On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Concessive Conjunctions"

Martin & Rose (2007: 57):

But is the most common conjunction used to signal concession. But there are other possibilities, including however and although, and variations on the theme including even if and even by; in fact, at least, indeed; and nevertheless, needless to say, of course, admittedly, in any case etc:

Even if God and everyone else forgives me a thousand times — I have to live with this hell.

Even if here means ‘more than expected’ — given the condition of forgiveness, his continued hell is unexpected.

I envy and respect the people of the struggle — at least their leaders have the guts to stand by their vultures, to recognise their sacrifices. 

Spiritual murder is more inhumane than a messy, physical murder. At least a murder victim rests.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 422) point out, the conjunction but is used for three distinct types of expansion:

• adversative addition (extension): 'on the other hand' [X and conversely Y]
• replacive variation (extension): 'instead' [not X but Y]
• concessive condition (enhancement): 'nevertheless' [if P then contrary to expectation Q]

[2] Of these, the only items that are conjunctive Adjuncts that can mark a relation of concession are however, although, even if and nevertheless — though however, like but, can also mark adversative addition.  The remaining items serve either as conjunctive Adjuncts marking an elaborating relation, or as modal Adjuncts, mood or comment:

Item	Conjunctive Adjunct	Modal Adjunct
in fact	elaboration: clarification: verifactive	mood: intensity; comment: factual
at least	elaboration: clarification: corrective
in any case	elaboration: clarification: dismissive
needless to say		comment: obvious
of course		comment: obvious
admittedly		comment: concession*

* Interestingly, admittedly signals interpersonal concession as a comment Adjunct, though Martin & Rose misconstrue it as conjunctive.

[3] This continues the (previously cited) confusion between interpersonal counterexpectancy (exceeding vs limiting) and the enhancement relation of concessive condition (if P then contrary to expectation Q):

• if God and everyone else forgives me a thousand times
• then contrary to expectation I have to live with this hell

On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Concessive But"

Martin & Rose (2007: 56-7):

The third resource we need to consider, as far as heteroglossia in discourse is concerned, is known as ‘counterexpectancy’. This is more a feature of Helena’s narrative than the exposition or Act, and has to do with the way she tracks readers’ expectations, adjusting them as her story unfolds. In her prayer for example, she tells God she can’t handle her second love anymore, creating an expectation as she does so that she will try to leave. Then she counters this by saying that she can’t leave.

I can’t handle the man anymore! But, I can't get out.

In this example Helena uses the conjunction but to signal that she is countering an expectation that she’s created for the reader. At any point in a text, readers have an expectation about what is likely to follow, and Helena takes this into account as she counters it. In other words she is acknowledging voices in addition to her own, in this case those of her readers.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL theory, the interpersonal system of counterexpectancy (exceeding vs limiting) is distinct from the conditional relation of concession, whose meaning is 'if P then contrary to expectation Q', and which may function logically between units in complexes or textually in conjoining messages cohesively.

[2] The claim here is that an author can track ('trail', 'follow') the expectations of all future readers.

[3] This misunderstands the data.  Firstly, the proposition I can’t handle the man anymore does not entail the proposition I will leave — any more than numerous other possible propositions such as He's got to go or Something has to change etc.

Secondly, the cohesive conjunction relation between the two messages is not the enhancing relation of concessive condition ('if P then contrary to expectation Q'):

• if I can't handle the man anymore
• then, contrary to expectation, I can't get out.

but the extending relation of adversative addition (X and conversely Y):

• I can't handle the man anymore
• and conversely I can't get out.

[4] The claim here is that the author's use of but acknowledges the "voice" of the reader, and that this acknowledgement constitutes an instance of heteroglossia.  Regardless of whether acknowledging the voice of the reader would constitute an instance of heteroglossia, as demonstrated in [3], the claim itself rests on a misinterpretation of the text and a misconstrual of the expansion relation between the two clauses.

On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Projections", "Polarity" And "Modality"

Martin & Rose (2007: 56):

Some projections also include modality or polarity in their meaning, and so can be interpreted as heteroglossic with respect to both projection and modalisation (Hyland 1998). Tutu uses three of these:

They denied that they had committed a crime, claiming that they had assaulted him only in retaliation for his inexplicable conduct in attacking them.

I contend that there is another kind of justice, restorative justice.

Denied includes the meaning of ‘not true’; claiming allows for doubt; contend is less strong than claim (more ‘should be’ than ‘must be true’).

Blogger Comments:

[1] The general confusion here is between the verbal process of a projecting clause — denied, claiming, contend — and the locution clause that it projects; see further below.

[2] All clauses, whether projecting or projected, "include polarity in their meaning".  If polarity were sufficient grounds for heteroglossia, then all clauses would be heteroglossic, and the distinction with monoglossia would be meaningless.

[3] Not one of the clauses in Tutu's projection nexuses includes an instance of modalisation; see [6] and [7] below.

[4] The implication here is that the cited work — Hyland, K. (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles Amsterdam: Benjamins — somehow endorses the authors' claim, though none of its 264 pages is identified in this regard.

[5] This misconstrues the truth value of the projected clause as the polarity of the projecting clause — the latter misconstrued as the meaning of denied.

[6] This appears to confuse what was said by the author (claiming) with what might be thought by the reader ('doubt').

[7] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by data, argument, or dictionary definitions, such as

• contend: 'assert something as a position in an argument.'
• claim: 'state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof'.

On The Heteroglossic Function Of Obligation

Martin & Rose (2007: 55-6):

The Act, because it is concerned with what should happen, is mainly concerned with obligation (how obliged people are to act):

AND SINCE it is deemed necessary to establish the truth in relation to past events as well as the motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights have occurred, and to make the findings known in order to prevent a repetition of such acts in future; 

AND SINCE the Constitution states that the pursuit of national unity, the well-being of all South African citizens and peace require reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society; 

AND SINCE the Constitution states that there is a need for understanding but not for vengeance, a need for reparation but not for retaliation, a need for ubuntu but not for victimisation; 

AND SINCE the Constitution states that in order to advance such reconciliation and reconstruction amnesty shall be granted in respect of acts, omissions and offences associated with political objectives committed in the course of the conflicts of the past

The last example here makes use of what we might call legislative’ shall to signal incontestable obligation. By Chapter 2 of the Act, this use of shall becomes dominant as the various processes around the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are prescribed:

(3) In order to achieve the objectives of the Commission -

(a) the Committee on Human Rights Violations, as contemplated in Chapter 3, shall deal, among other things, with matters pertaining to investigations of gross violations of human rights;

(b) the Committee on Amnesty, as contemplated in Chapter 4, shall deal with matters relating to amnesty;

(c) the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation, as contemplated in Chapter 5, shall deal with matters referred to it relating to reparations;

(d) the investigating unit referred to in section 5(d) shall perform the investigations contemplated in section 28(4)(a); and

(e) the subcommittees shall exercise, perform and carry out the powers, functions and duties conferred upon, assigned to or imposed upon them by the Commission.

Blogger Comments:

The claim here (e.g. p59) is that the instances of obligation in these texts signal heteroglossia, the acknowledgement of other points of view.  As might be expected of a text of this type, this is about as monoglossic as a text can get.  No other positions on any of the proposals are acknowledged, as Martin & Rose should have realised in using the term 'incontestable obligation'.

The general misunderstanding of Martin & Rose in discussing modality as a resource for heteroglossia can be traced to a misunderstanding of why it is that one type of modality, probability, can acknowledge other voices.

The reason why probability can acknowledge other voices is that the explicit subjective form, 'I think', is agnate with circumstances of Angle: viewpoint (just as 'I say' is agnate with circumstances of Angle: source).

However, Martin & Rose have mistaken probability to acknowledge other voices through the selection of one value — low, median or high — rather than another, with the unselected values mistaken for other voices.  This sort of logic can also be misapplied to the selection of one Subject, rather than other, one mood, rather than another, and so on, right through every system in the language.