On The Heteroglossic Function Of Usuality

Martin & Rose (2007: 54-5):

Modality functions very much like negation when we look at it in terms of these scales (cf. Fuller 1998; Martin and White 2005). Arguing that something must be the case, for example, sounds assertive but in fact allows an element of doubt; it’s stronger than saying something would be true, but not as strong as avoiding modality completely and arguing it is the case. So modality, like polarity, acknowledges alternative voices around a suggestion or claim. Unlike polarity, it doesn’t take these voices on and deny them; rather it opens up a space for negotiation, in which different points of view can circulate around an issue, a space perhaps for mediation and possible reconciliation. 

Tutu uses a range of modal resources in his exposition to acknowledge alternative positions, including usuality when he is generalising about the effects of a public hearing:

It was often the very first time that their communities and even sometimes their families heard that these people were, for instance, actually members of death squads or regular torturers of detainees in their custody.

Here the grading has to do with ‘how often’ something happened, along a scale like the following:

Blogger Comments:

The claim here is that usuality acknowledges alternative voices, or viewpoints, on a proposition. Martin & Rose do not identify the different positions acknowledged by the use of instances of usuality in the exemplifying text, but instead make reference to the grading of values of usuality. In doing so, they confuse an assessment of usuality with the recognition of different viewpoints (engagement: heteroglossia).