Ideational Grammatical Metaphor in Merry Shelly’s Frankenstein and its Cinematic Adaptation

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

شعله سید ولیلو ¹ , ناصر غفوری ²

1 - Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University , Tabriz, Iran
2 - Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University , Tabriz, Iran

Received: 2017-02-24 Accepted : 2017-02-24 Published : 2016-11-01

Keywords: grammatical metaphor, systemic functional grammar,

Abstract :

Within Systemic Functional Linguistics, Grammatical Metaphor (GM) is a meaning-making resource lying at the experiential level that extends the meaning potential through cross-stratal re-mappings between the grammar and the semantics, boiling down, in one of its manifestations to expressing something that should have been a process (verb) in terms of a thing (noun). This study is an attempt at seeing how the frequency of GM used in the novel ‘Frankenstein’ written by Mary Shelly plays out in its cinematic adaptation. It is an attempt at investigating possible differences in the use of GM in the novel as a type of literary prose fiction and in one of its cinematic adaptations, the respective frequencies, along with what implications these differences carry in terms of generic features and functions of GM. In the 4200-word corpus analyzed for the movie adaptation, there were 70 instances of GM emerging upon analysis. In the 4200-word purposively sampled excerpt of the novel, there were above 330 instances of GM emerging. So the frequency of instances of GM in the written version was much more than that in the cinematic adaptation. This significant difference carries many possible cognitive, semantic, discursive, generic and textual implications. A number of pedagogical implications accrue to this research, such as increasing the knowledge of teachers and English language instructors with regard to the role of GM in making metaphorical forms in different texts, increasing knowledge of how to approach the teaching of the skill of reading and writing in upper-intermediate and intermediate classes, deeper critical reading abilities for learners, etc.

References:

Bhatia, V. (1993)  Analyzing genre. Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.

Briones, S., Fortuny, L., Sastre, S., & de Pocovi, M. B. (2003). Grammatical metaphors in scientific English. The ESPecialist, 24(2), 131-142.

Galve, G. I. (1998). The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalization occurring in written medical English.Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 363-385.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985).  An introduction to functional grammar (1^st Ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2^nd  Ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Functional description.Theory in practice. (Current issues  in linguistic theory).Amesterdam: Benjamins.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.(1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London-New York: Continuum.

Heyvaert, L. (2003). Nominalization as grammatical metaphor.On the need for a radically systemic and metafunctional approach. In S, Vandenberge, M, Taverniers, & J. Ravelli, (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 65-99).  Retrieved June, 18, 2013 from the http:/www.books.google.com

Farahani, A., & Hadidi, Y. (2008).Grammatical metaphor in science and modern prose fiction. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics.http://ijla.khu.ac.ir/artical-1-66-en.html

Kazemian, B., Behnam, B., & Ghafoori, N. (2013). Ideational grammatical metaphor in scientific texts: A Hallidayan perspective. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(4), 146-168.

Ravelli, L. J. (1985/1999) Metaphor, mode and complexity: An exploration of covarying patterns. A Honours Thesis, University of Study. (Published 1999, in: Monographs in Systemic linguistics, 12. Nottingham: Department of English and media Studies, Nottingham Trent University.)

Susinskiene, S. (2009). Textual functions of nominalizations in English scientific discourse. Žmogusiržodis, 11(3), 58-64.

Taverniers, M. (1999). Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A historiography of the introduction and initial study of the concept. In A. Simon-vanderbergen, M. Taverniers & L. J. Ravelli (Eds). Grammatical metaphor: View from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 65-99). Amesterdam: John Benjamins.

Taverniers, M. (2003). Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A historiography of the introduction and initial study of the term. Retrieved from the web April 10, 2016.http://uers.ugent.be/mtaverni/publication.html

Wenyan, G. (2012). Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86-93.

Xue-feng, W. (2010).Grammatical metaphor and its difficulties in application.US-China Foreign Language, 8(12), 29-37.

Yanning, Y. (2008). Typological interpretation of differences between Chinese and English in grammatical metaphor: Language Sciences, 30/4, 68-76.