Misconstruing Elaboration And Modal Assessment As Comparison

Martin & Rose (2007: 135):

Internal comparison provides a rich set of resources for written text, enabling writers to compare and contrast positions and evidence, rephrase, exemplify, generalise and specify. One kind of internal similarity is to simply say that two ideas are the same in some way, using similarly or again:

Relations of class to member can be used cohesively between messages
…
Again part-whole relations can be used cohesively between messages

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the meaning of the expansion relation of comparison is N is like M (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 411).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these are subclasses of elaboration, not comparison (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 411). Specifically:

• 'rephrase' is a rebranding of expository apposition;
• 'exemplify' is exemplifying apposition; and
• 'specify' is a rebranding of particularising clarification.

By misunderstanding these relations and rebranding them as Martin's discourse semantics, Martin & Rose create incongruent relations between semantics (comparison) and lexicogrammar (elaboration), thereby undermining the distinction between congruent and incongruent (metaphorical) grammatical realisation of semantic features.

[3] To be clear, in SFL theory, generalising is not a subclass of comparison (or any other subclass of expansion). The adverb generally functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually), serving as a modal Adjunct of validity, not a conjunctive Adjunct of comparison; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 130).

Note that no argument is provided to support these "re-interpretations" of Halliday's theory.