Fawcett's Argument On Hypotaxis vs Embedding [4]

   Fawcett (2010: 327, 328):

(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.

One the other hand, the grammar should — and can — capture the fact that we can thematise both before they voted and before the vote, as in (1b, i) and (2b, i) — a possibility which suggests that the same element (which we may term a Time Position Adjunct) is involved in both (1a, i-iii) and (2a, i-iii). And equivalent variants can be generated, of course, for (1b, ii-iii) as in (2b, ii-iii), if the option to thematise the Time Position Adjunct is exercised.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, SFL Theory does "capture the fact" that both can be thematised.

Cf. Halliday (1994: 57):

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the suggestion is that 'time' is realised through clause complexing in (1a) and (1b) and through a Location circumstance in (2a) and (2b).

See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 671) for the range of grammatical environments in which 'time' can be realised.