On The Heteroglossic Function Of "Concession"

Martin & Rose (2007: 57-8):

Tutu also makes some use of concession in his exposition …

Here the central concern is not retribution or punishment but, in the spirit of ubuntu, the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relationships.

... including the ‘internal’ rhetorical sense of ‘in spite of what I’ve led you to expect me to say’ (as opposed to the ‘external’ meaning ‘in spite of what you expect to happen’). Here Tutu means that although he’s granted that public hearings weren’t an absolute requirement, in fact virtually all important cases were heard that way:

The Act required that where the offence is a gross violation of human rights — defined as an abduction, killing, torture or severe ill-treatment — the application should be dealt with in a public hearing unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice (for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session). In fact, virtually all the important applications to the Commission have been considered in public in the full glare of television lights.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading.  The structural (logical) expansion relation expressed by but is here replacive variation ('instead': not X but Y), not concessive condition ('yet': if P then contrary to expectation Q).  The misunderstanding of concessive expansion relations is widespread throughout the informing text, Martin (1992), as demonstrated, for example, here, here, here, here, here and here.

[2] This is misleading.  The structural expansion relation here is not internal to the speech event (between propositions), but external (between the two identifying figures).  The misunderstanding of the distinction between internal and external expansion relations is widespread throughout the informing text, Martin (1992), as demonstrated here.

[3] This is misleading.  If in fact is interpreted as a conjunctive Adjunct, the cohesive (textual) expansion relation it expresses here is verifactive clarification, not concessive condition.  If in fact is interpreted as a modal Adjunct, it serves as an unqualified speech-functional comment Adjunct of the type 'factual'.

[4] This misunderstands the text in order to misrepresent the expansion relation as concessive.  Tutu "grants" (concedes) nothing.  He identifies a requirement set out by the Act, including where such requirements may be waived, and verifies that the waiving of the requirement has, for the most part, not been necessary in important cases.