Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [2]

  Fawcett (2010: 327):

(1a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / while they voted.

(3a, i-v) He left the room, then / (,) and then / (,) and they voted.

(3b, i-n) He left the room, but earlier (on) / first/ before that / before his departure / etc. they (had) voted. 

(3c, i-n) He left the room and in that period / during that time / during his absence / etc. they voted. 

(3a, v-n) He left the room, and later (on) / afterwards / after that / after his departure / etc. they voted.

Thus, if we wish to express the meaning of 'subsequent time' in a 'paratactic' structure (i.e., by co-ordination) we can use the grammatical items then or and then as the Linker, such that these correspond in meaning to the Binder after, as used in (1a, i), but if we wish to express the meaning of 'antecedent time', there is no co-ordinating Linker that corresponds to the Binder before. And neither is there a Linker that expresses 'simultaneous time' and that therefore corresponds to the Binder while.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, here Fawcett is arguing against hypotaxis/parataxis agnation on the basis of form —  subclasses of conjunction: linker and binder — rather than function. That is, contrā SFL Theory, Fawcett is arguing 'from below', rather than 'from above'. 

In a functional theory of language, the question of agnation turns on similarity and difference of meaning, not on similarity and difference in how those meaning distinctions are expressed (e.g. structure marker or conjunctive Adjunct). In the paratactic complexes, below, a structure marker (but, and, and) realises the interdependency relation of parataxis, and a conjunctive Adjunct (before that, after that, meanwhile) realises the enhancement relation of relative time. 

But see later posts for further clarifications.