Abstract
Nominal grammatical metaphor (NGM), as theorised within systemic functional linguistics (SFL), typically refers to cases where a process is ‘metaphorically’ encoded through nominal resources, rather than its typical encoding through the clause. Previous approaches to the study of NGM have generally relied on the concepts of agnation and congruence, but these concepts can be quite subjective in nature, leading to an unstable account of the phenomenon. This paper evaluates the theoretical status and methodological implementation of NGMs. Our aim is to consider whether Aktionsart can offer a means of operationalizing NGM. We analyzed 492 nouns from a random selection of 200 sentences in the PopSci register of the CroCo corpus. The nouns were analyzed separately by different coders in terms of (i) grammatical metaphor status and (ii) their ontological status combined with an analysis of Aktionsart. Our statistical analysis shows that adopting an Aktionsart approach provides a more nuanced and anchored methodology for the analysis of NGMs as it not only provides a more consistent and robust analysis, but it also enables us to specify subtypes of nominal grammatical metaphor based on their subtler semantic characteristics.
ChatGPT Comments:
1. Category Slippage: Treating NGM as a nominal phenomenon
The first sentence already discloses a theoretical inversion:
“Nominal grammatical metaphor (NGM) … refers to cases where a process is ‘metaphorically’ encoded through nominal resources…”
Within SFL, grammatical metaphor is not a nominal phenomenon but a systemic one — it is the reconstrual of semantic configurations through non-congruent lexicogrammatical mappings. Nominalisation is merely one way that reconstrual can be realised.
By reifying “nominal grammatical metaphor” as a subtype in itself, the authors collapse the semantic–lexicogrammatical relation into a lexicogrammatical category. What should be a relation between strata is treated as a property within one. Meaning is subordinated to form; the semiotic hierarchy is inverted.
2. Misconstrual of “congruence” and “agnation”
The claim that agnation and congruence are “quite subjective” misses the systemic point entirely.
In SFL, congruence is not a matter of coder agreement but a theoretical construct describing the prototypical alignment between semantics and lexicogrammar. It defines a reference alignment for interpreting non-congruent (metaphorical) realisations.
Similarly, agnation is not a coding criterion but a network relation among options in the system. Labelling these “subjective” betrays a misunderstanding of their function: they are relational descriptors, not empirical variables.
When these constructs are reinterpreted as annotation categories, the systemic relation they describe dissolves into an operational convenience.
3. Importing “Aktionsart”: a category error
Replacing congruence and agnation with Aktionsart commits a deep category error. Aktionsart belongs to lexical-aspect theory — a classificatory system grounded in predicate logic, not in systemic semantics.
To propose that Aktionsart can “operationalise” grammatical metaphor is to substitute a lexical property of verbs for a semantic-grammatical relation between strata. This not only confuses the descriptive level but also detheorises the concept, reducing motivated re-mappings of meaning to aspectual typology.
Halliday’s metaphor operates across strata; Aktionsart operates within a single stratum. Their substitution is thus ontologically incoherent.
4. The corpus fallacy: turning theory into annotation
The analysis of “492 nouns” for “grammatical metaphor status” exemplifies what might be called the corpus fallacy — the assumption that systemic categories can be treated as surface features of tokens.
SFL operates through realisation hierarchies: meaning → wording → sounding. Identifying metaphor requires interpreting the relation between semantic and grammatical construals. A count of “nominal metaphors” at corpus level therefore misses the phenomenon entirely: it measures form, not reconstrual.
To treat grammatical metaphor as a property of a noun is to erase the systemic distinction it was designed to reveal.
5. “Ontological status”: misplaced import
The reference to “ontological status” compounds the confusion. SFL’s ontology is semiotic, not metaphysical: entities have no status outside the construal of experience. To combine “ontological status” with “Aktionsart” fuses two incompatible descriptive traditions — one metaphysical, the other aspectual — neither of which belongs to SFL’s meaning architecture.
This attempt to “anchor” the analysis in extralinguistic categories undermines the fundamental Hallidayan principle that meaning is construed, not discovered.
6. The rhetoric of stability: empiricism disguised as theory
Phrases like “a more consistent and robust analysis” or “a more anchored methodology” betray an empiricist reorientation. Where Halliday’s theory sought to explain the motivated variability of meaning, this study seeks to stabilise it.
The appeal to “robustness” masks a shift from explanatory system to measurement protocol. Theorisation is displaced by operationalisation. The systemic logic of meaning gives way to the statistical logic of reliability.
7. From meaning to metadata
The cumulative effect is the flattening of the stratal architecture. Meaning no longer motivates form; form becomes the empirical ground from which meaning must be induced.
Once grammatical metaphor is redefined as a measurable feature of nouns, the theory of meaning as choice collapses into a model of data as fact. The language-as-system becomes language-as-dataset.
This is not merely a methodological issue — it is a collapse of ontology. The semiotic system that construes reality is replaced by the empirical reality of linguistic surfaces.
In summary
| SFL Construct | Misinterpreted as | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Grammatical metaphor | Nominal phenomenon | Reduces system to lexicogrammar |
| Congruence & agnation | Subjective coder categories | Removes theoretical grounding |
| Stratal relation | Lexical/aspectual property | Flattens ontology |
| Semiotic ontology | Metaphysical ontology | Misaligns description |
| Systemic explanation | Statistical robustness | Replaces theory with method |
8. The deeper irony: method as metaphor
The paper performs its own metaphor — not the grammatical kind, but a methodological one. It re-presents theoretical constructs as empirical ones, just as grammatical metaphor re-presents experience through abstraction. But here the re-presentation is self-erasing: the notion of metaphor as a relation across strata is replaced by its coded residue within one.
In short, the study metaphorises SFL away.
Epilogue: When Method Eats Theory
This study exemplifies the empirical recoding of systemic theory. In the drive to operationalise SFL for corpus work, theoretical categories are repurposed as annotation labels. Constructs designed to model relations between strata become features within a dataset.
This reflects a deeper epistemic inversion:
-
From language as a semiotic system construing experience,
-
to language as a dataset representing ontology.
Once that inversion occurs, theory no longer explains meaning — it measures it. “Grammatical metaphor” becomes a field in a spreadsheet.
The appeal to empirical stability reproduces the positivism Halliday sought to escape. SFL was never meant to stabilise meaning, but to show how meaning is variable yet motivated.
When method eats theory, what remains is not systemic functional linguistics but systemic functional empiricism — an approach that retains SFL’s vocabulary while hollowing out its ontology.
A return to systemic foundations begins by reinstating the order of realisation:
-
Semantics construes experience.
-
Lexicogrammar realises semantics.
-
Metaphor is a relation between strata, not a property within one.
Until that order is restored, analyses of “nominal grammatical metaphor” will continue to enact the very metaphor they misrecognise — the re-presentation of theory as data.
