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 (99)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1972. Some aspects of psychological predicates (Stockholm Studies in English 14). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse function. Berlin: Mouton. doi:  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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, J. R. Martin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 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:  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
Davidse, Kristin. 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:  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
Fawcett, Robin P. 2000. A theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P. 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:  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
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Antilanguages. American Anthropologist 78(3). 570–584. doi: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. Antilanguages. American Anthropologist 78(3). 570–584. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 1996. On grammar and grammatics. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David G. Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice, 1–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 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:  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
Joseph, Brian D. 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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification and transparency. In Andreas Blank & Peter Koch (eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, 147–175. Berlin: Mouton. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 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
Lehmann, Christian. 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
Martin, J. R. 1995. Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: Packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics 151. 33–67. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1997. Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Frances Christie & J. R. Martin (eds.), Genres and institutions, 3–39. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 231. 187–229. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 301. 39–53. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 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:  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:  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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: CUP. doi:  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:  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
Taverniers, Miriam. 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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2004. Grammatical metaphors in English. Moderna Språk 98(1). 17–26.Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2006. Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspectives on semantic variation. Neophilologus 90(2). 321–332. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2008. Interpersonal grammatical metaphor as double scoping and double grounding. Word 59(1–2). 83–109. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2011. Grammatical metaphor. In: Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 354–371. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2017a. Grammatical metaphor. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 354–371. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2017b. Metaphor in pragmatics. In Anne Barron, Gu Yueguo & Gerard Steen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics, 323–340. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 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
Taverniers, Miriam. 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:  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:  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
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1975. Spatial expressions of tense and temporal sequencing: A contribution to the study of semantic fields. Semiotica 15(3). 207–230. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 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
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 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:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English. An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 651. 31–55. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 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
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4). 523–557. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 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:  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:  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 (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Cheng, Shi
2024. A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages 10:3 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Guo, Man & Qingshun He
2024. Literature Review. In A Corpus-Based Study of Projection in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Guo, Man & Qingshun He
2024. Introduction. In A Corpus-Based Study of Projection in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 1 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
Wei, Ping
2024. Metaphorical Interpretation of Early Works of Art Using Symbolization Methods. 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
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
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
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
Rudge, Luke A.
2021. Interpersonal Grammar in British Sign Language. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 227 ff. 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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 january 2025. 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.