Exploring the Diachronic and Genre Distributions of Interpersonal Metaphor: A Corpus-Based Study
Abstract
Interpersonal metaphor opens up new domains of meaning potential. However, up till now, there has been little systematic research on interpersonal metaphors. This research attempts to compare the diachronic and synchronic distributions of interpersonal metaphors and their congruent forms in the COHA and the COCA. It is found that the diachronic distributions of interpersonal metaphors and their congruent forms are complementary: Interpersonal metaphors occur mostly in spoken texts, with fiction, newspaper, magazine and academic texts following. The reason for the lowest frequency of interpersonal metaphors across genres is the prevalence of nominalisations that package information of clauses in academic texts. Nominalisations creating ideational metaphor reduce the negotiability of language and increase the objectification of language, whereas explicit modalities which are typical types of interpersonal metaphor shift non-negotiable into negotiable propositions. It is hence concluded that it is negotiability rather than nominalisation that functions as an indicator of text technicality.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Barsalou, W. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the Brain’s modal systems. In: G. Semin & E. Smith (Eds), Embodied Grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 9-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Banks, D. (2005). On the historical origins of nominalised process in scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 347-357.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286.
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press.
Copeck, T., Barker, K., & Delisle, S. (1997). What is technical text? Language Sciences, 4, 391-424.
Davidse, K. (1999). Categories of Experiential Grammar. Clifton: Department of English and Media Studies, Nottingham Trent University.
Davidse, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2008). Introduction: The realization of interpersonal meaning. Word, 59 (1-2), 3-23.
Gibbs, R., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In: R. Gibbs (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 161-176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing Experience through Meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York: Cassell.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th edition). London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
He, Q., & Wen, B. (2017). A corpus-based study of textual metaphor in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 37(3), 265-285.
He, Q., & Yang, B. (2018). A corpus-based study of the correlation between text technicality and ideational metaphor in English. Lingua, 203, 51-65.
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”: A comparative study of anticipatory “it” in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367-383.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.
Kintsch, W. (2008). How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: A simulation based on LSA. In: R. Gibbs (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 129-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: A. Ortony (Ed), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Liardét, C. (2016). Nominalisation and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the theory. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 16-29.
Liardet, C. (2018). As we all know: Examining Chinese EFL learners’ use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 64-80.
Matthiessen, C. (1995). Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Science.
Martin, J.R. (1993). Life as a noun: arresting the universe in science and humanities. In: M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds), Writing Science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221-267). London: The Palmer Press.
Martin, J. R. (2008). What kind of structure? – Interpersonal meaning and prosodic realization across strata. Word, 59 (1-2), 111-141.
O’Halloran, K. (1996). The texts of Secondary School Mathematics. PhD thesis, Murdoch University.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taverniers, M. (2008). Interpersonal grammatical metaphor as double scoping and double grounding. Word, 59 (1-2), 83-109.
Taverniers, M. (2018). Grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization: The case of metaphors of modality. Functions of Language, 25(1), 164-204.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Yang, Y. (2013). A corpus-based study of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in spoken Chinese. Language Sciences, 38, 1-21.
Yang, B. (2019). Interpersonal metaphor revisited: Identification, categorization, and syndrome. Social Semiotics, 29(2), 186-203.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research