Interpersonal grammatical metaphor as double scoping and double grounding

REFERENCES

• Aijmer, Karin. 1972. Some aspects of psychological predicates. (Stockholm Studies in English, 14.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
   Google Scholar
• Aijmer, Karin 1980. Evidence and the declarative sentence. (Stockholm Studies in English, LIII.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
   Google Scholar
• Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Regarding language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, Wolfram. 1992. “Transferred negation and modality.” Journal of Pragmatics 18: 551–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, Christopher. 1989. “Systemic models: Unity, diversity and change.” Word 40: 1–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin. 1991. Categories of experiential grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven. Published under the same title: 1999 (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics, 11.) Nottingham: Department of English Studies, Nottingham Trent University.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin 1995. “Fact projection.” Perspectives on English: Eds. Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn. Leuven: Peeters. Pp. 257–284.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin 1997. “The Subject-Object versus the Agent-Patient asymmetry.” Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 86: 413–431
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin 1998. “The Dative as participant-role versus the Indirect Object. On the need to distinguish two layers of organization.” The dative. Vol. 2: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. (Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages, 3.) Eds. Willy Van Langendonck and William Van Belle. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 143–184.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, Eirian. 1967. “Some notes on English clause types.” Transactions from the Philological Society, 1967: 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, Eirian 1979. The semantics of syntax: Mood and condition in English. London: Croom Helm.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael. 1956. “Grammatical categories in Modern Chinese.” Transactions of the Philological Society 1956: 180–202. Extract reprinted as “Grammatical categories in Modern Chinese: An early sketch of the theory”, in: 1976, Halliday: System and function in language. Ed. Gunther Kress. London: Oxford UP. Pp. 36–51.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael 1979. “Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions.” Function and context in linguistic analysis: A festschrift for William Haas. Eds. David J. Allerton, Edward Carney and David Hold-croft. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Pp. 57–79.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael 1984. “Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue.” The semiotics of culture and language. Vol. 1: Language as social semiotic. (Open Linguistics Series.) Eds. Robin P. Fawcett, Michael Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb and Adam Makkai. London: Pinter. Pp. 3–35.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael…. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd edition. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, Lawrence R. 1978. “Remarks on neg-raising.” Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9: Pragmatics. Ed. P. Cole. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 129–220.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, Robin. 1969. “A syntactic argument for negative transportation.” Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 148–158.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W.. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 14.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, James R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, James R.. 1995. “Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: packing semiotic punch.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 15: 33–67.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, James R. 1997. “Analysing genre: Functional parameters.” Genres and institutions. Eds. Fran Christie and James R. Martin. London: Cassell. Pp. 3–39.
   Google Scholar
• Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1983. “Choosing primary tense in English.” Studies in Language 7: 369–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M.. 1990. “Metafunctional complementarity and resonance.” Mimeo, University of Sydney, Department of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. (Textbook Series in the Language Sciences.) Tokyo: International Sciences Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• McCawley, James D. 1988. Adverbs, vowels, and other objects of wonder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, William B. 1990. “The metafunctional hypothesis and syntagmatic relations.” Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 4: 5–50.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, William B.. 1997. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Nuyts, Jan. 1990. “Negative-raising reconsidered: Arguments for a cognitive-pragmatic approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 559–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuyts, Jan 1993. “Epistemic modal adverbs and adjectives and the layered representation of conceptual and linguistic structure.” Linguistics 31: 933–969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuyts, Jan 2000. “Tensions between discourse structure and conceptual semantics: The syntax of epistemic modal expressions.” Studies in Language 24: 103–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pike, Kenneth. 1959. “Language as particle, wave, and field.” The Texas Quarterly 2: 37–54.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Taverniere, Miriam. 2002. Systemic-functional linguistics and the notion of grammatical metaphor: A theoretical study and a proposal for a semiotic-functional integrative model. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghent.
   Google Scholar
• Taverniere, Miriam 2003a. “Metaphor.” Handbook of pragmatics. Eds. J. Verscheuren et al. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Taverniere, Miriam 2003b. “Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A historiography of the introduction and initial study of the concept.” Grammatical metaphor: Perspectives from systemic functional linguistics. (CILT, 236.) Eds. Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers and Louise Ravelli. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 5–33.
   Google Scholar
• Thibault, Paul J. 1995. “Mood and the ecosocial dynamics of semiotic exchange.” On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective. (CILT, 118.) Eds. Ruqaiya Hasan and Peter H. Fries. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 51–89.
   Google Scholar
• Thibault, Paul J. & Theo Van Leeuwen. 1996. “Grammar, society, and the speech act: Renewing the connection.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 561–585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 1998. “A semiotic model for the description of levels in conjunction: External, internal-modal and internal-speech functional.” Functions of Language 5: 179–211.
   Google Scholar
• Verstraete, Jean-Christophe 2001. “Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system “Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–1528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar