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'.