The grammar of the english verb phrase part 57 pdf

TTRThe past tense forms came, did, approved and condemned are all relative tense forms expressing T-simultaneity with the situation time of their head clause.. The present tense forms al

This test is corroborated by the fact that it makes the correct predictions in

cases in which the relevant T-relation is T-anteriority rather than

T-simultane-ity:

John expects that he will feel lonely when Mary {has left / *will have left}.

John expected that he would feel lonely when Mary {had left / *would have left}.

Compare also:

[The thought of his case never left him now He had often considered whether it

would not be better to draw up a written defence and hand it in to the Court.] In

this defence hewould give a short account of his life, and when he came to an event

of any importance hewould explain for what reasons he had acted as he did,

inti-mate whether heapproved or condemned his way of action in retrospect, and adduce

grounds for the condemnation or approval (TTR)(The past tense forms came, did,

approved and condemned are all relative tense forms expressing T-simultaneity with

the situation time of their head clause Note that initimate is short for would

inti-mate.)

(…) In this defence hewill give a short account of his life, and when he {comes / *will

come} to an event of any importance he will explain for what reasons he has acted as

hehas, intimate whether he approves or condemns his way of action in retrospect, and

adduce grounds for the condemnation or approval.(The forms comes, has acted, has,

approves and condemns all express a T-relation in a post-present domain The present

tense forms all express T-simultaneity with the situation time of their head clause.)

8.23.2 This test rests on the assumption that the possibilities and restrictions

in connection with the use of absolute and relative tense forms in particular

types of clauses are the same in a past domain as they are in a post-present

one Though the above examples all corroborate this assumption, we have not

yet adduced any really conclusive evidence that the assumption is correct The

test must therefore provisionally be treated as tentative

8.24 Argument 2: past tenses whose situation time is

W-posterior to t0

Unlike the first argument, this argument is a cogent one

In a sentence likeMary told me on the phone last night that at the dinner party tomor-row she would suddenly say that she felt sick, the past tense form felt refers to a

situation which lies in the post-present (i e which is W-posterior to t0) This observa-tion demonstrates the inadequacy of the assumpobserva-tion that there is only one past tense

in English, which is used to locate a situation time prior to t0 However, the observation

is naturally explained on the assumption thatfelt is a relative past tense form expressing

T-simultaneity This constitutes very strong evidence in favour of a theory which as-sumes the existence of a relative past tense (next to an absolute one), which expresses T-simultaneity in a past domain, irrespective of the W-location of the binding time relative to t0

8.24.1 We have argued that the tense structure (⫽ semantics) of the two kinds

of past tense are quite different from each other: the semantics of the absolute preterite is ‘The situation time establishes a past domain’, while that of the relative preterite is ‘The situation time is represented as T-simultaneous with a binding orientation time belonging to a past domain or subdomain (or to a

‘pseudo-past subdomain’⫺ see 9.9.1 and 9.18.1)’ Since it is not the existence

of the absolute preterite that is subject to debate, but the existence of the relative preterite, what we need to show is that there are preterite forms that unequivocally express the tense structure typical of the relative preterite In our opinion, the italicized tense forms of the following examples fulfil this requirement⫺ see Figure 8.6:

[A few weeks ago he told us about what he planned to do.] When hewas fifty-five

he would retire [He would move to some place in the south and …]

[Yesterday the Prime Minister repeated that] if the partylost next week’s elections,

this would not induce it to change its views on nuclear energy

Until a moment ago I thought that at tomorrow’s meeting of the board he would argue that itwas necessary to sell the company [But he’s just assured me that he

isn’t going to do that.]

Mary told me on the phone last night that at the dinner party tomorrow she would suddenly say that shefelt sick.

Figure 8.6 The tense structure of Mary told me on the phone last night that at the

dinner party tomorrow she would suddenly say that she felt sick.

In these examples, the situations described bywas [fifty-five], lost, was

[neces-sary] and felt [sick] are interpreted as W-posterior to t0(because of the

tempo-ral indications in the relevant clauses), but this W-posteriority relation is not

expressed by the past tense forms This means three things First, the italicized

preterites cannot be analysed as absolute tense forms in any tense theory,

be-cause the absolute preterite,11which is the only kind of (nonmodal) preterite

recognized by most tense theories, locates its situation time anterior to t0and

is therefore semantically incompatible with an interpretation in which the

situ-ation in question lies completely in the post-present Secondly, in the above

examples, the italicized preterites not only fail to represent their situation time

as T-anterior to t0, they fail to represent it as T-anterior to anything (This

means that T-anteriority does not form part of their meaning.) Thirdly,

al-though the past tense forms themselves do not express the W-posteriority

rela-tion, they are not incompatible with it This is in keeping with our analysis of

these forms as being relative preterite forms: these tense forms merely represent

their situation time as T-simultaneous (⫽ coinciding) with a situation time

belonging to a past domain (The conditional tense represents that T-binding

situation time as T-posterior to the central orientation time of the past

do-main.) Thus, in the third example was [necessary] represents its situation time

as T-simultaneous with the situation time ofwould argue, which is a situation

time belonging to the set of situation times constituting the temporal domain

established bythought It should be kept in mind that a tense form representing

its situation time as T-posterior to the central orientation time of a past domain

does not say anything about the W-relation between the relevant situation and

t0: as is clear from He said he would do it {yesterday / now / tomorrow}, the

situation referred to by the conditional tense (which represents its situation

time as T-posterior to an orientation time in a past domain) may be interpreted

as W-anterior, W-simultaneous or W-posterior to t0 Obviously, the same is

true of any situation whose situation time is represented as T-simultaneous (⫽

coinciding) with the situation time of a situation referred to in the conditional

tense, as the following example illustrates:

He said he would do it when hehad time [So he may already have done it, or he may

be doing it right now, or he may be going to do it tomorrow I don’t know which.]

In this example, had is another instance of a past tense form which cannot

possibly be analysed as an absolute preterite, nor as a past tense representing

its situation time as T-anterior to an orientation time other than t0, but which

fully satisfies our definition of ‘relative past tense form’ (expressing

T-simulta-11 As noted in 1.14, we use ‘preterite’ to refer to forms likewalked, said, went, etc Other

forms involving the past tense morpheme (such ashad walked, would walk, would have

walked) are not preterite forms.

neity in a past domain) More generally, as is shown by Figure 8.6, a past domain can contain one or more subdomains which are W-interpreted as lying

in the post-present A past tense expressing T-simultaneity in such a subdomain cannot be analysed as an absolute past tense

The following are some further examples in which the situation time of a clause in the relative past tense is interpreted as W-posterior to t0:

[He told me yesterday that exactly 17 days from now he would tell Mary that] he

was inviting her to lunch because it was his birthday.

[“What was it he told you yesterday?” ⫺ “He said that, inevitably, the time would come when] he was fed up with working in a factory [and would look out for a

better job.”]

[He said he would read the article tomorrow while] hewas in the dentist’s waiting-room.

Here again, the italicized past tense forms not only do not mean ‘past relative

to t0’ (as they would do if they were absolute preterites), but do not mean ‘past relative to (any kind of) orientation time’ The temporal relation they express

is that of T-simultaneity with a situation time belonging to a past temporal domain (but interpreted as W-posterior to t0)

8.24.2 The above data, which are naturally explained if one assumes the exis-tence of a relative past tense in English (and hence the exisexis-tence of temporal domains), cannot possibly be accounted for by an analysis that assumes that there is only one past tense, expressing that the situation time is past relative

to t0 This argument in favour of the existence of a relative preterite is so cogent that it should be sufficient on its own to discard any analysis denying the existence of a relative past tense in English

8.24.3 All the examples given in 8.24.1, and in fact in all the other arguments that will be presented below, are instances of ‘represented speech’, i e indirect reported speech or free indirect speech (see 8.25.1) This is because represented speech forms the only context in which the use of the conditional tense (to express T-posteriority) is natural Expressing T-posteriority is tantamount to making a prediction or expressing an expectation, and this can only be done

in an intensional (opaque)12 context like represented speech.13 (A similar

12 An opaque context (or ‘intensional context’) is one in which the reference is not to the real world but to an alternative (nonfactual) world Such a context is created by (amongst other things) ‘intensional verbs’ (‘verbs of propositional attitude’) likewant, expect, believe, think, imagine, etc Clauses that form part of an intensional context

receive an ‘opaque’ (‘de dicto’) interpretation, i e their truth is not evaluated in relation

to the real world but in relation to the alternative world referred to.

Clauses belonging to a nonintensional context receive a ‘transparent’ (‘de re’) inter-pretation, i e their truth is evaluated in relation to the real world It is typical of such

an interpretation that the truth value of the clause is not affected when a referring

remark can be made in connection with the future tense: reference to the

post-present by itself creates opacity, i e a post-post-present domain is by definition an

opaque domain Thus, in [If you do that,] you will regret for ever that you

have done it, the ‘doing it’ is not factual in the speaker’s t0-world (⫽ the actual

world): it is only factual in the post-present intensional domain, i e in a

not-yet-factual alternative world.)

However, the fact that the data are restricted to cases in which T-posteriority

is expressed does not in any way affect the strength of our argument As

pointed out at the beginning of 8.24.1, all that is necessary to prove the

exis-tence of the relative preterite in English is to adduce examples of preterites that

cannot possibly be analysed as absolute preterites, and a number of such

exam-ples have been given here

8.24.4 It should also be noted that the examples given in 8.24.1 all have

nonpast counterparts in which the future tense is used instead of the

condi-tional tense in the head clause and in which the present tense is used instead

of the relative past tense in the subclause:

[He has told us about what he plans to do.] When heis fifty-five he will retire [He

will move to some place in the south and …]

I will read the article tomorrow while Iam in the dentist’s waiting-room.

[He says that, inevitably,] the time will come when heis fed up with working in a

factory [and will look out for a better job.]

Exactly 17 days from now I will tell Mary that Iam inviting her to lunch because it

is my birthday.

There can be no doubt that the italicized present tense forms in these examples

express T-simultaneity in a post-present domain: these forms cannot be

inter-preted as locating their situation time at t0 Since these sentences with the

future tense in the head clause and the present tense in the subclause are the

nonpast counterparts of examples involving the conditional tense in the head

expression in the clause is replaced by an ‘identical’ expression (i e by an expression

with the same referent) Thus, since in the real world the capital of France and Paris

have the same referent, we can replace the former by the latter inThe capital of France

has ten million inhabitants without altering the truth value of the sentence.

In sentences that receive an opaque interpretation, the replacement of a term by an

‘identical’ expression may affect the truth value: the sentenceBill thinks that Paris is the

capital of Spain may be true even if Bill thinks that the capital of France is the capital

of Spain is not true.

13 We are disregarding here the special use ofwould in the sense of was to, as in Ten years

later Tom {would / was to} be the richest man in town ⫺ see 9.6.7 (This is the only

use in whichwould is interpreted as referring to a past fact rather than as merely making

a prediction.)

clause and the past tense in the subclause, it stands to reason that in both cases the tense in the subclause should be analysed as a tense expressing T-simultane-ity (coincidence) with a situation time that is T-posterior (to t0 or to a past orientation time, respectively)

8.25 Argument 3: tense use in represented speech

Distinguishing between an absolute and a relative past tense explains why some past tense forms are ‘backshifted’ in past represented speech while others are not For example, the sentenceIan addressed the girl who was sitting behind the largest desk can be reported as

[Jim said yesterday that] Ian had addressed the girl who was sitting behind the largest desk This illustrates the (quite logical) fact that an absolute past tense can be

‘back-shifted’ in past represented speech, whereas a relative past tense remains unaffected (be-cause the T-simultaneity relation which it expresses remains unaffected)

8.25.1 This argument concerns the adaptation of tense forms in indirect re-ported speech and in free indirect speech For ease of reference, we will sub-sume these two possibilities of indirect speech under the heading of

repre-sented speech (where speech should be interpreted as meaning ‘speech or

thought’) Since we will only be concerned with the kind of represented speech

in which the representation is located in the past, the term past represented

speechwill be used in the present section

8.25.2 In past represented speech, the tense forms from direct speech are traditionally said to bebackshifted:

“Iam at home.” J I said I was at home.

“Iwill be at home.” J I said I would be at home.

“Ihave been at home.” J I said that I had been at home.

However, this rule, known as ‘sequence of tenses’, does not automatically apply when the presumed original utterance is in the past tense Consider the follow-ing stretches of direct speech:

(1) “I told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim.”

(2) “I told Bill that Jane was furious when Jim refused to take her out.”

Out of context, sentence (1) will normally be taken to mean that the two situa-tions were simultaneous, and this meaning can only be reported as (3) or (4): (3) Jill said that she had told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim

(4) Jill said that she told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim

The following are not ‘correct’ past represented speech versions of (1) if the

two situations in (1) are taken to be simultaneous:14

(5) Jill said that she told Bill that Jane had been angry with Jim

(6) Jill said that she had told Bill that Jane had been angry with Jim

Both (5) and (6) are reports of I told Bill that Jane had been angry with Jim.

By contrast, sentence (2) only allows the following reading:15

‘I told Bill [at t2] that Jane was furious [at t1] when Jim refused [at t1] to take her

out.’(t 1 is anterior to t 2 )

The following are possible past represented speech versions of (2)⫺ see 8.25.3

for further comment:

(7) Jill said that she (had) told Bill that Janehad been furious when Jim refused to

take her out

(8) Jill said that she (had) told Bill that Janewas furious when Jim refused to take

her out

(9) Jill said that she (had) told Bill that Janehad been furious when Jim had refused

to take her out

However, the following sentence is not a correct past represented speech

ver-sion of (2):

(10) Jill said that she had told Bill that Janewas furious when Jim had refused to

take her out (Unlike (2), this report represents Jim’s refusal as anterior to

Jane’s being furious It is therefore a report of I told Bill that Jane was furious

when Jim had refused to take her out.)

8.25.3 The data provided by (3)⫺(10) cannot be accounted for in a systematic

way (i e without ad hoc stipulations) by the sequence of tenses rule if the

latter is seen as a purely formal operation, which applies automatically in past

represented speech However, they are naturally explained in our analysis,

which treats the backshifting rule as the semantically-driven adaptation of

14 By ‘correct’ represented speech version we mean a version which does justice to the

temporal relation(s) expressed in the original utterance If the original speaker says that

two situations are simultaneous, then a report of this speaker’s utterance cannot be a

genuine report if it represents the original speaker as having said that the two situations

are sequential So if one thinks that the original speech is John knew that Jim was

abroad, and this is interpreted as meaning that Jim’s being abroad was simultaneous to

John’s knowing it, then this simply cannot (except by a liar) be reported byBetty said

that John knew that Jim had been abroad, because the temporal relations between the

situations are different in this sentence Either a sentence is a report or it is not, and if

itis a report then it obviously has to convey the same situations in the same temporal order.

15 We are ignoring the (unlikely) interpretation on which thewhen-clause specifies the time

of the head clause situation.