The grammar of the english verb phrase part 61 pps

The first sentence is fine becausewas writing represents its situation as homo-geneous, which means that the situation time can be a proper subpart of the time of the full situation, so

the present⫺ see the discussion of the ‘Special Present Time-sphere System’ in

3.2⫺10), we cannot use a nonprogressive present tense form to locate a single

durative dynamic situation at t0:

I am writing a book

*I write a book.(grammatical only in special uses)

This constraint follows naturally from the following principles:

(a) t0is linguistically conceived of as a point: it has no duration

(b) The present tense represents the situation time as coinciding with t0

(c) It follows from (a) and (b) that the situation time of a present tense clause

has to be punctual

(d) If the full situation is durative, its situation time can only be conceived of

as punctual if the situation is homogeneous, e g because it is a state (for

example, a habit) or if it is represented as homogeneous by the use of the

progressive form This is not the case in *I write a book, which is bounded

and therefore nonhomogeneous ⫺ see 1.45 A nonhomogeneous sentence

can only refer to the complete situation (i e the situation time is also the

time of the full situation) Needless to say, it is pragmatically impossible

for such a durative situation to coincide with a point

Note that this explanation is based on temporal as well as aspectual and

prag-matic factors The notions progressive, homogeneous and durative are a

ques-tion of (grammatical or ontological) aspect⫺ see 1.20 and 1.33.1 The

tempo-ral factor in this explanation lies in the fact that it defines ‘locating a situation

time at t0’ as ‘representing the situation time as T-simultaneous (⫽ coinciding)

with t0’

8.30.2 The restriction on*I write a book also applies to I wrote a book in

past represented speech, but it does not render the sentence ungrammatical

because there is another interpretation ofI wrote a book on which the sentence

is acceptable Compare:

John said that hewas writing a book.

John said that hewrote a book.

The first sentence is fine becausewas writing represents its situation as

homo-geneous, which means that the situation time can be a proper subpart of the

time of the full situation, so that the situation time can be T-simultaneous

(coinciding) with the nearly punctual situation time ofsaid The sentence John

said that he wrote a book does not satisfy these conditions: wrote represents

the durative that-clause situation as bounded (⫽ nonhomogeneous), so that

wrote cannot be interpreted as expressing T-simultaneity: a durative

nonhomo-geneous situation cannot coincide with a nearly punctual time (said) However,

John said that he wrote a book is not unacceptable because it allows another

interpretation:wrote can be interpreted as creating a domain of its own, which

is pragmatically interpreted as W-anterior to that established bysaid (In other

words,wrote is interpreted as equivalent to had written.)

The relevant part of this argument is that, in the same way as *I write a book cannot locate its situation time at t0, he wrote a book cannot locate its

situation time at the situation time ofsaid (at least in Standard British English).

Since ‘locate the situation time at time X’ in both cases means ‘represent the situation time as T-simultaneous (⫽ coinciding) with time X’, this comes down

to saying that the situation time of a durative bounded (⫽ nonhomogeneous) situation (which is a durative situation time, since if the situation is bounded, the situation time coincides with the time of the full situation⫺ see 8.1.4⫺5) cannot be represented as T-simultaneous with an orientation time which is conceived of as punctual (If one does not want to treatsaid as referring to a

punctual situation, the restriction is that the situation time of a durative bounded situation cannot be represented as T-simultaneous with an orientation time which is conceived of as having a much shorter duration than the T-bound situation time) The reason why John said that he was writing a book is not

ungrammatical is that the situation time of was writing can be a punctual

portion of the full situation, because the progressive form represents the dura-tive full situation as homogeneous

The above data are perfectly in keeping with our claim thatwas writing in John said that he was writing a book is a relative past tense form, whose

temporal semantics is ‘The situation time is T-simultaneous (⫽ coinciding) with an orientation time in a past domain’ As far as we can see, the data cannot be explained by any analysis which denies the existence of a relative past tense (with this semantics) in English

8.31 Argument 9: T-simultaneity is a unidirectional

relation

In a theory adopting the existence of a relative past tense meaning ‘the situation time

is T-simultaneous (⫽ strictly coinciding) with a past orientation time’, we can nicely explain why the subclause in a sentence likeJohn knew that I wrote a book cannot be

interpreted in terms of T-simultaneity (i e as using a relative tense) Ifwrote were a

relative past tense form, the bounded situation of my writing a book would have to derive its temporal specification from the nonbounded situation time of John knowing

it, which is pragmatically impossible

The following is another example in which thethat-clause cannot be

interpre-ted in terms of simultaneity:

John knew that I wrote a book

This sentence too can only be interpreted in terms of sequence: my writing of

the book was completed before John knew about it This leads to (at least) the

following conclusions Firstly,wrote cannot be a relative past tense form If it

were, it would express T-simultaneity, so that a W-simultaneity interpretation

would be possible (and in fact obligatory) Secondly, there must be a reason

why wrote cannot be interpreted as expressing T-simultaneity This time the

explanation cannot be that it is impossible to represent a durative situation

time as coinciding with a much shorter orientation time (as in John said that

he wrote a book), for the situation referred to by knew is not bounded, which

means that it can in principle have any duration and that it is homogeneous

Theoretically, a durative bounded situation can coincide with a durative

homo-geneous situation or with a durative subpart of it So, what is it that rules out

the simultaneity interpretation ofwrote in John knew that I wrote a book?

The explanation we suggest is based on the observation (made in 8.17.2)

that T-simultaneity is a unidirectional relation: the bound situation time is

represented as coinciding with the binding situation time, not the other way

round This is illustrated by the following examples:

At 3.17 a.m John said that Bill was not in his room.(On the default reading of this

sentence, the time of the predicated situation (⫽ the situation time) of the

that-clause is taken to coincide with 3.17 p.m This is because this situation time derives

its temporal specification from the T-simultaneity relation (expressed by was) with

the situation time of the head clause, which coincides with the punctual Adv-time

indicated by at 3.17 a.m The sentence does not say anything about whether or not

Bill was also absent from his room at any other time, though it is pragmatically

unlikely that the absence was confined to just a point in time.)

John said that Bill was not in his room at 3.17 a.m.(The intended reading is that in

which at 3.17 a.m specifies the time of Bill’s not being in his room rather than the time

of John’s reporting this The precise temporal location of the situation time of the

that-clause is indicated by at 3.17 a.m If T-simultaneity meant that the T-binding situation

time derived its temporal specification from the coincidence relation with the T-bound

situation time, this sentence should be acceptable on the reading ‘At 3.17 a.m John said

that Bill was not in his room (at that time)’ Actually, if at 3.17 a.m specifies the time

of Bill’s being in his room, the sentence can only mean ‘At some time later than 3.17

a.m John said that Bill was not in his room at 3.17 a.m.’)

The claim that the T-simultaneity relation expressed by a relative tense is

unidi-rectional leads to the following conclusions First, in John knew that I wrote

a book, the T-binding situation time (knew) cannot derive its temporal

specifi-cation from the T-bound situation time (wrote) Secondly, wrote cannot derive

its temporal specification from a T-simultaneity relation withknew, because it

is obvious that a bounded situation (wrote a book) cannot derive its temporal

specification from a nonbounded one For lack of specification of boundaries, the situation of knowing something can in principle go on indefinitely This renders it impossible to represent a bounded situation time as temporally coin-ciding with it, i e to use the relative past tense.20

In sum, our theory nicely accounts for the fact that the that-clause of John knew that I wrote a book cannot be interpreted in terms of simultaneity The

notion of past relative tense plays a crucial part in this explanation The fact that I wrote a book is bounded also plays a part, but it is unable to explain

the obligatory interpretation ofwrote by itself (as might be claimed by

support-ers of the idea that the past tense form has a single core meaning, namely

‘anteriority to t0’) The above explanation not only refers to boundedness but also to the idea of temporally representing a situation time as coinciding (⫽ T-simultaneous) with the binding orientation time The latter element has nothing

to do with boundedness but has everything to do with the definition of a relative tense as expressing T-simultaneity

English and Dutch are cognate languages In Dutch, the absolute and the relative past tenses are clearly distinct, since only an absolute preterite form can be replaced by the present perfect Thus, to use an English gloss, we find Dutch sentences like Yesterday

he {admitted / has admitted} that his father {was / *has been} dead This difference

20 Note that the reverse mechanism is possible: if the binding situation time is bounded and the bound situation time is not, the relation of coincidence imposes temporal bound-aries on the bound situation time For example:

(i) He repeated three times that John was in the kitchen.

The head clause is bounded here by the presence ofthree times (Specification of the

number of times that a situation is repeated induces a bounded-repetitive reading.) The clause John was in the kitchen does not by itself represent its situation as bounded.

However, as explained in 8.17, the relation of coincidence expressed by the relative preteritewas entails that the situation time of the that-clause is just that part of the full

situation (possibly all of it) that is strictly simultaneous with the situation time of the head clause In other words, (i) makes a statement only about that part of the

that-clause situation that coincides with the situation time of the head that-clause It does not tell

us anything about the length of time actually taken up by the complete situation This means that the boundedness of the head clause imposes boundaries, not on the time of the full situation referred to in thethat-clause but on the latter’s situation time In other

words, by imposing boundaries, the head clause picks out a subinterval from the time

of the full situation, and it is this subinterval that is interpreted as being the situation time of thethat-clause.

in substitutability ⫺ the absolute past tense in the head clause can be replaced by the present perfect, while this substitutability does not exist for the relative past tense in the subclause⫺ shows that Dutch has two past tenses, an absolute one and a relative one Given the fact that Dutch and English are cognate languages, this suggests that it

is quite possible that in English, too, there are two distinct past tenses

Dutch is a Germanic language which is cognate to English, and whose tense

system resembles that of English in many respects One basic difference,

how-ever, is that unlike English, Dutch can use the present perfect to represent a

situation as holding at a definite past time:

Ikheb Jan gisteren gezien.

(‘Ihave seen John yesterday’)

Verleden jaaris het project mislukt doordat Jan niet heeft willen meewerken.

(‘Last year the projecthas failed because John has refused to co-operate’)

However, a present perfect can replace a past tense form only when the latter

is an absolute tense form21 Dutch does not normally allow the use of the

present perfect as a relative tense expressing T-simultaneity Compare:

Gisterengaf hij toe dat zijn vader dood was.

(‘Yesterday headmitted that his father was dead’)

Gisterenheeft hij toegegeven dat zijn vader dood was.

(‘Yesterday hehas admitted that his father was dead’)

*Gisterengaf hij toe dat zijn vader dood is geweest (nonsensical because is geweest

does not allow a simultaneity reading)

(‘Yesterday headmitted that his father has been dead’)

*Gisterenheeft hij toegegeven dat zijn vader dood is geweest (idem)

(‘Yesterday hehas admitted that his father has been dead’)

It appears that of the English preterites only the absolute one can be rendered

by a Dutch present perfect This means that to refer to the past, Dutch can

either use the absolute past tense or (under certain conditions) the present

perfect But to expand a past domain established by either of these tenses, only

the past tense can be used This leads to the conclusion that Dutch has both

an absolute past tense and a relative one, only the former of which can

al-ternate with the present perfect This proves the existence of the relative past

21 This is the same situation as in Latin, where both the ‘perfectum’ (e g.amavi) and the

‘imperfectum’ (e g.amabam) can be used for absolute past time reference, but only the

latter can also function as a relative past tense expressing simultaneity.

tense in Dutch Though Dutch of course is not English, this at least suggests that English too may make use of two different past tenses Moreover, this provides us with a possible test to say if a given past tense form in English is

an absolute or a relative form: if it can translate as a present perfect in Dutch,

it seems safe to say that it is an absolute tense form Otherwise it is probably

a relative past tense form

IV Theoretical conclusions from these arguments

The above arguments not only confirm the existence of the relative past tense

as a tense in its own right (i e semantically different from the absolute past

tense) but also lead to some further theoretical conclusions These will be

briefly gone into in the next sections

8.33 Theoretical conclusion 1

The existence of two distinct meanings (an absolute and a relative temporal meaning) corresponding with a single form (the past tense) is not a case of a single past tense being ambiguous, but of two different tenses having the same formal expression (i e being homophonous)

We have adduced a number of arguments supporting the claim that the

abso-lute and relative readings which can be given to past tense forms are not always

pragmatically or contextually induced interpretations, but sometimes

corre-spond with distinct semantic (temporal) structures There are in principle two

ways in which this conclusion can be accommodated One possibility is to

assume that English has two past tenses, viz an absolute and a relative one,

which happen to correspond to the same grammatical form (i e an absolute

past tense form is homophonous with a relative one) (On this assumption, a

past tenseform can under certain conditions be ambiguous between two

mean-ings (absolute vs relative), as in John said that Bill was hungry This is in

keeping with what was argued in Argument 7 in section 8.29.) The other is to

assume that there is only one past tense in English, which is ambiguous, i e

which can express two different temporal meanings At first sight it might seem

that it is not easy to choose between these two possibilities We are faced

with the same kind of problem as when a single phonological form (e g gay)

corresponds with two distinct meanings: is this a case of two different words

being homophonous or an instance of a single word being ambiguous?

However, the analysis assuming two homophonous past tenses is preferable

to the analysis in terms of a single ambiguous past tense, because the latter

runs counter to the principle (defended in 2.7) that each tense has a single

invariant semantic (⫽ tense-structural) meaning Since a tense is an abstract

concept, viz the correlation of a temporal meaning with a grammatical form,

it is unsound from a theoretical point of view to entertain the idea of one