Confusing Textual Clarification With The Enactment Of Meaning

Martin (1992: 212-3):

Reformulation introduced by in fact, actually, at least, indeed and so on carry the implication that the original formulation was not quite right; it needs more than rephrasing in other words — it has to be adjusted to tune in accurately to the meaning being made.  The difference between at least and indeed has to do whether the reformulation is toned up or down.  In [4:123] the first formulation is something of an overstatement and needs to be played down; in [4:124] on the other hand the first formulation understates and needs to be amplified:

REFORMULATION:ADJUST…DIMINISH

[4:123]  The way in which Liz addresses Mary is also significant: she feels perfectly free to use her first name, whereas Mary does not once use Liz's name.

At least Mary does not use Liz's name when actually addressing her.  She does use it once when quoting something an [sic] former client had told her about Mary. 

REFORMULATION:ADJUST…AUGMENT

[4:124]  The way in which Liz addresses Mary is also significant: she feels perfectly free to use her first name, whereas Mary does not once use Liz's name.

Indeed Mary does not address Liz at all, by name or otherwise.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This again construes clarifying elaboration (Martin's 'reformulation') as a repair strategy.

[2] As the wordings 'toned up or down', 'needs to be played down' and 'needs to be amplified' suggest, the metafunctional perspective being taken here is interpersonal, rather than textual (Martin's logical).  Attention has shifted from the type of relation between the messages to the enactment of meaning.

[3] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation here is corrective clarification, a type of elaboration within the textual metafunction (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated to within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement within the logical metafunction.

[4] In SFL theory, the conjunctive relation here is verifactive clarification, a type of elaboration (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 542).  Here it is relocated to within similarity — i.e. comparison, a type of enhancement.

The "amplification" here — which is interpersonal — arises from the likely realisation of indeed as a tone5 tonic, giving it the KEY of 'insistent statement' (see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 142).


Conclusion: In terms of SFL theory, the discourse semantic logical opposition of diminish vs augment reformulation is the textual opposition of corrective vs verifactive clarification.