979 The semantics of syntax: Mood and condition in English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Davies, Eirlys
1986 The English imperative. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2006 Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3). 365–392.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
2015 Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1). 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P.
1980 Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of a communicating mind. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
2000 A theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 The functional syntax handbook: Analyzing English at the level of form. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M.
2010 An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In: Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, Ekkehard König (eds.), 181–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1956 Grammatical categories in modern Chinese: An early sketch of the theory. Transactions of the Philological Society 19561. 180–202.Google Scholar
1961 Antilanguages. American Anthropologist 78(3). 570–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976 Antilanguages. American Anthropologist 78(3). 570–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1970 Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In: D. J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: A festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1979 Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In D. J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds.), Function and context in linguistic analysis: A festschrift for William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1982 The de-automatization of grammar: From Priestley’s “An inspector calls”. In John A. Anderson (ed.), Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh, 129–159. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin P. Fawcett, M. A. K. Halliday, Sydney Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of culture and language. Volume 1: Language as social semiotic (Open Linguistics Series), 3–55. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
1985 Language and the order of nature. In: Nigel Fabb, Derek Attridge, Alan Durant & Colin MacCabe (eds.), The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature, 135–154. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
1987 Language and the order of nature. In Nigel Fabb, Derek Attridge, Alan Durant & Colin MacCabe (eds.), The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature, 135–154. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
1988 New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In: Martin Pütz (ed.), Thirty years of linguistic evolution, 59–95. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
1992a New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In Martin Pütz (ed.), Thirty years of linguistic evolution, 59–95. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992b How do you mean? In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent theory and practice, 20–35. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
1996 On grammar and grammatics. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice, 1–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & Robert Veel (eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 185–235. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies, 7–23. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin
1993 Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
1999 Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2013 Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In: Olga C. M. Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Huntley, Martin
1984 The semantics of English imperatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 71. 103–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IFG1 Halliday 1985 and subsequent editions indicated by numbers
Joseph, Brian D.
2001 Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization”? Language Sciences 231. 113–161.Google Scholar
2004 Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. In: Olga C. M. Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), 45–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamb, Sidney M.
1962 Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1990 Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 11. 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification and transparency. In Andreas Blank & Peter Koch (eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, 147–175. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
2011 Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 79–91. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1985 Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e stile 10(3). 303–318.Google Scholar
1995/1982 Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay L.
1984 Semiotics and education. Toronto: Victoria University.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1981 Language, meaning and context. Bungay: Fontana.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R.
1992 English text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: Packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics 151. 33–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Frances Christie & J. R. Martin (eds.), Genres and institutions, 3–39. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
2008 Incongruent and proud: de/vilifying ‘nominalisation’. Discourse & Society 19(6). 801–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
1991 Systemic typology and topology. In Frances Christie (ed.), Literacy in social processes, 345–383. Northern Territory University, Darwin: Centre for Studies in Language and Education.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & David Rose
2003 Working with discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
2002 Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 235–320. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Descriptive motifs and generalizations. In: Alice Caffarel, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), 537–574.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2015 (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences 471. 148–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2001 Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 231. 187–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2016 For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 301. 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 The development of non-deontic BE BOUND TO in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 1991. 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2009 Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter
2016 Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30(1). 115–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stathi, Katerina, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König
(eds.) 2010 Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (Studies in Language Companion Series 119). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Erich
2012 Introduction. In Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds.), Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations, 1–17. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
1990 From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Elizabeth C. Traugott
1998 Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 37), 229–272. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam
2002 Systemic-Functional Linguistics and the notion of grammatical metaphor: A theoretical study and the proposal for a semiotic-functional integrative model. Ghent: Ghent University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
2003 Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A historiography of the introduction and initial study of the concept. In Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, 5–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Grammatical metaphors in English. Moderna Språk 98(1). 17–26.Google Scholar
2006 Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspectives on semantic variation. Neophilologus 90(2). 321–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Interpersonal grammatical metaphor as double scoping and double grounding. Word 59(1–2). 83–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammatical metaphor. In: Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 354–371. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2017a Grammatical metaphor. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 354–371. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2017b Metaphor in pragmatics. In Anne Barron, Gu Yueguo & Gerard Steen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics, 323–340. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
forthc. a. Semantics. In: Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & Jennifer Yameng Liang eds. Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics Cambridge CUP DOI logo
forthc. b. Grammatical metaphor as a construction type: A semiotic-functional model. London: Equinox.
Thibault, Paul J.
1995 Mood and the ecosocial dynamics of semiotic exchange. In: Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118), 51–89. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac
1991 A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers, 313–329. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1974 Explorations in linguistic elaboration: Language change, language acquisition and the genesis of spatio-temporal terms. In John Anderson & Charles Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics, 263–314. Dordrecht: North Holland.Google Scholar
1975 Spatial expressions of tense and temporal sequencing: A contribution to the study of semantic fields. Semiotica 15(3). 207–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1978 On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In Joseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3: Word structure, 369–400. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1982 From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English. An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 651. 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 The role and development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. In Linda van Bergen & Richard M. Hogg (eds.), Papers from the 12th international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2007 The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4). 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2010 Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In: Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), 51–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Castro, Claudia & Teresa Oteíza
2022. Historical explanations in the Rettig Report: The role of interpersonal grammatical metaphors. Discourse & Society 33:5 ► pp. 581 ff. DOI logo
Cheng, Shi
2023. A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages 0:0 DOI logo
Martin, J R
2020. Ideational semiosis: a tri-stratal perspective on grammatical metaphor. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 36:3 DOI logo
Rudge, Luke A.
2021. Interpersonal Grammar in British Sign Language. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Tian, Lili
2024. An Innovative Demonstration of Functional Linguistic Ideas for Teaching English in Colleges and Universities Based on Multi-objective Optimization Models. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo
Triki, Nesrine, Antonella Giacosa & Bin Li
2023. Construing virtual intercultural experiences: A transitivity analysis of pronominal use in students’ reflective journals. Lingua 286 ► pp. 103491 ff. DOI logo
Xuan, Winfred Wenhui & Shukun Chen
2019. A synthesis of research on grammatical metaphor: meta-data and content analysis. <i>WORD</i> 65:4 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Jiangping
2022. Evidentiality and other types readjusted: Interpersonal modality revisited. Journal of World Languages 8:1 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Jiangping
2023. A corpus-based study of explicit objective modal expressions in English. Studia Neophilologica 95:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Jiangping
2023. A corpus-based study of congruent and metaphorical patterns of modality in English. Studia Neophilologica 95:3 ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.