Inconsistencies In The Data Used For Fawcett's Argument

Fawcett (2010: 327):

Here is a set of examples, all of which are potential text-sentences (though these too have been adapted from the original example in order to create 'minimal pairs'). I suggest that they provide a useful basic set of data for exploring this area of the grammar.

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

(2a, i-iii) He left the room before / after / during the vote.

(1b, i-iii) Before / after / while they voted, he left the room.

(2b, i-iii) Before / after / during the vote he left the room.

(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.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett is arguing the question of hypotaxis vs embedding on the basis of how temporal distinctions are realised in the grammar. However, his argument is unnecessarily complicated by inconsistencies in the organisation of the data in terms of temporal features:

[2] To be clear, (3biv) is inconsistent with the other members of this set, since it construes a concessive relation rather than a temporal relation.

This is because before his departure functions as a circumstantial Adjunct, whereas the others — earlier (on), first, before that — function as conjunctive Adjuncts that realise the temporal relation.

So, in the case of the clause with the circumstantial Adjunct, the expansion relation is expressed only through but, which in this instance, signifies a concessive causal relation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 478).

[3] To be clear, all the members of (3c) include circumstantial Adjuncts — in that period, during that time, during his absence — and the expansion relation is expressed only through and, which in these instances, signifies positive additive extension; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471).

[4] To be clear, (3aviii) is inconsistent with the other members of this set, since it construes positive additive extension rather than temporal enhancement.

Again, this is because after his departure functions as a circumstantial Adjunct, whereas the others — later (on), afterwards, after that — function as conjunctive Adjuncts that realise the temporal relation.

So, in the case of the clause with the circumstantial Adjunct, the expansion relation is expressed only through and, which in this instance, signifies positive additive extension; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 471).