The grammar of the english verb phrase part 58 pot

in past represented speech T-related to the central orientation time of a past domain which, in 3⫺4 and 7⫺10, is the situation time of said, which means that the tense which locates the

tense forms which naturally takes place when an utterance is reported in the form of past represented speech This analysis hinges on the following claims: (a) A situation time that is ‘originally’ (i e in the original direct speech utter-ance) T-related to t0 (and thus establishes a domain of its own), is now (i e in past represented speech) T-related to the central orientation time

of a past domain (which, in (3)⫺(4) and (7)⫺(10), is the situation time of

said), which means that the tense which locates the situation time in time

no longer establishes a domain but merely expresses a T-relation in one (b) It follows that a tense form which originally represents its situation time

as the central orientation time of a past domain, such as told in (1)⫺(2),

is now replaced by a tense form expressing a T-relation in a (new) past domain This is because the situation time is now T-bound by the central orientation time⫺ which is the situation time of said in (3)⫺(4) and (7)⫺

(10)⫺ rather than being directly related to t0(by an absolute tense form) The relative tense form in question expresses T-anteriority (i e it is a past perfect form) because the original past tense form also expresses T-anteri-ority (but then to t0rather than to a past orientation time)

(c) Out of context, when a complementthat-clause in the past tense depending

on a head clause in the past tense is homogeneous, it must as a rule be taken to express T-simultaneity This is indeed the way the that-clause is

interpreted in (1) [I told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim]: Jane’s being

angry is W-simultaneous with my telling Bill about it

For a good understanding of this point, it is necessary to draw attention to a number of things:

⫺ Firstly, the generalization made in the first sentence of (c) obviously does not apply if the past tense form in thethat-clause is the past counterpart

of a ‘futurish form’⫺ see 2.9 ⫺ as in Mary said that Bill was coming over when school broke up the next week.

⫺ Secondly, the reason why the generalization applies only if the that-clause

is homogeneous is that T-simultaneity means coincidence (see 2.17) If the situation time of a durative situation is represented as T-simultaneous with

a punctual situation time, it is represented as punctual As explained in 2.17, this is only possible if the durative situation clause (whose situation time is T-bound and punctual) is a ‘homogeneous’ clause (If it is hetero-geneous, the situation time can only be the time of the full situation.) Thus, the situation time of thethat-clause of Mary said that Bill walked to town

cannot be T-simultaneous with the situation time ofsaid, but that changes

when the that-clause is made homogeneous by the use of the progressive

form: inMary said that Bill was walking to town the walking can (and out

of context is) interpreted as simultaneous with the situation time of said.

⫺ Thirdly, if a that-clause is itself the head clause of an adverbial when-clause,

its situation time must be interpreted as W-anterior to the situation time of

the matrix clause (see 2.17 and 8.26.1) Thus, in (2) [I told Bill that Jane was

furious when Jim refused to take her out] the situation of Jane being furious

is interpreted as W-anterior to that referred to byI told Bill In our

terminol-ogy, this means thatwas is now an absolute past tense form ‘shifting the

do-main’ That is, the temporal domain established bytold in I told Bill remains

unexpanded, because the past tense formwas in Jane was furious establishes

another (W-anterior) past domain which also comprises the situation time of

thewhen-clause (The reason why the preterite in a that-clause supporting a

when-clause cannot be analysed as a relative preterite expressing

T-simulta-neity will be explained in 8.26.1.)

(d) In section 9.29 we will see that some types of clauses (such as adverbial

when-clauses) under certain conditions allow ‘indirect binding’, i e the

situation time in question is not T-bound by the situation time of its head

clause, but by the situation time of a higher clause The most typical

pattern is that realized inHe said that when he had seen the house he had

immediately fallen in love with it, which is an alternative to He said that

when he saw the house he had immediately fallen in love with it Whereas

saw is an example of ‘normal’ (⫽ ‘direct’) binding, because it represents

the situation time of thewhen-clause as T-simultaneous with the situation

time (had fallen) of its head clause, had seen is an example of indirect

binding: it represents the situation time of the when-clause as T-anterior

to the situation time of said This is possible because it is pragmatically

clear that the situation time of had seen must anyhow be interpreted as

W-simultaneous with the situation time ofhad fallen.

(e) Indirect binding is never possible in complement clauses depending on a

verb of communication (say, tell, hear …): we cannot interpret Jill

admit-ted that she had said that Ian had been angry as equivalent to Jill admitadmit-ted

that she had said that Ian was angry.16(However, the rule is not so strict

16 This impossibility of indirect binding in past represented speech accords with the

impos-sibility of using the future tense in similar examples referring to the post-present:

(i) (direct reported speech) Next time I meet him I will say to him: “Some day I will

ask you if you are hungry.”

(ii) (indirect reported speech) Next time I meet him I will tell him that some day I will

ask him if he {is / *will be} hungry.

The report in (ii) must do justice to the original temporal relations This means that the

absolute formwill ask from (i) becomes the relative tense form will ask (expressing

T-posteriority to the future situation time ofwill talk, which is treated as a ‘pseudo-t0 ’ ⫺

see 9.17.1 and 9.22.1) and that the relative present tense formare from (i) remains the

relative present tense formare, because the T-relation it expresses, viz T-simultaneity,

remains unchanged Using will be instead would be an instance of indirect binding,

which is ungrammatical in complement clauses.

if the ‘reporting verb’ is a cognition verb (e g realize, be aware, feel, know… ⫺ see 9.23.3.)

The above principles explain the data provided by (3)⫺(10):

(a) Sentence (1) [I told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim] can be reported as

(3) [Jill said that she had told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim] because

it is normal for an absolute preterite (told) to be ‘backshifted’ in past

represented speech (because what is originally anterior to t0is now anterior

to the situation time ofsaid) and because it is equally normal for a relative

preterite (was) to be retained (because the relation of T-simultaneity is not

affected by the reporting and because indirect binding is not allowed in complement clauses depending onsaid) Sentence (1) can also be reported

as (4) [Jill said that she told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim] because

the absolute preteritetold can anyhow only be interpreted as establishing

a W-anterior domain (and hence as interpretationally equivalent to had told) because, as pointed out in 8.25.3, the situation time of a durative

bounded (and hence nonhomogeneous) subclause (told) cannot be

repre-sented as T-simultaneous with the virtually punctual situation time of its head clause (said).

(b) Sentence (1) [I told Bill that Jane was angry with Jim] cannot be (faithfully)

reported as (5) [Jill said that she told Bill that Jane had been angry with Jim] or (6) [Jill said that she had told Bill that Jane had been angry with Jim] because the substitution of had been for was changes the

T-simultane-ity relation expressed bywas in (1) into a T-anteriority relation That is,

(5) and (6) are both reports ofI told Bill that Jane had been angry with Jim rather than reports of (1) (The use of had been in (6) cannot be

analysed as an instance of indirect binding, because indirect binding is not grammatical in a that-clause depending on a head clause with said as

verb⫺ see principle (e) above.) (c) Sentence (2) [I told Bill that Jane was furious when Jim refused to take her out] can be reported as (7) [Jill said that she (had) told Bill that Jane had been furious when Jim refused to take her out] because this report

does justice to the temporal relations expressed in (or inferrable from) the reported clause.Had told represents its situation time as T-anterior to the

situation time ofsaid, in the same way as told in (2) represents its situation

time as anterior to t0 Told is also fine, because it can be interpreted as

establishing a past domain that is W-anterior to that ofsaid The situation

time ofhad been furious is represented as T-anterior to that of (had) told,

which is in keeping with the fact that in (2) the situation time of was furious is interpreted as W-anterior to the situation time of told The past

tense refused from (2) is retained in (7) because the T-relation to be

ex-pressed is the same in the two sentences, viz T-simultaneity

(d) Sentence (2) [I told Bill that Jane was furious when Jim refused to take

her out] can also be reported as (8) [Jill said that she (had) told Bill that

Jane was furious when Jim refused to take her out] because this version

too does justice to all the temporal relations expressed in (or inferrable

from) (2) The situation time of(had) told is interpreted as W-anterior to

that of said, which is in keeping with the fact that told in (2) represents

its situation time as anterior to t0 Because of the presence of the

when-clause (which is to be interpreted as modifyingJane was furious), the

situa-tion time ofwas furious cannot be interpreted as T-simultaneous with that

of(had) told This means that was in (8) must be an absolute past tense

creating a new domain, which (for reasons explained in 8.25.3) can only

be interpreted as W-anterior to the domain established bysaid Finally, the

situation time ofrefused is represented as T-simultaneous with that of was

furious, just as it is in (2).

(e) Sentence (2) [I told Bill that Jane was furious when Jim refused to take

her out] can also be reported as (9) [Jill said that she (had) told Bill that

Jane had been furious when Jim had refused to take her out] because a

when-clause that is interpreted in terms of W-simultaneity can be bound

indirectly (had refused) rather than directly (refused).

(f) Sentence (2) [I told Bill that Jane was furious when Jim refused to take

her out] cannot be reported as (10) [Jill said that she had told Bill that

Jane was furious when Jim had refused to take her out] because had

re-fused cannot be an instance of indirect binding (accompanied by a

W-simultaneity interpretation) if its head clause is not in the past perfect too

(This restriction is explained in 13.10.1⫺2.) The form had refused in (10)

can therefore only be interpreted as expressing T-anteriority As a result,

(10) does not accurately represent all the temporal relations expressed in

the original utterance, since refused expresses T-simultaneity in (2) In

other words, (10) is not a report of (2) but rather ofI told Bill that Jane

was furious when Jim had refused to take her out.

In sum, the data provided by (3)⫺(10) are all naturally accounted for in

our theory

8.25.4 As noted before, at least some of these data cannot be accounted for

by a theory that holds that ‘sequence of tenses’ is a mechanical (automatic,

purely formal) rule in past represented speech Consider the following, in which

the (b) sentences are meant to be the indirect reported versions of the (a)

sen-tences:

(a) Iwas in Greece at the time (absolute past tense)

(b) Jane said shehad been in Greece at the time.

(a) Millie complained that shewasn’t feeling well (relative past tense)

(b) John told us that Millie had complained that she {wasn’t / *hadn’t been}

feel-ing well.

These examples show that in past represented speech an absolute preterite can

be backshifted whereas a relative one cannot It is only a theory that distin-guishes between absolute and relative preterites that can account for this fact 8.25.5 This also refutes any analysis which claims that in past represented speech both the head clause and the that-clause simply locate their situations

in the past and are therefore both absolute past tenses (in our terminology) Like our analysis, such an analysis holds that the report must do justice to the original utterance, hence that two situations that are W-simultaneous in the original utterance must be reported in such a way that they can be interpreted

as W-simultaneous However, unlike our analysis, such an analysis assumes that the way to do that is to use the past tense in both the clauses of the report According to this analysis, the two past tenses in Bill once told me his right foot had only four toes simply locate their situations in the past and the two

situations are automatically interpreted as W-simultaneous because My right foot has only four toes represents the situation referred to as simultaneous with

t0 and a faithful report has to do justice to this temporal relation In this analysis both the past tense forms in Bill once told me his right foot had only four toes are absolute tense forms.

This analysis cannot explain all the data provided by (3)⫺(10):

(a) The analysis does not explain why the unmarked report of My right foot has only four toes is Bill once told me that his right foot had only four toes rather than Bill once told me that his right foot has only four toes If

My right foot has only four toes is true at some time before t0, then (if Bill

is still alive) it must also be true at t0 We would therefore expect the present tense to be more natural than the past tense That this is not the case follows from the fact that a shift of domain from the past to the present is subject to restrictions, whereas it is always possible to expand a past domain created by an intensional verb likesaid or thought This

be-comes even clearer if My right foot has only four toes is an erroneous

utterance or thought: we can sayBill {imagined / dreamed} that his right foot had only four toes, but hardly ??Bill {imagined / dreamed} that his right foot has only four toes.

(b) A heterogeneous (⫽ nonhomogeneous ⫺ see 1.36) situation cannot be lo-cated at t0, because its situation time coincides with the time of the full situation and one cannot locate a durative situation at (⫽ as coinciding with) a point of time This requirement, that the situation time located at

t0 must be punctual, follows from the semantics of the present tense: it represents the situation time as T-simultaneous with t0, not as W-simulta-neous with t0 (W-simultaneity is a question of interpreting the W-relation between t0 and the time of the full situation.) In past represented speech

we notice exactly the same requirement of T-simultaneity between the

that-clause situation time and the situation time ofsaid A heterogeneous

situa-tion cannot be located at the situasitua-tion time of said, because you cannot

locate a durative situation at (⫽ as coinciding with) a time which is

consid-ered as punctual, or at any rate as shorter than the time of the situation

which is located at it Our analysis therefore predicts the unacceptability

of He said he wrote a long letter on the simultaneity reading, while the

other analysis does not If both past tenses are absolute tenses, it should

be possible for the two situations (domains) to be interpreted as

W-simulta-neous with (⫽ overlapping) one another, unless the theory contains a

spe-cial interpretive principle blocking this interpretation Our theory does not

contain such a special (ad hoc?) interpretive principle and does not need

one

In other words, the kind of simultaneity that is relevant to the use and

under-standing of past represented speech sentences is coincidence (T-simultaneity),

not overlap (W-simultaneity) This accords with the claim that the past tense

in the that-clause is a relative past tense, but not with the claim that it is an

absolute past tense whose situation is interpreted as W-simultaneous with the

situation of the head clause

(c) As we will see in 9.9⫺12, the tenses used to express T-relations in a past

domain can under certain conditions also be used to express T-relations in

a pre-present domain, even if the present perfect is given a ‘co-extensive’

T-interpretation (i e the situation time is co-extensive with the pre-present

and therefore leads up to t0 ⫺ see 5.2.2) The following examples of

pre-present repre-presented speech (or thought) come from section 9.12:

[I watched Oprah today and George Michael was on there and I enjoyed his

in-terview.] I have known for some time that hewas gay [but you know he is still

sexy] (www)(T-simultaneity)

[“You don’t think it’s on the small side?”⫺ “It looks fine to me.”] ⫺ “I’ve been

thinking lately itwas rather small.” (CP) (T-simultaneity)

I have known for some time that shewas in great pain, [but unfortunately the only

thing I could and can do is pray that God reveals his plan for her and be ] (www)

(T-simultaneity)

I have known for some time that she would not last forever, [but her death still

comes as a shock] (www)(T-posteriority)

[In fact, terrorism experts say that] for years their worst fear has been that a suicide

bomberwould hit inside US borders (www) (T-posteriority)

It is clear that the italicized past tenses in the first three examples cannot be

analysed as absolute past tenses, because they do not represent the situation

they refer to as T-bygone, and certainly not as temporally disconnected from

the present On the other hand, analysing them as relative pasts accords not

only with the simultaneity interpretation which they receive but also with the observation that when a pre-present domain is expanded, it is always expanded

as if it were a past domain (Abundant evidence for the existence of this type

of shift of temporal perspective will be adduced in 9.9⫺12.)

punctual adverbial with a relative preterite

The claim that there are two types of past tense in English, an absolute and a relative one, is supported by the fact that an absolute past tense form is compatible with an unanchored punctual time-specifying adverbial (i e an adverbial of the type at 5 o’clock), whereas a relative past tense form is not.

8.26.1 Observe the following:

(said at 5 o’clock) John is here {now / at present / today / at this very moment /

*at five o’clock}.(The acceptability judgement on ‘at five o’clock’ assumes that the present tense form has its basic meaning and refers to a single situation rather than being a historic present or referring to a present habit or characteristic Note also that the relevant difference between at this very moment and at five o’clock is that the former expresses an Adv-time which is anchored to t 0 while the latter does not.)

This example shows that when a situation time is represented as T-simulta-neous (⫽ coinciding) with t0, its temporal location cannot also be specified by

a punctual unanchored time-specifying adverbial like at five o’clock The only

seeming exception is when the time-specifying adverbial does not specify a punctual Adv-time containing the situation time in terms of coincidence but belongs to the proposition describing the situation whose situation time is lo-cated at t0, as in the following:

(said at 5 o’clock) [You always claim that John is never here at five o’clock But

now you can see for yourself:] Johnishere at five o’clock

Examples like these, in which at five o’clock does not function as a

time-specifying adverbial but forms part of the untensed proposition, will be disre-garded in what follows because they are irrelevant to the argument to be pre-sented So will sentences in which the present tense is a historic present and sentences that express a present characteristic or habit ⫺ see the comment added to the first example

The reason why, at five o’clock, we cannot say *I am here at five o’clock

is that the present tense represents its situation time as T-simultaneous (i e