论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： The theory of Grammatical Metaphor was first put forward by Halliday—the founder of systematic-functional school， whose research， however， only limited to ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor. Halliday took textual metaphor with a pinch of salt. This paper will focus on four representative forms of textual metaphor， that is， metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure， metaphorical cohesion and nominalization， based on Hotel English， to elaborate its factuality and theoreticality and excavate its functions in Hotel communication. Key words： grammatical metaphor； textual metaphor； Hotel English
[中图分类号]H030
[文献标识码]A
[文章编号]1006-2831（2013）08-0154-7 doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-2831.2013.03.040
1. Introduction
The theory of Grammatical Metaphor was first put forward by Halliday—the founder of systematic-functional school， whose research， however， only limited to ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor. Halliday took textual metaphor with a pinch of salt. Although Halliday doesn’t admit overtly that textual metaphor is one type of grammatical metaphor， researchers who are interested in the topic of GM have already agreed that besides ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor， the category of GM also includes textual metaphor. This paper will address the distributions and functions of textual metaphor in Hotel English. The notion of textual metafunction and textual metaphor will first be elicited in the theoretical framework of SFL， and then the distributions of four major types of textual metaphor， i.e. metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure， metaphorical cohesive devices and nominalization will be analyzed in Hotel English to show its functions.
2. Textual metafunction
2.1 The definition of textual metafunction
For textual metafunction， Thompson（1996/2000： 28） defines it as “in using language， we organize our messages in ways which indicate how they fit in with the other messages around them and with the wider context in which we are talking or writing”. Halliday （1999b： 528） explains it as “language as information”. It is a function about the verbal world， especially the flow of information in a text， and is concerned with clauses as messages. It is used to refer to the resources that all language must have so as to form discourse by ensuring that each part of the text makes contact with its environment， including both the context of situation and other parts of the text（Wang Xiaoping， 2005： 17）. Ideational metafunction and interpersonal metafunction are concerned with the relationship between the text and the world and are thus “extrinsic”， the textual metafunction is concerned with the relationship within the text and so is “intrinsic”in nature （Liu Chengyu， 2008： 226）. 2.2 The components of textual metafunction
According to Halliday （1978： 113）， the textual component is defined to represent the speaker’s text forming potential. This component expresses the relation of the language which enables the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions to be actualized into a coherent text. This is the component which provides the texture. Halliday & Hasan（1985： 26） point out that the textual component of language is closely related with the mode of discourse. As Halliday & Hasan observe， the textual component of language falls into three sub-systems： thematic structure， information structure and cohesion （ibid.）. The textual components can be illustrated by Figure 1.
3. Textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English
The concept of textual metaphor was first put forward by Martin， but he didn’t give any explicit definition for the term “textual metaphor”. According to Liu Chengyu （2008：228）， “textual metaphor” is used to refer to the subcategory of GM derived from transference in the textual resources， including metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure and grammatical metaphors in cohesion.
3.1 Metaphorical thematic structure and its study in Hotel English
Thompson （1996/2000： 176） emphasizes that the thematic structure belongs to the category of textual metaphor. Its function is to make the writer/speaker obtain the desired Theme and Rheme structure. The different choice of Theme has contributed to a different meaning.
Metaphorical thematic structure includes two sub-category： thematic equative and predicated Theme.
The thematic equative was defined by Halliday & Mathiessen （2004： 69） to refer to“the Theme-Rheme structure in the form of equation， where Theme = Rheme”.
A thematic equative， which is usually called a “pseudo-cleft sentence” in formal grammar. In a thematic equative， all the elements of the clause are organized into two constituents； these two are then linked by a relationship of identity， a kind of “equals sign”， expressed by some form of the verb “be”（Halliday， 1994/2000：41）. One key feature of thematic equatives is that they group more than one element of the message into a single clause constituent which can then function as Theme.
（7a） I want a cup of coffee. →congruent form
（7b） What I want is a cup of coffee.→metaphoric form
Thompson （1996/2000： 127） analyzes that the thematic equative， particularly in speech， seems to serve more as a way of “staging”the message： splitting it into two chunks that the hearer will find easier to process. In Hotel English， proper employment of thematic equative in communication can make the expressions more explicit and make both parties understand each other easier.
More examples of thematic equative can be seen below：
（8） What you need to do is signing.
Theme Rheme
（9） What I could say is “Thank you”.
Theme Rheme
Predicated Theme， which is called in traditional grammar as “cleft sentence”， is another sub-category of thematic organization. Its typical representative form is internal predication of the form “it + be…”. By delivering the message in the form of predicated Theme， the speaker is making a contrast. By making use of predicated Theme， the clause guides the reader towards a particular pattern of emphasis.
（10a） We neglected the details.→congruent form
（10b） It is the details that we neglected.→metaphoric form
From example （10）， we can find that the sense of special emphasis and contrast is lost in congruent form. While in the metaphoric form of predicated theme， the speaker is making a contrast between “the details” and “we neglected”. Generally speaking， the information structure is “Given + New”， but in the predicated Theme structure of （10b）， the information structure is “New + Given”， which constitutes metaphoric form and undertakes the function of emphasis.
More examples of predicated Theme can be seen below：
（11） It is the misunderstanding which made
Theme Rheme
you so angry.
（12） It is that lady who asked me to give it
Theme Rheme to you.
From the above analyses， we can conclude that the metaphoricality of thematic equative and predicated Theme is derived from the shift of some elements into the first position of the sentence， which typically does not belong to them， thus making them prominent. In Hotel’s communication， such devices can be used to foreground something. Meanwhile， the above analyses also show that in metaphorical thematic structure， the meaning normally expressed by a word or word group is now realized by a projected clause or vice versa， so， this sort of expression belongs to both ideational metaphor and textual metaphor. 3.2 Metaphorical information structure and its study in Hotel English
Information is a form of discourse organization. Any discourse is organized as a linear succession of information units， with each unit being realized as a tone group. Halliday（1996： 296） defines the information unit as a structure made up of two functions： the new and the given. Information structure refers to the information model of given and new information in the course of information transmission.
The unmarked thematic structure is： Given+ New， where the given element is located at the initial position of the information unit to function as the starting point of the information conveyed by the clause， while the new element is placed at the end to provide new information. In actual communication， however， it is possible to have the given information following the new. Note that the different order of given and new information between sentences does not result in metaphorical information structure， metaphorical information structure can not be achieved unless those processes are accompanied by mapping between different grammatical domains.
（13a） I need a bottle of just boiled water.
Given New→congruent form
（13b） A bottle of just boiled water is what I
New Given need. →metaphoric form
In example （13b）， the marked expression， in which information is not arranged in the common order of Given and New， there is also mapping between grammatical domains. In the sentence of “A bottle of just boiled water is what I need”， the information that used to be congruently expressed by one simple clause now is arranged into a complex clause， with the new information going first in the form of a clause itself. By altering the natural order of the information structure， the guest succeeds in giving more prominence to the information （the new information） he/she intends to emphasize， thus the guest’s requirement will be easily understood by the attendant.
There is one point that we should note： the Theme slot tends to be occupied by Given information， and the Rheme slot is usually filled with new information， but they are not the same thing. The Theme is what I， the speaker， choose to take as my point of departure. The Given is what you， the listener， already know about or have accessible to you. Theme + Rheme is speaker-oriented， while Given + New is listener-oriented （Halliday 1994/2000： 299）.
3.3 Metaphorical cohesive devices and its study in Hotel English Halliday & Hasan （1976： 29） divide the textual metafunction into structural and nonstructural components. The structural one， at the clause level， is the thematic structure of the clause. The non-structural one is cohesion， which can also be achieved metaphorically.
Fan Wenfang （2001： 162-174） summarizes that references， nouns， non-finite verbal groups， processes and mood can be used to create the effects of cohesive metaphor：
（i） Textual metaphor realized by reference
In the congruent realization of cohesion， reference usually only refers to items that appear previously， which is called anaphoric， or refers to linguistic items in the forthcoming clauses， which is called cataphoric. However， reference sometimes can also function textually， in other words， instead of arranging the text in a cohesive way by referring to some linguistic items， it may also refer to “a fact”， “an act”， “a passage of a text”， and so on. Martin （1992： 416） also introduces that reference can identify facts rather than participants.
（14） Cashier： I’m afraid you should pay five hundred yuan as a deposit in advance.
Guest： I knew that. （fact）
（15） Guest： I’m in Room 901. It’s too noisy. My wife was woken up several times by the noise the baggage elevator made. She said it was too much for her.
Receptionist： I’m awfully sorry， sir. I do apologize. I’ll change a room for you at once.
Guest： That’s very good. （act）
（16） Assistant Manager： I do apologize to you for what he said just now.
（a passage of a text）
（ii） Nouns used to organize text
Nouns can be used to organize text rather than refer to entities. The noun groups like “other reasons”， “more examples”， “many factors”， and so on， predict that in the following part of the text， the writer will deal with “other reasons”， “more examples” and “many factors”respectively. Thus what has already been presented will be connected with what is forthcoming in a cohesive way. As a result， those words demonstrate their textual function.
（17） I’m afraid there are some reasons for this confusion.
（18） Besides that， I’d like to propose some other requests.
（iii） Non-finite verbal group used to organize text
Non-finite verbal group can be used to organize text. For example， when we use “to begin with” as a start of a clause， it implies that in the forthcoming text there must be “second”or “furthermore” to continue the argument. They together construct the text as a unified whole. （19） To begin with， I’ll show you the suite room.
（iv） Process used to organize text
Text organization can also be realized by processes in the transitivity system.
（20） I saw Mr. Smith， so I’m telling you that he has come back.
In example （20）， the text is organized by the verbal process realized by “telling” as if it is a happening in the real world.
（v） Mood used to organize text
Imperative mood can be used to organize text instead of carrying out a command.
（21） Let me explain it to you a little bit clear.
In example （21）， the imperative mood is used to elaborate an argument. It is textually oriented rather than carrying out a command.
3.4 Nominalization in textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English
Nominalization in textual metaphor can also be realized by the devices of metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure and metaphorical cohesion.
First， let’s look at nominalization in metaphorical thematic structure. The Theme or Rheme in the thematic equative can be realized by means of nominalization.
（22a） What that waiter gave to Mr. Smith
Theme
was the bill. Rheme
（22b） The thing that waiter gave to Mr. Smith
Theme
was the bill. Rheme
（22c） The one who gave Mr. Smith the bill
Theme was that waiter.
Rheme
（22d） The one that waiter gave the bill to
Theme
was Mr. Smith.
Rheme
（22e） The bill was what that waiter gave to
Theme Rheme
Mr. Smith.
（22f） Mr. Smith was whom that waiter gave
Theme Rheme
the bill to.
（22g） That waiter was the person who
Theme Rheme gave the bill to Mr. Smith.
As it has been mentioned before， in a thematic equative， all the elements of the clause are organized into two constituents， where Theme=Rheme. In the above examples， the Theme of （22a）-（22d） and the Rheme of （22e）-（22g） are nominalized into clausal nominalization， thus cutting one clause into two chunks， which make one understand the expression easier and forground what the speaker wants to emphasize.
In example （22）， there is not only a metaphorical thematic structure， but also a metaphorical information structure because the distribution of Given and New information are different from the congruent form （e.g. That waiter gave the bill to Mr. Smith.）.
As for GM in cohesion， Halliday （1999a： 107） conceives that nominalized forms “function as thematic support for developing the further argument”. If we want to develop the argument involving a verb in the first sentence to be a new Theme， we should package this argument in nominal form. Therefore， nominalization becomes one of the important ways to realize the “Theme-Rheme” progression， which can be expressed by the following ways （Dong Jing： 32-37）：
（i） Nominalize the verb in the first sentence to be the Theme or part of the Theme of the second sentence.
（23） Assistant Manager： You misunderstood us， I’m afraid. The misunderstanding will be cleared away soon.
In example （23）， the process realized by the verb “misunderstand” in the second sentence is nominalized as “misunderstanding”and acts as the Theme in the second sentence， that is， a process is encapsulated into a nominalization which serves as the startingpoint for the next sentence. Its function is to make the whole text more cohesive. Viewed from the perspective of information distribution， a process is condensed as an information element， which is called metaphorical Theme and metaphorical News.
（ii） Nominalize some verbs and other elements related to the process to be the Theme of the second sentence.
（24） Our Hotel is located in the downtown， the downtown location is very convenient.
In the first clause of example （24）， the verb which expresses process is “locate”， with “in the downtown” functioning as environment element. They are nominalized as “the downtown location”， functioning as Theme in the second clause. By this way， the two clauses are closely connected with each other.
（iii） Nominalize the synonymous verb represents process or other related elements to be the Theme of the second sentence.
（25） The room is too cold for me， the low temperature makes me unbearable.
In example （25）， “the low temperature” in the second clause is the nominalizing result of “cold” in the first clause， they express the similar meaning. Note that there is no one-toone corresponding form at the lexical level， the corresponding relationship only lies in the semantic level.
（iv） Nominalize verb which represents process in the Rheme to be part of the Rheme in the second sentence.
（26） I have drawn the curtain for you， you’ll find that the curtain-drawing will make you feel more cozy.
In example （26）， the verb “draw” in the first sentence is nominalized into “drawing” in the second sentence， thus making the relation of the two sentences clearer.
On the basis of the analyses above， one can conclude that nominalization in textual metaphor can account for the cohesion of the Hotel English. Apart from its functions， nominalization has two textual advantages. The first relates how text is organized as text. In a congruent structure a text is organized around human actors and their actions in the real world. A writer will tell us what happened first， next， and so on. Nominalization on the other hand allows a writer to by-pass real world sequence and organize the text rhetorically instead， in terms of ideas， reasons， causes， explanations， and so forth. These may be presented in the order in which the writer wants to talk about them， not necessarily in their order of occurrence in time. There is a place for both kinds of organization， of course. Texts organized around human actors and their actions in sequence tell us what actually happened. Those organized rhetorically provide an interpretation of and a set of generalizations about experience. （Huang Zehuo， 2002： 47-48； Yao Mingfa， 2003： 53）
Secondly， nominalization allows the writer to pack in more lexical content per clause， particularly via nominal groups， through which nouns （thing） can be counted （numerative）， specified （deictic）， described （epithet）， classified（classifier） and qualified （qualifier）. （ibid.）
4. Summary
In this paper， the use of textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English are examined from the perspective of SFL.
This paper focuses on four interrelated types of textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English： metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure， metaphorical cohesive devices and nominalization in textual metaphor. According to the above analyses， we can conclude that proper employment of metaphorical thematic structure and metaphorical information structure in Hotel English can make something prominent to attract the guests’ or the staff’s attention， thus making the guests or the staff can understand the opposites’ intentions easier and quicker； proper employment of metaphorical cohesive devices in Hotel English can make both parties’ communication more cohesive and make the expressions more integrate； proper employment of nominalization in Hotel English can foreground something which should be emphasized and make the exchange between the guests and the Hotel’s staff more coherent and make the discourse more compact.
References：
Halliday， M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic： The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning[M]. London： Edward Arnold， 1978.
Halliday， M.A.K. On grammar and grammatics[A]. In： Hasan， R.， C. Cloran & D.G. Butt （eds.） Functional Descriptions： Theory in Practice[C]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia： John Benjamins， 1996. Halliday， M.A.K. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge： the Framing of the English Clause[A]. In R. Rossini， G. Sandri & R. Scazzieri （eds.） Incommensurability and Translation[C]. Cheltenham： Elgar， 1999a.
Halliday， M.A.K. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge[A]. In J.R. Martin & R. Veel （eds）. Reading Science： Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourse of Science[C]. London： Routledge， 1999b.
Halliday， M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar （2nd edition）[M]. London： Arnold/Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press， 1994/2000.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Hasan， R. Cohesion in English[M].London and New York： Longman， 1976.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Hasan， R. Language， Context and Text： Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective[M]. Victoria， Australia： Deakin University Press， 1985.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Matthiessen，C. Construing Experience through Meaning. A language-based Approach to Cognition[M]. London： Cassell， 1999.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Matthiessen，C. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. （3rd ed.）. London： Edward Arnold， 2004.
Martin， J. R. English Text： System and Structure[M]. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam： John Benjamins Publishing Company， 1992.
Thompson，G. Introducing Functional Grammar[M]. London： Arnold/Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research press， 1996/2000.
董晶.浅谈语法隐喻中概念隐喻的语篇功能及其对大学英语阅读教学的启示[Z].青岛：中国海洋大学，2007.
范文芳.语法隐喻理论研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
黄泽火.语法隐喻[D].南昌：江西师范大学，2002.
刘承宇.语法隐喻的功能–认知文体学研究[M].厦门：厦门大学出版社，2008.
王晓平.论语篇隐喻[Z].上海：上海外国语大学，2005.
姚明发.英语名物化的功能研究[Z].南昌：江西师范大学，2003.
[中图分类号]H030
[文献标识码]A
[文章编号]1006-2831（2013）08-0154-7 doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-2831.2013.03.040
1. Introduction
The theory of Grammatical Metaphor was first put forward by Halliday—the founder of systematic-functional school， whose research， however， only limited to ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor. Halliday took textual metaphor with a pinch of salt. Although Halliday doesn’t admit overtly that textual metaphor is one type of grammatical metaphor， researchers who are interested in the topic of GM have already agreed that besides ideational metaphor and interpersonal metaphor， the category of GM also includes textual metaphor. This paper will address the distributions and functions of textual metaphor in Hotel English. The notion of textual metafunction and textual metaphor will first be elicited in the theoretical framework of SFL， and then the distributions of four major types of textual metaphor， i.e. metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure， metaphorical cohesive devices and nominalization will be analyzed in Hotel English to show its functions.
2. Textual metafunction
2.1 The definition of textual metafunction
For textual metafunction， Thompson（1996/2000： 28） defines it as “in using language， we organize our messages in ways which indicate how they fit in with the other messages around them and with the wider context in which we are talking or writing”. Halliday （1999b： 528） explains it as “language as information”. It is a function about the verbal world， especially the flow of information in a text， and is concerned with clauses as messages. It is used to refer to the resources that all language must have so as to form discourse by ensuring that each part of the text makes contact with its environment， including both the context of situation and other parts of the text（Wang Xiaoping， 2005： 17）. Ideational metafunction and interpersonal metafunction are concerned with the relationship between the text and the world and are thus “extrinsic”， the textual metafunction is concerned with the relationship within the text and so is “intrinsic”in nature （Liu Chengyu， 2008： 226）. 2.2 The components of textual metafunction
According to Halliday （1978： 113）， the textual component is defined to represent the speaker’s text forming potential. This component expresses the relation of the language which enables the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions to be actualized into a coherent text. This is the component which provides the texture. Halliday & Hasan（1985： 26） point out that the textual component of language is closely related with the mode of discourse. As Halliday & Hasan observe， the textual component of language falls into three sub-systems： thematic structure， information structure and cohesion （ibid.）. The textual components can be illustrated by Figure 1.
3. Textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English
The concept of textual metaphor was first put forward by Martin， but he didn’t give any explicit definition for the term “textual metaphor”. According to Liu Chengyu （2008：228）， “textual metaphor” is used to refer to the subcategory of GM derived from transference in the textual resources， including metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure and grammatical metaphors in cohesion.
3.1 Metaphorical thematic structure and its study in Hotel English
Thompson （1996/2000： 176） emphasizes that the thematic structure belongs to the category of textual metaphor. Its function is to make the writer/speaker obtain the desired Theme and Rheme structure. The different choice of Theme has contributed to a different meaning.
Metaphorical thematic structure includes two sub-category： thematic equative and predicated Theme.
The thematic equative was defined by Halliday & Mathiessen （2004： 69） to refer to“the Theme-Rheme structure in the form of equation， where Theme = Rheme”.
A thematic equative， which is usually called a “pseudo-cleft sentence” in formal grammar. In a thematic equative， all the elements of the clause are organized into two constituents； these two are then linked by a relationship of identity， a kind of “equals sign”， expressed by some form of the verb “be”（Halliday， 1994/2000：41）. One key feature of thematic equatives is that they group more than one element of the message into a single clause constituent which can then function as Theme.
（7a） I want a cup of coffee. →congruent form
（7b） What I want is a cup of coffee.→metaphoric form
Thompson （1996/2000： 127） analyzes that the thematic equative， particularly in speech， seems to serve more as a way of “staging”the message： splitting it into two chunks that the hearer will find easier to process. In Hotel English， proper employment of thematic equative in communication can make the expressions more explicit and make both parties understand each other easier.
More examples of thematic equative can be seen below：
（8） What you need to do is signing.
Theme Rheme
（9） What I could say is “Thank you”.
Theme Rheme
Predicated Theme， which is called in traditional grammar as “cleft sentence”， is another sub-category of thematic organization. Its typical representative form is internal predication of the form “it + be…”. By delivering the message in the form of predicated Theme， the speaker is making a contrast. By making use of predicated Theme， the clause guides the reader towards a particular pattern of emphasis.
（10a） We neglected the details.→congruent form
（10b） It is the details that we neglected.→metaphoric form
From example （10）， we can find that the sense of special emphasis and contrast is lost in congruent form. While in the metaphoric form of predicated theme， the speaker is making a contrast between “the details” and “we neglected”. Generally speaking， the information structure is “Given + New”， but in the predicated Theme structure of （10b）， the information structure is “New + Given”， which constitutes metaphoric form and undertakes the function of emphasis.
More examples of predicated Theme can be seen below：
（11） It is the misunderstanding which made
Theme Rheme
you so angry.
（12） It is that lady who asked me to give it
Theme Rheme to you.
From the above analyses， we can conclude that the metaphoricality of thematic equative and predicated Theme is derived from the shift of some elements into the first position of the sentence， which typically does not belong to them， thus making them prominent. In Hotel’s communication， such devices can be used to foreground something. Meanwhile， the above analyses also show that in metaphorical thematic structure， the meaning normally expressed by a word or word group is now realized by a projected clause or vice versa， so， this sort of expression belongs to both ideational metaphor and textual metaphor. 3.2 Metaphorical information structure and its study in Hotel English
Information is a form of discourse organization. Any discourse is organized as a linear succession of information units， with each unit being realized as a tone group. Halliday（1996： 296） defines the information unit as a structure made up of two functions： the new and the given. Information structure refers to the information model of given and new information in the course of information transmission.
The unmarked thematic structure is： Given+ New， where the given element is located at the initial position of the information unit to function as the starting point of the information conveyed by the clause， while the new element is placed at the end to provide new information. In actual communication， however， it is possible to have the given information following the new. Note that the different order of given and new information between sentences does not result in metaphorical information structure， metaphorical information structure can not be achieved unless those processes are accompanied by mapping between different grammatical domains.
（13a） I need a bottle of just boiled water.
Given New→congruent form
（13b） A bottle of just boiled water is what I
New Given need. →metaphoric form
In example （13b）， the marked expression， in which information is not arranged in the common order of Given and New， there is also mapping between grammatical domains. In the sentence of “A bottle of just boiled water is what I need”， the information that used to be congruently expressed by one simple clause now is arranged into a complex clause， with the new information going first in the form of a clause itself. By altering the natural order of the information structure， the guest succeeds in giving more prominence to the information （the new information） he/she intends to emphasize， thus the guest’s requirement will be easily understood by the attendant.
There is one point that we should note： the Theme slot tends to be occupied by Given information， and the Rheme slot is usually filled with new information， but they are not the same thing. The Theme is what I， the speaker， choose to take as my point of departure. The Given is what you， the listener， already know about or have accessible to you. Theme + Rheme is speaker-oriented， while Given + New is listener-oriented （Halliday 1994/2000： 299）.
3.3 Metaphorical cohesive devices and its study in Hotel English Halliday & Hasan （1976： 29） divide the textual metafunction into structural and nonstructural components. The structural one， at the clause level， is the thematic structure of the clause. The non-structural one is cohesion， which can also be achieved metaphorically.
Fan Wenfang （2001： 162-174） summarizes that references， nouns， non-finite verbal groups， processes and mood can be used to create the effects of cohesive metaphor：
（i） Textual metaphor realized by reference
In the congruent realization of cohesion， reference usually only refers to items that appear previously， which is called anaphoric， or refers to linguistic items in the forthcoming clauses， which is called cataphoric. However， reference sometimes can also function textually， in other words， instead of arranging the text in a cohesive way by referring to some linguistic items， it may also refer to “a fact”， “an act”， “a passage of a text”， and so on. Martin （1992： 416） also introduces that reference can identify facts rather than participants.
（14） Cashier： I’m afraid you should pay five hundred yuan as a deposit in advance.
Guest： I knew that. （fact）
（15） Guest： I’m in Room 901. It’s too noisy. My wife was woken up several times by the noise the baggage elevator made. She said it was too much for her.
Receptionist： I’m awfully sorry， sir. I do apologize. I’ll change a room for you at once.
Guest： That’s very good. （act）
（16） Assistant Manager： I do apologize to you for what he said just now.
（a passage of a text）
（ii） Nouns used to organize text
Nouns can be used to organize text rather than refer to entities. The noun groups like “other reasons”， “more examples”， “many factors”， and so on， predict that in the following part of the text， the writer will deal with “other reasons”， “more examples” and “many factors”respectively. Thus what has already been presented will be connected with what is forthcoming in a cohesive way. As a result， those words demonstrate their textual function.
（17） I’m afraid there are some reasons for this confusion.
（18） Besides that， I’d like to propose some other requests.
（iii） Non-finite verbal group used to organize text
Non-finite verbal group can be used to organize text. For example， when we use “to begin with” as a start of a clause， it implies that in the forthcoming text there must be “second”or “furthermore” to continue the argument. They together construct the text as a unified whole. （19） To begin with， I’ll show you the suite room.
（iv） Process used to organize text
Text organization can also be realized by processes in the transitivity system.
（20） I saw Mr. Smith， so I’m telling you that he has come back.
In example （20）， the text is organized by the verbal process realized by “telling” as if it is a happening in the real world.
（v） Mood used to organize text
Imperative mood can be used to organize text instead of carrying out a command.
（21） Let me explain it to you a little bit clear.
In example （21）， the imperative mood is used to elaborate an argument. It is textually oriented rather than carrying out a command.
3.4 Nominalization in textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English
Nominalization in textual metaphor can also be realized by the devices of metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure and metaphorical cohesion.
First， let’s look at nominalization in metaphorical thematic structure. The Theme or Rheme in the thematic equative can be realized by means of nominalization.
（22a） What that waiter gave to Mr. Smith
Theme
was the bill. Rheme
（22b） The thing that waiter gave to Mr. Smith
Theme
was the bill. Rheme
（22c） The one who gave Mr. Smith the bill
Theme was that waiter.
Rheme
（22d） The one that waiter gave the bill to
Theme
was Mr. Smith.
Rheme
（22e） The bill was what that waiter gave to
Theme Rheme
Mr. Smith.
（22f） Mr. Smith was whom that waiter gave
Theme Rheme
the bill to.
（22g） That waiter was the person who
Theme Rheme gave the bill to Mr. Smith.
As it has been mentioned before， in a thematic equative， all the elements of the clause are organized into two constituents， where Theme=Rheme. In the above examples， the Theme of （22a）-（22d） and the Rheme of （22e）-（22g） are nominalized into clausal nominalization， thus cutting one clause into two chunks， which make one understand the expression easier and forground what the speaker wants to emphasize.
In example （22）， there is not only a metaphorical thematic structure， but also a metaphorical information structure because the distribution of Given and New information are different from the congruent form （e.g. That waiter gave the bill to Mr. Smith.）.
As for GM in cohesion， Halliday （1999a： 107） conceives that nominalized forms “function as thematic support for developing the further argument”. If we want to develop the argument involving a verb in the first sentence to be a new Theme， we should package this argument in nominal form. Therefore， nominalization becomes one of the important ways to realize the “Theme-Rheme” progression， which can be expressed by the following ways （Dong Jing： 32-37）：
（i） Nominalize the verb in the first sentence to be the Theme or part of the Theme of the second sentence.
（23） Assistant Manager： You misunderstood us， I’m afraid. The misunderstanding will be cleared away soon.
In example （23）， the process realized by the verb “misunderstand” in the second sentence is nominalized as “misunderstanding”and acts as the Theme in the second sentence， that is， a process is encapsulated into a nominalization which serves as the startingpoint for the next sentence. Its function is to make the whole text more cohesive. Viewed from the perspective of information distribution， a process is condensed as an information element， which is called metaphorical Theme and metaphorical News.
（ii） Nominalize some verbs and other elements related to the process to be the Theme of the second sentence.
（24） Our Hotel is located in the downtown， the downtown location is very convenient.
In the first clause of example （24）， the verb which expresses process is “locate”， with “in the downtown” functioning as environment element. They are nominalized as “the downtown location”， functioning as Theme in the second clause. By this way， the two clauses are closely connected with each other.
（iii） Nominalize the synonymous verb represents process or other related elements to be the Theme of the second sentence.
（25） The room is too cold for me， the low temperature makes me unbearable.
In example （25）， “the low temperature” in the second clause is the nominalizing result of “cold” in the first clause， they express the similar meaning. Note that there is no one-toone corresponding form at the lexical level， the corresponding relationship only lies in the semantic level.
（iv） Nominalize verb which represents process in the Rheme to be part of the Rheme in the second sentence.
（26） I have drawn the curtain for you， you’ll find that the curtain-drawing will make you feel more cozy.
In example （26）， the verb “draw” in the first sentence is nominalized into “drawing” in the second sentence， thus making the relation of the two sentences clearer.
On the basis of the analyses above， one can conclude that nominalization in textual metaphor can account for the cohesion of the Hotel English. Apart from its functions， nominalization has two textual advantages. The first relates how text is organized as text. In a congruent structure a text is organized around human actors and their actions in the real world. A writer will tell us what happened first， next， and so on. Nominalization on the other hand allows a writer to by-pass real world sequence and organize the text rhetorically instead， in terms of ideas， reasons， causes， explanations， and so forth. These may be presented in the order in which the writer wants to talk about them， not necessarily in their order of occurrence in time. There is a place for both kinds of organization， of course. Texts organized around human actors and their actions in sequence tell us what actually happened. Those organized rhetorically provide an interpretation of and a set of generalizations about experience. （Huang Zehuo， 2002： 47-48； Yao Mingfa， 2003： 53）
Secondly， nominalization allows the writer to pack in more lexical content per clause， particularly via nominal groups， through which nouns （thing） can be counted （numerative）， specified （deictic）， described （epithet）， classified（classifier） and qualified （qualifier）. （ibid.）
4. Summary
In this paper， the use of textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English are examined from the perspective of SFL.
This paper focuses on four interrelated types of textual metaphor and its study in Hotel English： metaphorical thematic structure， metaphorical information structure， metaphorical cohesive devices and nominalization in textual metaphor. According to the above analyses， we can conclude that proper employment of metaphorical thematic structure and metaphorical information structure in Hotel English can make something prominent to attract the guests’ or the staff’s attention， thus making the guests or the staff can understand the opposites’ intentions easier and quicker； proper employment of metaphorical cohesive devices in Hotel English can make both parties’ communication more cohesive and make the expressions more integrate； proper employment of nominalization in Hotel English can foreground something which should be emphasized and make the exchange between the guests and the Hotel’s staff more coherent and make the discourse more compact.
References：
Halliday， M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic： The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning[M]. London： Edward Arnold， 1978.
Halliday， M.A.K. On grammar and grammatics[A]. In： Hasan， R.， C. Cloran & D.G. Butt （eds.） Functional Descriptions： Theory in Practice[C]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia： John Benjamins， 1996. Halliday， M.A.K. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge： the Framing of the English Clause[A]. In R. Rossini， G. Sandri & R. Scazzieri （eds.） Incommensurability and Translation[C]. Cheltenham： Elgar， 1999a.
Halliday， M.A.K. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge[A]. In J.R. Martin & R. Veel （eds）. Reading Science： Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourse of Science[C]. London： Routledge， 1999b.
Halliday， M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar （2nd edition）[M]. London： Arnold/Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press， 1994/2000.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Hasan， R. Cohesion in English[M].London and New York： Longman， 1976.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Hasan， R. Language， Context and Text： Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective[M]. Victoria， Australia： Deakin University Press， 1985.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Matthiessen，C. Construing Experience through Meaning. A language-based Approach to Cognition[M]. London： Cassell， 1999.
Halliday， M.A.K. & Matthiessen，C. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. （3rd ed.）. London： Edward Arnold， 2004.
Martin， J. R. English Text： System and Structure[M]. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam： John Benjamins Publishing Company， 1992.
Thompson，G. Introducing Functional Grammar[M]. London： Arnold/Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research press， 1996/2000.
董晶.浅谈语法隐喻中概念隐喻的语篇功能及其对大学英语阅读教学的启示[Z].青岛：中国海洋大学，2007.
范文芳.语法隐喻理论研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
黄泽火.语法隐喻[D].南昌：江西师范大学，2002.
刘承宇.语法隐喻的功能–认知文体学研究[M].厦门：厦门大学出版社，2008.
王晓平.论语篇隐喻[Z].上海：上海外国语大学，2005.
姚明发.英语名物化的功能研究[Z].南昌：江西师范大学，2003.