Misrepresenting An Assigned Attributive Clause As An Identifying Clause (With An Ellipsed Token)

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 123):

Causative relational clauses (IFG2: 171; IFG3: 237-8, 299)

identifying

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the first clause, they christened the girl Victoria is a naming clause, and so the name is Token, not Value. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 288):

Naming and defining are linguistic exercises, in which the word is Token and its meaning is the Value. In ‘calling’, on the other hand, it is the name that is the Value.

[2] To be clear, the final clause, this proves my point, is attributive, not identifying, and it involves the conflation of Process and Attribute; see Table 5-14 in Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 269).

Unlike unassigned attributive clauses, assigned attributive clauses, being effective in voice, are 'reversible', in that they can be either operative, as above, or receptive, as below:

Clearly, the clause with the imagined that (this proves that my point) — which presumably means 'this proves that to be my point' — is not equivalent in meaning or wording to the actual clause without it (this proves my point).