Misrepresenting IFG On Temporal Relations

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 280):

Since FitzSimons' text is a story of some kind, it is important to consider temporal relations in some detail (Martin & Rose 2007, Chapter 4). …  In part this is a question of delicacy, since temporal relations are just one kind of enhancement. Convention also plays a role since implicit temporal relations are not considered in IFG style clause complex analysis, so that relations marked by and are treated as extending rather than enhancing. In addition, relations between clause complexes are beyond the scope of the analysis. And from the perspective of genre, the fine distinctions between parataxis and hypotaxis are not immediately relevant to mapping the time line of events. Shifting our attention from grammar to discourse is one way to overcome these limitations.

For Martin & Rose the basic distinction⁵ as far as temporal relations are concerned is between simultaneous and successive relations.

⁵ Contrast IFG 3rd edition 542-3 which focuses grammatically on simple, complex and simple internal temporal relations, with several subdivisions within each of these; the opposition of successive to simultaneous events is not a major parameter.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because enhancement is not a system in Martin & Rose (2007), since this work presents the model in Martin (1992), which derived from Halliday & Hasan (1976), which preceded Halliday's formulation of the most general logico-semantic relations. For some of the problems with Chapter 4 of Martin & Rose (2007), see the close examination here.

[2] This is misleading, because it is untrue. On the one hand, implicit temporal relations are covered by IFG — see Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 420, 422-6) — and on the other hand, relations marked by and are those of parataxis: extending or enhancing. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 422):

[3] This is misleading, because there are no limitations (see above). Clearly, the misrepresentations above are a pretext for using Martin's derived model instead of Halliday's original model.

[4] This is misleading. For simple and simple internal temporal relations, the principal subtypes are following, simultaneous, preceding, conclusive:

This is an elaboration of Halliday (1994: 237):