Misconstruing Replacive And Subtractive Variation As Comparison

Martin & Rose (2007: 124-5):

As with lexical contrasts, there is more than one kind of logical difference. First, one meaning can be replaced by another using instead of, in place of, rather than. These are all used in hypotactic relations:

Instead of resting at night, he would wander from window to window.

A third kind of difference is to make an exception, using except that, other than, apart from, which are again hypotactic:

He wanted to rest at night except that he kept having nightmares. 

He used to rest at night other than when he had nightmares.

Conjunctions like instead and rather can also be used as cohesive:

He should have slept at night. Instead he would wander from window to window.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand a subtype of extension, replacive variation, as 'replaced', a subtype of comparison (enhancement), and rebrand their misunderstanding of the grammatical system as discourse semantics. In SFL theory, replacive variation is the term for the logical meaning 'not X but Y', and is marked by such items as but not; not ... but, instead of, rather than (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 471).

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misunderstand a subtype of extension, subtractive variation, as  'exception', a subtype of comparison (enhancement), and rebrand their misunderstanding of the grammatical system as discourse semantics. In SFL theory, subtractive variation is the term for the logical meaning 'X but not all X', and is marked by such items as only, but, except, except that, but (for the fact) that except for, other than (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 471).

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, cohesive conjunction is a grammatical system of the textual metafunction.  Here Martin & Rose blend it with the logical grammatical system of clause complexing, and rebrand the confusion as logical discourse semantics.