Australian Journal of Linguistics

ISSN: 0726-8602 (Print) 1469-2996 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajl20

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical

Metaphor
Qingshun He & Bingjun Yang
To cite this article: Qingshun He & Bingjun Yang (2014) A Study of Transfer Directions
in Grammatical Metaphor, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34:3, 345-360, DOI:
10.1080/07268602.2014.898226
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.898226

Published online: 13 May 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 174

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cajl20
Download by: [Waseem Hassan]

Date: 21 September 2016, At: 09:48

Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2014

Vol. 34, No. 3, 345360, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.898226

A Study of Transfer Directions in

Grammatical Metaphor*
QINGSHUN HE

AND

BINGJUN YANG

Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Southwest University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University
(Accepted 4 January 2014)

Some systemicists recently proposed the bidirectionality of rank-shift in grammatical

metaphor. This article is intended to explore whether there is any possibility that
bidirectional transfer could occur in or across the three types of grammatical metaphor. The
results show that rank-shift takes place along two dimensions, one from the semantics to
lexicogrammar in the content plane of language and the other among grammatical
categories at the lexicogrammatical stratum; both are unidirectional. Ideational metaphor
is manifested as downward rank-shift. Metaphor of modality is manifested as unidirectional transcategorization from modal verbs through modal adverbs or prepositional
phrases to modal projecting clauses, metaphor of mood as unidirectional transcategorization from unmarked to marked lexicogrammatical categories. Textual metaphor is
manifested as unidirectional transcategorization from unmarked to marked structures.
Keywords: Grammatical Metaphor; Rank-Shift; Transcategorization; Transfer Direction; Unidirectionality
1. Introduction
Why is it that a text might present us with a clause like example (1a) below when a
more straightforward formulation would be example (1b) below? (This example is
quoted from Halliday (1994: 350)):
(1) a. Advances in technology are speeding up the writing of business programs.
b. Because technology is getting better people are able to write business programs
faster.
*This study was funded by a grant from Ministry of Education of China (13JJD740010) and a grant from
Southwest University (SWU1409102). We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments
and helpful suggestions.
2014 The Australian Linguistic Society

346

Q. He and B. Yang

By what grammatical steps does such a progression of form take place? And under
what conditions? This may be best explained by grammatical metaphor. Grammatical
metaphor is a theory that offers an account of how such variants of choice have
developed over the three histories of text: over the diachronic development of a
language; over the development of options from childhood to maturity; and over the
accumulation of complexity in the development of the text itself. Grammatical
metaphor in the Hallidayan sense is the recoupling of meaning at the lexicogrammatical stratum. From the perspective of language evolution, the recoupling is
unidirectional. As is pointed out in Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 646), the
general tendency for ideational metaphor is to downgrade the domain of
grammatical realization of a semantic sequence, figure or elementfrom clause
nexus to clause, from clause to group/phrase, and even from group or phase to word
while the general tendency is for interpersonal metaphor to upgrade the domain of
grammatical realization from group rank to clause rank.
However, in recent years, some systemicists began to question the unidirectional
nature of grammatical metaphor and proposed bidirectionality of metaphorical
process. For example, Hu (1996) holds that ideational metaphor can be realized not
only as nominalization of verbs but also as verbalization of nouns. Liu (2005) agrees
on the bidirectional view, but proposes that the transfer direction in interpersonal
metaphor be in reverse to that in ideational metaphor. Lin and Yang (2010) believe
that the semantic mapping and the transfer from the congruent expression to its
metaphorical counterpart are unidirectional from a diachronic perspective, but
bidirectional from a synchronic perspective. The corresponding transfers of other
constituents resulting from such reverse transfers have not been explained in these
studies, e.g. grammatical metaphor syndrome, so these studies are not sufficient to
negate the unidirectionality of recoupling of meaning at the lexicogrammatical
stratum in grammatical metaphor.
The purpose of this article is therefore to address the transfer directions of
grammatical metaphor within the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL). The research question is: whether there is any possibility that
bidirectional transfer could occur in or across the three types of grammatical
metaphor. For this purpose, we shall first offer a sketch of grammatical metaphor.
Then we will explain the interactions between the form and the meaning of language
from two transfer dimensions, followed by a discussion of the transfer directions of
three types of grammatical metaphor. And finally we will look into the relationships
of transfer directions of grammatical metaphor.

2. A Sketch of Grammatical Metaphor

Halliday (1994) proposed the concept of grammatical metaphor, referring to the
expression of a meaning through a lexicogrammatical form which originally evolved
to express a different kind of meaning (Thompson 1996: 165). From the perspective
of SFL, a given semantic configuration can be realized in a congruent form or various

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor 347

incongruent (metaphorical) forms. Congruent forms are recognized as the typical

ways of saying things (Halliday 1994: 343), and they are closer to the state of affairs
in the external world (Thompson 1996: 164), while the metaphorical forms are
glossed as not expressed through the most typical (and highly coded) form of
representation (Halliday 1978: 180). Halliday classifies grammatical metaphor into
two subcategories: ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor. In this section,
we will provide a sketch of ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor proposed
by Halliday and textual metaphor proposed by Martin and others (see also He 2013).
2.1. Ideational Metaphor and Interpersonal Metaphor
According to Halliday (1994: 343), the ideational metaphor is metaphor of transitivity
and the interpersonal metaphor is metaphor of mood and modality. The clause in
example (1a) above is a typical example of ideational metaphor. Lets take example (2)
(see Halliday 1998: 191) as another example for more detailed analysis:
(2) a. The driver drove the bus too rapidly down the hill, so the brakes failed.
b. The drivers overrapid downhill driving of the bus resulted in brake failure.

The two finite clauses the driver drove the bus too rapidly down the hill and the brakes
failed in example (2a) are both rank-shifted into nominal groups the drivers
overrapid downhill driving of the bus and brake failure in example (2b), and the
conjunction group so verbalized into result in. In the process of nominalization and
verbalization, other lexicogrammatical items are also transcategorized respectively.
The nominal groups the driver, the bus, the adverbial group too fast and the
prepositional phrase down the hill functioning as Actor, Goal, Manner and Location
respectively in the first clause in example (2a), are transcategorized into nominal
groups the drivers, the bus, adjectives overrapid and downhill functioning as
Possessive Deictic, Qualifier, Epithet and Classifier respectively in example (2b),
and the nominal group the brakes functioning as Actor in the second clause in
example (2a) is transcategorized into the nominal group brakes functioning as
Classifier in example (2b). In other words, ideational metaphor is realized through
nominalization, verbalization and transcategorization.
Interpersonal function is realized in the systems of modality and mood, and
interpersonal metaphor can occur in both of the two systems. In the system of
modality, four types of modality are distinguished, i.e. probability, usuality, obligation
and inclination, each of which is realized in four semantic domains, i.e. subjective,
objective, implicit and explicit. Metaphor of modality occurs when the speakers
opinion regarding the probability that his observation is valid is coded not as a modal
element within the clause, which would be its congruent realization, but as a separate,
projecting clause in a hypotactic clause complex (Halliday 1994: 354). That is, in the
four semantic domains of modality, explicit objective modality is essentially
metaphorical (Thompson 1996: 172); see examples (3)(5):

348

Q. He and B. Yang
(3) a. There cant be many candlestick-makers left. (Halliday 1994: 357)
b. It is impossible that there are many candlestick-makers left.
(4) a. It will change right there in front of your eyes. (Halliday 1994: 357)
b. Its usual for it to change right there in front of your eyes.
(5) a. The roads should pay for themselves. (Halliday 1994: 357)
b. Its expected that the roads pay for themselves.

The modality types of probability, usuality and obligation in examples (3a), (4a) and
(5a) respectively are implicit and subjective orientation realized by modal elements
within clauses, and those in examples (3b), (4b) and (5b) are explicit and objective
orientation realized by projecting clauses in hypotactic clause complexes of
projection. Therefore, examples (3b), (4b) and (5b) are metaphors of modality of
examples (3a), (4a) and (5a) respectively.
In the system of mood, the two fundamental types of speech roles are giving and
demanding, and the commodities exchanged are goods-&-services or information.
These two variables, when taken together, define the four primary speech functions of
offer, command, statement and question (Halliday 1994: 69). The four speech functions
can be realized by three types of mood congruently, i.e. declarative, interrogative and
imperative. The speaker can also select other types of mood to realize the speech
functions, that is, transcategorization, hence metaphor of mood occurring. For example:
(6) I want you to have a bit more of the rice, Dano. (Halliday & Matthiessen
2004: 627)

In example (6), the mood of declaration metaphorically realizes the speech function
of command. The congruent realization may be Have a bit more of the rice, Dano!
2.2. Textual Metaphor
Halliday has never mentioned the concept of textual metaphor, so it is debatable
whether the label textual metaphor is really justified (Thompson 1996: 176).
Systemicists like Martin (1992, 1993) and Thompson (1996) believe that textual
metaphor should be included in the study of grammatical metaphor. Certain
discourse elements organize text rather than field, which include meta-message
relation, text reference, negotiating text and internal conjunction, all of which are
text-organizing pro-forms (Martin 1992: 416417). For example, we have that point,
a number of reasons, for example, next, let me begin by etc. These forms can be
regarded as textual metaphor. Textual metaphor is further grouped into metaphorical
Themes and metaphorical News by Martin (1993: 241243). Thompson (1996) takes
thematic equatives and the predicated Theme constructions as textual metaphor.
Besides, five types of textual metaphor are proposed by Lassen (2003a: 43, 2003b:
283): compound nouns, passive voice, reference, non-finite clause and ellipsis.

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor 349

Within the subcategory of non-finite clause, Yang (2003) argues that non-finite
clauses without conjunctions may be one type of textual metaphor. The four types of
textual metaphor proposed by He (2013) is also centred around non-finiteness:
elaborative non-finite clauses; extensive and enhancing non-finite clauses without
relators; extensive and enhancing non-finite clauses with prepositions as relators; and
enhancing non-finite clauses with prepositionalized non-finite verbs.
However, disagreements arise among systemicists on textual metaphor. Ravelli
(2003) does not accept the text-organizing types of textual metaphor, and holds that
if so, a number of abstract items, such as fact would be netted in to the definition
(Ravelli 2003: 57). Martin (1997: 339) himself distinguishes abstract items from
grammatical metaphor and believes that abstract nouns like fact are not grammatical
metaphors. Huang disagrees with Thompson in treating thematic equatives and the
predicated Theme constructions as textual metaphor, because the presence of
metaphor can be recognised not only by the need for a double analysis of the two
thematic structures but also by the need for a double transitivity analysis (Huang
2002: 4041).
Before we discuss transfer directions in grammatical metaphor, it is necessary to
introduce transfer dimensions between language strata and across grammatical
categories.
3. Language Strata and Grammatical Categories: Transfer Dimensions
As for the relationship between language form and meaning, SFL focuses on the
realization of meaning (semantics) at the stratum of form (lexicogrammar), so the
study of SFL is a top-down activity. Here the top-down is represented from two
aspects. One is from language strata (semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology) and
the other is from rank scale (clause, phrase/group, word and morpheme). The
recoupling of meaning at the lexicogrammatical stratum can be taken as the transfer
between language strata and that across grammatical categories.
3.1. Transfer between Language Strata
The meaning of language, within its evolution process, is construed as the congruent
form at the lexicogrammatical stratum, and then the meaning is rearranged at the
lexicogrammatical stratum through rank-shift or transcategorization as metaphorical
form, which in turn creates new additional meanings. This process is linear in
direction and grammatical metaphor occurs at the stage of transfer from the semantic
stratum to the lexicogrammatical stratum. From a diachronic perspective, the
congruent form always occurs prior to the metaphorical form. In the early stages of
childrens language development, the language contains only two levels: the
expression level and the content level, hence no grammatical metaphors.
From the moment when the content plane became deconstrued into the two strata
of semantics and lexicogrammar, any relationship of form and meaning can be

350

Q. He and B. Yang
decoupled and replaced by a new cross-coupling in which the meaning is now
represented by a different form. (Halliday 1998/2004b: xxiii-xxiv)

The metaphorical expression can develop into dead metaphor, which as a

congruent expression might be further metaphorized. The new meaning of the
metaphorical expression is a junction of the original meaning and the additional
meaning, and can be reorganized at the lexicogrammatical stratum into new
metaphorical expression. The new metaphorical form again creates new additional
meanings, but this belongs to a next stage in the language evolution process. A
complete semogenic history is in fact a process of continual metaphorization and
demetaphorization (Liu 2003: 126). Metaphorization and demetaphorization usually
occur when there is transfer between the semantic stratum and the lexicogrammatical
stratum.
3.2. Transfers across Grammatical Categories
Grammatical metaphor can be taken as the transfer across grammatical categories. In
SFL, different metafunctions need different grammatical and semantic categories. As
to ideational metafunction, Halliday (1998/2004a) classifies congruence between
semantic and grammatical categories into congruence in rank and congruence in
status. The former means that the semantic sequence, figure and element are
congruently realized by the lexicogrammatical clause complex, clause and group/
phrase. The latter means that the semantic thing (entity), quality, process,
circumstance, minor process and relator are congruently realized by the lexicogrammatical noun (nominal group), adjective, verb (verbal group), adverb (adverbial
group), prepositional phrase or conjunction. Grammatical metaphor comes into
being when such correspondence shifts, that is, when the higher-level categories at
the semantic stratum are realized by the relatively lower-level categories at the
lexicogrammatical stratum. For example, a sequence can be realized incongruently by
a clause or a phrase/group, a clause by a phrase/group, and an element by other
categories of group. The grammatical metaphor thus shifts both the rank and the
class (Halliday 1998/2004a: 40).
In the interpersonal metafunction, congruence is realized from the coupling of
semantic categories such as implicit, explicit, subjective and objective with
lexicogrammatical categories such as modal verbs, modal adverbs or prepositional
phrases, subjective projecting clauses and objective projecting clauses in the system of
modality. Congruence is also realized from the coupling of the semantic categories
such as offer, command, statement and question with lexicogrammatical categories
such as declarative, imperative, interrogative clauses in the system of mood. Textual
metaphor is still open to question, but it will be enlightening to discuss textual
metaphor following the principle that semantic categories are realized by lexicogrammatical categories. This will be further discussed in Section 4.3.

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor 351

4. Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor

SFL constructed three functional structures through wording: the transitivity
structure realizing the ideational meaning, the mood structure realizing the
interpersonal meaning, and the thematic structure and information structure
realizing the textual meaning. This principle is that the different metafunctional
modes of meaning tend to be realized by different structural modes (Halliday &
Matthiessen 2004: 383). Transfer direction in ideational metaphor is thus different
from that in interpersonal metaphor.
4.1. Transfer Direction in Ideational Metaphor
The major type of ideational metaphor is the nominalization of verbal groups, which
causes corresponding shifts of other constituents. For example, a noun group
realizing participant shifts into a determiner realizing Modifier. After the two clauses
in a clause complex are both nominalized, the conjunction realizing relator is
verbalized to realize process. Rank-shift consists of nominalization and verbalization
at the lexicogrammatical stratum (Zhu 2006: 88), and it is represented as the verbal
group realizing relator and process, the nominal group realizing figure and
participant, and the determiner realizing Thing and Modifier, etc. Conjunctions can
also be directly rank-shifted into nominal groups, realizing relator and Thing. The
transfer direction of ideational metaphor can be exemplified by example (7) (see
Halliday 1998/2004a: 35):
(7) a. Osmolarity increases. Consequently putrescine is rapidly excreted.
b. Osmolarity increases, so putrescine is rapidly excreted.
c. Because osmolarity increases, putrescine is rapidly excreted.
d. Osmolarity increasing leads to putrescine being rapidly excreted.
e. Increasing of osmolarity causes rapid excreting of putrescine.
f. Increase of osmolarity causes rapid excretion of putrescine.
g. Increases of osmolarity cause rapid excretions of putrescine.
h. The cause of rapid excretions of putrescine is increases of osmolarity.
i. Rapid excretions of putrescine through increases of osmolarity.

According to the syndrome theory of grammatical metaphor proposed by Halliday

(1998/2004a), there may be more than one transfer from the congruent expression to
the metaphorical expression. In example (7a), the two independent clauses are
combined cohesively, but not structurally. Examples (7b) and (7c) are paratactical
and hypotactical clause complexes, respectively, the two clauses in each of which are
structurally linked. However, both are not metaphorical forms because there is no
nominalization or verbalization in the two clause complexes. The clause complex

352

Q. He and B. Yang

realizing sequence in example (7d) is transferred into a clause, with both finite clauses
shifting into non-finite clauses. The non-finite clauses realize both figure and
participant, hence grammatical metaphor occurring, and the conjunction group
realizing relator is verbalized into leads to, realizing both relator and process. In
example (7e), the two non-finite clauses are both rank-shifted into nominal groups
with non-finite verbs as Head. In example (7f), the two non-finite verbs are further
rank-shifted into mass nouns, which are rank-shifted into countable nouns in
example (7g). The verbal group realizing the logico-semantic relation is nominalized
into Thing, functioning as participant in the relational clause in example (7h). The
relational clause is rank-shifted into a nominal group in example (7i). Therefore,
from example (7a) to example (7i), the two cohesively linked independent clauses are
rank-shifted step by step into a nominal group. This process is a unidirectionally
downward rank-shift.
At the same time, the rank-shift in grammatical categories involves a shift in
metafunctions: textual logical logical + experiential experiential. Here the
meaning of expansion changes with the shift of metafunctional manifestations. The
manifestation of cause changes from rhetorical relation in example (7a) (textual:
consequently) via logico-semantic relation in examples (7b) and (7c) (logical: so,
because) to process in examples (7d)(7g) (logical + experiential: lead to, cause).
Again, the manifestation of cause changes from logico-semantic relation in examples
(7b) and (7c) to relational process in example (7h) (experiential: is) and participant in
example (7i). It thus becomes clear that the shift between metafunctions is also
unidirectional.
4.2. Transfer Direction in Interpersonal Metaphor
The metaphor of modality at the semantic level is manifested as the transfer of the
opinion of the speaker from the subjective category to the objective category and
from the implicit category to the explicit category, that is, to objectify and clarify the
implicit modal meaning in the modal element. These semantic categories are realized
by modal verbs, modal adverbs or prepositions, subjective projecting clauses and
objective projecting clauses. See (8) for example:
(8) a. Tom must be a student. (implicit, subjective)
b. Tom is probably a student. (implicit, objective)
c. I think Tom is a student. (explicit, subjective)
d. It is likely that Tom is a student. (explicit, objective)

The transcategorization at the semantic stratum from the implicit subjective category
to the implicit objective category and that from the explicit subjective category to the
explicit objective category are realized by the transcategorization at the lexicogrammatical stratum. That is, transcategorization from modal verbs to modal adverbs or
prepositional phrases and that from subjective projecting clauses to objective

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor 353

projecting clauses. The transcategorization at the semantic stratum from the implicit
subjective category is realized by the transcategorization at the lexicogrammatical
stratum from modal verbs to subjective projecting clauses, and the transcategorization at the semantic stratum from the implicit objective category to the explicit
objective category is realized by the transcategorization at the lexicogrammatical
stratum from modal adverbs to objective projecting clauses. Although the explicit
modal elements are separated from the proposition and constitute clause complexes
of the projection type, neither of the two transfers involves rank-shift. The reasons are
as follows:
First, the dominant component of a clause is the verbal group, which determines
the rank status of a clause. In a clause with a modal verb being the finite, the modal
verb determines the rank status of the clause. The transcategorization of the modal
verb to the subjective projecting clause will not lead to the shift of rank. Rank-shift
does not occur in the transcategorization from the modal verb must to the modal
adverb probably.
Second, the modal projecting clauses are not the direct result of rank-shift from
modal verbs or modal adverbs, because there is no formal similarity between them.
Grammatical metaphor occurs only when there is similarity in form between the
congruent form and the metaphorical form (Zhang & Zhao 2008: 29). In other
words, the metaphorical form is directly transferred from the congruent form. There
is no formal similarity between it is likely and probably although they are not at the
same rank. The same is true for must and probably.
The concept of upgrade or downgrade is not the same as that of rank-shift. The
former refers mainly to the change of scale of a language unit, while the latter only to
the shift of rank in the Hallidayan sense. For example, we can downgrade but not
rank-shift a clause complex into a clause since clause is the highest rank at the
lexicogrammatical stratum. When we say the metaphoric strategy is to upgrade the
interpersonal assessment from group rank to clause rank (Halliday & Matthiessen
2004: 626), it does not mean at all that interpersonal metaphor (of modality) occurs
from upward rank-shift.
Therefore, the metaphors of modality are the result not of rank-shift, but of
transcategorization of modal elements from the unmarked form to the marked
form(s)from modal verbs to modal adverbs or modal prepositional groups and
finally to subjective and objective projecting clauses. This transcategorization is
unidirectional.
The metaphor of mood is also the result of transcategorization. The lexicogrammatical categories for proposals are realized as propositions in the metaphors of
mood. See (9) for example:
(9) a. Close the door!
b. Can you close the door?
c. Id like you to close the door.

354

Q. He and B. Yang

In example (9a) the imperative clause realizing the speech function of command is
congruent in mood. In examples (9b) and (9c), the same speech function is realized
by interrogative and declarative clauses respectively. The transcategorized mood types
are marked, so the metaphor of mood occurs. The metaphor of mood can be seen as
a shift of mood from one domain to another (Chang 2001: 7). The transcategorization from the unmarked mood choice to the marked mood choice(s) is the rationale
of the metaphor of mood. This transcategorization is unidirectional.
4.3. Transfer Direction in Textual Metaphor
We would like to take textual metaphor types by Lassen (2003a) as examples here for
the discussion of transfer direction in textual metaphor. Textual metaphor types
proposed by Lassen include compound nouns, passive voice, reference, non-finite
clause and ellipsis. See Lassens examples in (10)(14) (Lassen 2003a: 44):
(10) a. Straw walker rear shaft.
b. (the) rear shaft (which is) (on the) walker (which moves the) straw.
(11) a. The grain is moved to the front of the top sieve.
b. (A mechanism) moves the grain to the front of the top sieve.
(12) Connect (the) pipes to (the) cylinder.
(13) a. Operate the valve, checking for continuous flow.
b. Operate the valve and check for continuous flow.
c. Operate the valve while (you) check for continuous flow.
(14) Cleaning shoe drive belt (is) slipping.

According to theories of grammatical metaphor, the noun straw functioning as

Classifier in example (10) can be seen first as ideational metaphor, but not as textual
metaphor. The passive voice in example (11) is the result of choosing from the voice
system; it is unconvincing to take passive voice as grammatical metaphor. The ellipsis
of articles in example (12) may obscure the references of the relevant nouns, but
ellipsis itself will not result in any grammatical metaphor. The non-finite clause in
example (13) leads to multiple explanations, which is not in agreement with the
rationale of grammatical metaphor. The ellipsis of the verb in example (14) makes the
sentence grammatically unacceptable.
The textual metafunction is concerned with factors which make texts to be
cohesive in form and coherent in meaning. Realization of cohesion and coherence
relies on the choice of Themes and the distribution of information. Generally, the
congruent form of a clause is unmarked in cohesive structure, thematic structure and
information structure. Any change in the three structures will result in the marked
form with double semantic features, leading to occurrence of textual metaphor. For
example:

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor 355

(15) a. I will tell you about silver. It needs to have love. (Halliday & Matthiessen
2004: 90)
b. I will tell you about silver. Love it needs to have.

In example (15a), the Subject, the Senser and the Theme of the second clause overlap,
hence an unmarked thematic structure. The it refers back to the silver in the first
clause, hence an unmarked cohesive structure. The pronoun it functions as the given
information, hence an unmarked information structure. In example (15b), the Theme
does not overlap with the Subject and the Senser, hence a marked thematic structure,
and so thematic metaphor occurs. The love in the second clause is the New
information placed at the position of the Given information, hence a marked
information structure, and so information metaphor occurs. These reorganizations at
the lexicogrammatical stratum do not involve rank-shifts required in ideational
metaphor. They are transcategorizations within textual metafunction, so we have
textual metaphor here. The transcategorization from unmarked structure to marked
structure is the rationale for thematic metaphor and information metaphor. This
transcategorization is unidirectional.
Similarly, the logico-semantic relation can be metaphorically realized by various
means of linking, to make the cohesive structure marked. For example, in a clause
complex consisting of a finite clause and a non-finite clause, there may be different
linkers realizing the function of relator:
(16) a. If the work is not
b. Without the work being completed, you wont get away.
c. The work not being

The finite subordinate clause in example (16a) is linked by conjunction if, realizing
the relation of condition. In example (16b), the subordinate clause is non-finite, the
preposition without realizing the double functions of minor process and relator,
hence cohesive metaphor. There is no conjunction in example (16c), and the logicosemantic relation is realized as certain mental representation (Lassen 2003a), hence
cohesive metaphor. Therefore, the transcategorization of the realization forms of the
logico-semantic relation in a clause complex from conjunction through preposition to
zero linker is unidirectional.

5. Relationship between the Transfer Directions of Grammatical Metaphor

So far we have seen that transfers of the three types of grammatical metaphor are
unidirectional. Interpersonal metaphor has been theorized in terms of a borrowing of
ideational resources to construe interpersonal meanings (Martin 1997: 28), and the
borrowing of different resources construes different interpersonal meanings. So it is
not appropriate to explain interpersonal metaphor in terms of rank-shift. The

356

Q. He and B. Yang

interrelation between the rank-shift in ideational function and the transcategorization

in textual metaphor can be explained through non-finite clauses in clause complexes.
See (17) for example:
(17) a. When he arrived at
b. When arriving at

Hamilton Terrace, he found the door open.

c. Arriving at
d. On arrival at

The subordinate temporal clause in example (17a) is finite, and those in examples
(17b) and (17c) non-finite. In the cline of rank from finite clause to nominal group,
the non-finite verb is lower than the finite verb in rank, hence ideational metaphor.
At the same time, there is no conjunction linking the non-finite dependent clause and
the finite dominant clause (for the criteria of non-finite clause identification, see Yang
(2004)). The transcategorization from conjunction to zero linker results in the
creation of textual metaphor. Example (17c) is both ideational metaphor and textual
metaphor of example (17a), and the rank-shift in ideational metaphor and the
transcategorization in textual metaphor are consistent in terms of transfer direction.
It is the preposition that realizes relator in example (17d), and the non-finite clause is
further rank-shifted into nominal group functioning as the complement of the
preposition. It is lower than the finite clause in example (17a) and the non-finite
clauses in examples (17b) and (17c) in rank, so we have ideational metaphor here.
The logico-semantic relation is not implicit, but the preposition on realizes both
relator and minor process, resulting in the occurrence of textual metaphor. The two
types of transfer can be illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1 shows that examples (17b) and (17c) are at the same rank, and the rank-shift
from the finite verb in example (17a) through the present participle in examples (17b)
and (17c) to the gerund in example (17d) is unidirectionally downward. Figure 2 shows
that the conjunction when in examples (17a) and (17b) realizes relator, and the
transcategorization from conjunction in examples (17a) and (17b) through preposition
in example (17d) to zero linker in example (17c) is unidirectional. However, the relator
in example (17d) is explicit and that in example (17c) is implicit, indicating that example
(17c) is the textual metaphor of example (17d), while example (17d) is lower than
example (17c) in rank, indicating that example (17d) is the ideational metaphor of

Figure 1

Rank-shift direction in ideational metaphor

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor 357

Figure 2

Transcategorization direction in textual metaphor

example (17c). The transfers in these two types of grammatical metaphor are reverse in
direction.
Both interpersonal metaphor and textual metaphor involve unidirectional transcategorizations, but the two transcategorizations are not the same. The former is
grammatical, and the latter structural. In a declarative structure, the modal verb
follows the Subject, so it is not thematic. After it is transferred into a modal adverb, it
can be placed before the Subject, functioning as the interpersonal Theme. The modal
projecting clause not only can function as the interpersonal Theme, but also has its
own thematic structure. However, the interpersonal Theme does not influence the
thematic structure of the clause, that is, the interpersonal Theme will not make the
thematic structure of the clause marked. The metaphor of mood does not affect the
thematic structure of the clause either. For example, the Theme of the interpersonally
congruent clause in example (9a) is close, and the Themes of the interpersonally
metaphorical clauses in examples (9b) and (9c) are can you and I respectively. Both
are unmarked thematic structures.
The relationship between transfer directions of grammatical metaphor can be
explained via relations between the three metafunctions. According to SFL, language
evolved, in the human species, in two complementary functions: construing
experience, and enacting social processes (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: xi). The
ideational metaphor is a way of knowing the world and construing experiences. The
knowing of the world always follows the from-simple-to-complex principle, and the
construing of experience the from-concrete-to-abstract principle. In connection with
the interpersonal metafunction, there is a realignment of social relationships taking
place (Ravelli 2003: 53). In the process of enacting social relations through language,
people tend to perform their wishes, attitudes and judgments in an objective way, and
to hide their subjective determinations in their objective expressions in a polite and
mild way so as to avoid a direct conflict between the communicators. On the other
hand, the speaker also tends to separate the modal elements from the clause to clarify
the modality. Therefore, the unidirectional rank-shift in ideational metaphor and the
unidirectional transcategorization in interpersonal metaphor are both the reflection
of the diachronic development of language, interrelated and complemented. As
system is itself exclusive, the rank-shift in ideational metaphor and the transcategorization in interpersonal metaphor are not necessarily interrelated. For example, the
nominalization in example (18) construes the modal meaning into an unquestionable
Thing, and conceals the origin of the modality to make it clear and objective, hence

358

Q. He and B. Yang

the metaphor of modality. The ideational metaphor stems from nominalization. For
example:
(18) There is no possibility that Tom is a student.

The text base provides the resources that enable the speaker to produce
contextualized discourse and to guide the listener in interpreting it (Halliday &
Matthiessen 1999: 12), and so it is a second-order mode of meaning (Halliday &
Matthiessen 1999: 398). Therefore, textual metaphor does not mean the occurrence of
ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor in text. For example, the nominalized element functioning as the Theme or Rheme in a clause is still ideational
metaphor; it will not turn into thematic metaphor or rhematic metaphor, or into
information metaphor. The metaphorical Theme and metaphorical new information
proposed by Martin (1992) are both ideational metaphors functioning in text. Modal
verbs are relatively fixed in location compared with modal adverbs, prepositional
phrases and projecting clauses. These metaphorical forms can function as interpersonal Themes or as given information in Rhemes, but the modal elements themselves
cannot change the thematic or the information structures of the clauses. Textual
metaphor occurs in the reorganization of the thematic structure, information
structure or cohesive structure. Thus, the directions of transfer in the three types of
grammatical metaphor are interrelated and complemented. At the content plane, the
three are all manifested as the unidirectional transfer from the semantic stratum to
the lexicogrammatical stratum; and at the lexicogrammatical stratum, they show
different unidirectional transfers.

6. Conclusion
Grammatical metaphor is the reorganization of the meaning at the lexicogrammatical
stratum, and is manifested as the transfer from the semantic stratum to the
lexicogrammatical stratum and that within the grammatical categories. Types of
grammatical metaphor have different transfer patterns. Ideational metaphor is
manifested as unidirectionally downward rank-shift; metaphors of modality as
unidirectional transcategorization from modal verbs through modal adverbs and
modal prepositional phrases to modal projecting clauses; metaphors of mood as
unidirectional transcategorization from the unmarked to marked lexicogrammatical
categories; and textual metaphor as unidirectional transcategorization from the
unmarked to marked structures. The rank-shift of ideational metaphor and the
transcategorization of interpersonal metaphor both reflect the development of
language, but their representations are not necessarily related. The transcategorization
in textual metaphor from conjunction through preposition to zero linker is in
consistency in direction with the rank-shift in ideational metaphor, while the
transcategorization in textual metaphor from preposition to zero linker is reverse in
direction to the rank-shift in ideational metaphor. The transfers in the three types of

A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor 359

grammatical metaphor are all unidirectional, diachronically interrelated, but each

with its own characteristics.
References
Chang CG 2001 Interpersonal metaphors in English Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 7: 68.
Halliday MAK 1978 Language as Social Semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday MAK 1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar 2nd edition London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday MAK 1998 Things and relations: regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge in
JR Martin & R. Veel (eds) Reading Science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of
science London: Routledge. pp. 185236.
Halliday MAK 1998/2004a Language and knowledge: the unpacking of text in J Webster (ed.) The
Language of Science London: Continuum. pp. 2448.
Halliday MAK 1998/2004b Introduction: how big is a language? On the power of language in
J Webster (ed.) The Language of Science London: Continuum. pp. xixxxxii.
Halliday MAK & C Matthiessen 1999 Construing Experience through Meaning: a language-based
approach to cognition London/New York: Cassell.
Halliday MAK & C Matthiessen 2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar 3rd edition London:
Edward Arnold.
He QS 2013 Textual metaphor from the non-finite clausal perspective Open Journal of Modern
Linguistics 3(4): 308313. doi:10.4236/ojml.2013.34039
Hu ZL 1996 Grammatical metaphor Foreign Language Teaching and Research 4: 17.
Huang GW 2002 Cleft sentences as grammatical metaphors in GW Huang & ZY Wang (eds)
Discourse and Language Functions Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
pp. 3241.
Lassen I 2003a Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals: a survey of style and
grammatical metaphor Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lassen I 2003b Imperative readings of grammatical metaphor: a study of congruency in the
imperative in AM Simon-Vandenbergen, M Taverniers & LJ Ravelli (eds) Grammatical
Metaphor: views from systemic functional linguistics Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 279308.
Lin ZJ & Z Yang 2010 A study of semantic relations and rank-shift directions in grammatical
metaphor Foreign Language Teaching and Research 6: 403410.
Liu CY 2003 The stylistic value of grammatical metaphor Modern Foreign Languages 2: 120127.
Liu CY 2005 The reverse direction of rank-shift between ideational metaphor and interpersonal
metaphor Foreign Language Teaching and Research 5: 289293.
Martin JR 1992 English Text: system and structure Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin JR 1993 Life as a noun: arresting the universe in science and humanities in MAK Halliday
& JR Martin (eds) Writing Science, Literary and Discourse Power London: Palmer Press.
pp. 241293.
Martin JR 1997 Analyzing genre: functional parameters in F Christie & J Martin (eds) Genres and
Institutions London: Cassell. pp. 339.
Ravelli LJ 2003. Renewal of connection: integrating theory and practice in an understanding of
grammatical metaphor in AM Simon-Vandenbergen, M Taverniers & LJ Ravelli (eds)
Grammatical Metaphor: views from systemic functional linguistics Philadelphia/Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. pp. 3764.
Thompson G 1996 Introducing Functional Grammar London: Edward Arnold.
Yang BJ 2003 A Study of Non-finite Clauses in English: a systemic functional approach Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

360

Q. He and B. Yang

Yang BJ 2004 Towards the criteria of non-finite clause identification: a systemic-functional

approach Language Sciences 3: 233249. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2003.07.002
Zhang DL & J Zhao 2008 On the formal similarity principle in ideational grammatical metaphor
between congruent and metaphorical forms Journal of Foreign Languages 6: 2532.
Zhu YS 2006 On nominalization, verbalization and grammatical metaphor Foreign Language
Teaching and Research 2: 8390.