Exploring the relationship between grammatical metaphor and mode differentiation in Chinese political discourses

Authors

  • Cheng Xi East China Normal University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/rtcfl.36857

Keywords:

grammatical metaphor, mode differentiation, Chinese political discourses

Abstract

In Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), the contextual research of Grammatical Metaphor (GM) is mainly examined by considering three register variables, namely, field, tenor and mode. Although there have been some studies on the relationship between GM and mode, the contribution of GM in mode differentiation has not been investigated in depth so far. This study thus aims to explore the relationship between GM and mode differentiation in Chinese political discourses through an analysis of a corpus formed by 15 texts based on Yang's GM model, and these texts construct three text types distinguished in mode, namely, political reports, political speeches and political interviews. After defining the mode scale and GM distribution scale, the study then examines how GM deployment connects with mode differentiation in two steps: (1) the establishment of mapping relationships between the lexical density scale and the ideational GM deployment scale; (2) the interpretation of the mapping relationships from functional perspectives. It is found that the lexical density scale and GM distribution scale of three text types are well mapped onto each other, which indicates that ideational GM distribution strongly correlates with the lexical density. Such mapping relationships suggest that the deployment of GM is related to mode differentiation because the use of GM has distinctive effects on the complexity, organization and ideologies of texts in different modes.

Author Biography

Cheng Xi, East China Normal University

Cheng Xi is a PhD candidate in East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. His research interests are primarily in Systemic Functional Linguistics and discourse analysis. Email: 51150400160@stu.ecnu.edu.cn.

References

Chilton, P. and Schäffner, C. (Eds) (2002). Political as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2nd ed.. London: Continuum.

Fetzer, A. (2014). I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language 21 (1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. In J. J. Webster (Ed.) The Language of Early Childhood, Volume 4 of The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, 28–59. London and New York: Continuum. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-443701-2.50025-1

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In J. J. Webster (Ed.) On Grammar, 323–351. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge. In J. J. Webster (Ed.) The Language of Science, 49–101. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1999). The grammatical construction of scientific knowledge: the framing of the English clause. In J. J. Webster (Ed.) The Language of Science, 102–134. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing Experience through Meaning. London and New York: Cassell Wellinton House.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed.. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2008). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed.. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

He Qingshun and Yang Bingjun (2018). A corpus-based study of the correlation between text technicality and ideational metaphor in English. Lingua 203, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.005

Kubler, C.C. (1985). A Study of Europeanized Grammar in Modern Written Chinese. Taipei: Student Book Co. Ltd.

Lakoff, G. (2003). Metaphor and war, again. UC Berkeley. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32b962zb

Liardét. C. L. (2016). Grammatical metaphor: Distinguishing success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.009

Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.) Children Writing: A Reader, 21–30. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1991). Nominalization in science and humanities: Distilling knowledge and scaffolding text. In E. Ventola (Ed.) Trends in Linguistics: Functional and Systemic Linguistics, 307–337. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883527.307

Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59

Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin (Eds) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, 166–220. London: Falmer.

Ravelli, L. (1985). Metaphor, Mode and Complexity: An Exploration of Co-varying Patterns. (BA thesis). University of Sydney, Department of Linguistics.

Ravelli, L. (1988). Grammatical metaphor: An initial analysis. In E. Steiner and R. Velman (Eds), Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systemically-Inspired Approaches, 133–147. London: Pinter.

Ravelli, L. (2003). Renewal of connection: Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical metaphor. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, et al. (Eds), Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systematic Functional Linguistics, 37–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236.04rav

Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3

Yang Y. (2008). Typological interpretation of differences between Chinese and English in grammatical metaphor. Language Sciences 30, 450–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.007

Yang Y. (2015). Grammatical Metaphor in Chinese. Sheffield: Equinox.

??? (Cong Yingxu). (2011). ??????????????. ?????. 5, 46–53.

??? (Cong Yingxu). (2017). ???????????????????. ????????.

??? (He Hengxing). (2004). ???????????: ?????????. ??????. 1, 14–23.

??? (Hu Zhuanglin). (1996). ????. ?????????. 4, 1-8.

??? (Tian Hailong). (2002). ??????: ?????. ??????. 1, 23–29.

?? (Wen Xu). (2014). ?????????. ????????. 9, 11–16.

???, ? ? (Zhang Delu, Zhao Jing). (2010). ?????????????. ?? ? ??. 4, 32–33.

??? (Zhi Yongbi). (2011). ????????????????. ???????. 9, 154–158.

??? (Zhu Xiaomin). (2011). ??????????????????????———????????????????. ??????. 2, 73–78.

??? (Zhu Yongsheng). (1994). ??????????. ?????. 1, 8–13.

??? (Zhu Yongsheng). (2006). ????????????. ?????????. 2, 83–90.

Published

2019-01-26

How to Cite

Xi, C. (2019). Exploring the relationship between grammatical metaphor and mode differentiation in Chinese political discourses. Researching and Teaching Chinese As a Foreign Language, 2(2), 123-161. https://doi.org/10.1558/rtcfl.36857

Issue

Section

Articles