'Past-Future' vs 'Earlier-Later' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 128-9):

But confusion also arises as a result of a linguistic muddle over the use of the terms 'past' and 'future'. The concepts of past and future do have a place in physics, provided that one is careful to use these words in the correct way grammatically. The notion of the past or the future is not allowed. Nevertheless, one can still talk of one event being in the past of another event. There is no doubt that events are ordered in time, just as the pages of this book are ordered in space, in a definite sequence; furthermore, this order … has a direction associated with it, even though nothing actually 'flows' at all. After all, the very idea of causality demands that some sort of earlier–later relationship applies to events.

But when we refer to an 'arrow' of time, we should not think of the arrow flying though the void from past to future; rather, we should think of the arrow as like the compass needle, pointing the way to the future, even though it is not moving into the future. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the terms 'past' and 'future' signify locations in time relative to the time of making meaning: the present. In a sense, these meaning distinctions are 'internal' to the sensing or saying event.

From the same perspective, the terms 'earlier' and 'later' signify locations in time that do not take the time of making meaning as the point of reference. In a sense, these meaning distinctions are 'external' to the sensing or saying event.

By the same token, the 'arrow' of time is the 'direction' of the unfolding of a process, from its inception (at an earlier time) to its completion (at a later time). The unfolding of a process is distinct from the circumstantial dimension of time in which it is located, and along which it extends.