Misconstruing Types Of Elaboration As Types Of Enhancement

Martin (1992: 209-10):

With [reformulation], the basic distinction is between reworking a meaning in order to clarify it and adjusting it to get it right.  This is the opposition between [4:115] above (repeated below) and [4:118].  In [4:115] that is does not imply that anything was wrong with the first formulation; its experiential meaning is simply restated by way of clarification.  In [4:118] on the other hand in fact does imply that something was not quite right the first time round; in this example the implication is that the first formulation was not strong enough.

REFORMULATION:REWORK:ABSTRACTION:EXHAUST

[4:115] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

That is, the fact that riot is a noun does not mean that it cannot represent an action as its colligation with began shows. 

REFORMULATION:ADJUST

[4:118] The riot began shows that riot is a process term, even though it is in nominal form.

In fact, riot would have to be classified lexically as an action word.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misconstrues the conjunctive relation of expository apposition ('that is'), which is a type of elaboration, as a subtype of similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement — despite being interpreted as clarification, another type of elaboration.

[2] This misconstrues the conjunctive relation of verificative clarification ('in fact'), which is a type of elaboration, as a subtype of similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.  The meaning of (what is) clarification — 'to be precise' — is interpreted as a repair strategy 'adjusting it to get it right'.

Summary:  In SFL theory, the conjunctive contrast exemplified here is between two types of elaboration: expository apposition ('that is') and verificative clarification ('in fact').