Misconstruing Modal Assessment As Internal Consequence [2]

Martin & Rose (2007: 140):

Arguments can also be conceded, with admittedly, needless to say, of course:

Stated in these terms, the victory over apartheid seems like a simple one of right over wrong, good over evil.
But of course social conflicts are rarely so simple

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, admittedly does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, admittedly functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually), as a persuasive speech-functional comment Adjunct of concession; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1).

[2] To be clear, needless to say does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, needless to say functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually), as a asseverative propositional comment Adjunct enacting the modal assessment 'obvious'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1).

[3] To be clear, this instance of of course does not mark any conjunctive relation, let alone one of consequence. In SFL Theory, this instance of of course functions interpersonally, not logically (or textually), as a asseverative propositional comment Adjunct enacting the modal assessment 'obvious'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 190-1). The meaning here is generally that also realised by But obviously social conflicts are rarely so simple.

The conjunctive relation in this instance is adversative addition, realised by the conjunction but; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3).