The expression of T-simultaneity in a past domain 9.3 The relative past tense T-simultaneity in a past domain is expressed by means of the relative past tense, irre-spective of whether t
Trang 1found out that I had developed cancer (www)
[I drove across the San Fernando Valley to pick her up I was happy to do this because] I hadn’t seen much of Jan since she met Beefheart at a party the month
before (www)
B The expression of T-simultaneity in a past domain
9.3 The relative past tense
T-simultaneity in a past domain is expressed by means of the relative past tense, irre-spective of whether the binding time is the central orientation time or another orienta-tion time in that past domain
9.3.1 In order to represent a situation time as T-simultaneous with an orienta-tion time in a past domain we use the relative past tense (preterite), irrespective
of whether the binding orientation time is the central orientation time or an-other orientation time in the domain (In an-other words, the relative past is the only tense that can express T-simultaneity in a past domain or ‘subdomain’⫺ see 2.50.)
He said that hewas feeling hungry.
He promised he would do it when hehad time.
He said he had panicked when the milkboiled over.
The tense structure of the latter sentence is represented in Figure 9.2
9.3.2 Since the only condition for the use of a relative past tense is that the binding orientation time must form part of a past domain, and since a past
Trang 2Figure 9.2 The tense structure of He said he had panicked when the milk boiled over.
domain has been defined as a domain whose central orientation time is located
in the past time-sphere, the situation referred to by a relative tense form does
not need to be W-anterior to t0 For example, a relative past tense can represent
its situation time as T-simultaneous with the time of a situation which is
W-interpreted as following t0 (In that case the time of the situation referred to in
the relative past tense must also be W-interpreted as lying in the post-present
This follows from the fact that the relative past tense expresses T-simultaneity,
i e strict coincidence⫺ see 2.17.1.)
Yesterday John announced that he would retire from business when he was sixty,
[which is in two years’ time.]
In this example, the situation time ofwould retire, as well as the situation time
ofwas sixty (which is T-simultaneous with the former) must be understood as
W-posterior to t0because of what is said in the final relative clause
9.4 Theoretical remark
The grammaticality of was in the above example is very important from a
theoretical point of view, because it furnishes definitive evidence that English
has two past tenses ⫺ see also 8.23⫺32 The semantics of the absolute past
tense is: ‘The situation time is located in the past time-sphere, where it forms
the central orientation time of a past domain; it lies completely before t0and
is felt to be disconnected from the present’ The semantics of the relative past
is: ‘The situation time is represented as T-simultaneous with an orientation
time belonging to a past domain or subdomain (or to a pseudo-past
subdo-main ⫺ see 9.18); its location relative to t0is not T-expressed’ Since the past
tense form was in the example in 9.3.2 does not T-locate its situation time
before t , but rather represents it as coinciding with the binding situation time
Trang 3orientation time within that past domain The choice of a form to express T-posterior-ity depends on the precise meaning which is to be expressed
9.5 The conditional tense
9.5.1 The unmarked tense form to express T-posteriority to an orientation time that forms part of a past domain is the conditional tense, i e ‘would ⫹
infinitive’ (The term ‘conditional’ for the tense which is formally represented
by ‘would ⫹ infinitive’ is not ideal, since the use of would as a tense auxiliary,
to express ‘future-from-the-past’, is quite separate from its use as a marker of conditional meaning in the head clause of a conditional sentence However, the term is the one that has traditionally been used, and so we adopt it here for convenience We will, however, make a point of referring to ‘the conditional tense’ rather than to ‘the conditional’ as a reminder that the function of ‘would
⫹ infinitive’ as a tense form is to locate situation times in time rather than to convey conditional meaning.)
Note that it is immaterial to the use of the conditional tense whether the binding orientation time is the central orientation time of the domain or an-other orientation time in the past domain (i e the central orientation time of
a subdomain inside the past domain)
I thought youwould help me.
John said that Bill thought youwould help me.
He had promised that hewould henceforth behave himself.
She predicted that Billwould soon tell me when he would make his decision.
She said that he had promised that he would soon tell her when he would make
his decision
The tense structure of the latter sentence is represented by Figure 9.3
9.5.2 Because the conditional tense expresses no more than that the situation time is T-posterior to an orientation time in a past domain, it leaves vague
Trang 4Figure 9.3 The tense structure of She said that he had promised that he would soon
tell her when he would make his decision.
whether the situation time is W-anterior, W-simultaneous or W-posterior to
t0⫺ see also 9.6.9 Thus, we don’t know from Ruben said he would pray for
her whether Ruben has already prayed for her, is praying for her right now, or
will perhaps do so in the future
9.5.3 In the same way asshall is still possible as an alternative to will in the
future tense (see section 7.5.1), should can replace would after a first person
subject It is usually considered as more formal than would.
I realized I {would / should} have to stay there for another three weeks.
9.6 The past versions of futurish forms
It was pointed out in section 2.9 that not only future tense forms but also some
‘futurish’ verb forms can be used to represent a situation time as T-posterior
to t0(i e to establish a post-present domain) In the same way, T-posteriority
to an orientation time in a past domain can be expressed not only by the
conditional tense but also by the past tense of these futurish forms Since each
of these forms has its own connotation(s) (see 7.7⫺16), the main problem for
a nonnative speaker who wants to express T-posteriority in a past domain is
to choose the particular form that is most suitable to express the desired
conno-tation In other words, there are contexts in which it is not suitable to use the
conditional tense and there are contexts in which it is not suitable to use the
past tense of one or other futurish form The following rules (or tendencies)
can be pointed out
9.6.1 In past represented speech (as defined in 8.25.1) we can use all the past
tense versions of the future and futurish verb forms and auxiliaries that can
Trang 5T-I sensed that hewas on the point of doing something stupid (immediate future)
Our coach told us their goalkeeper was injured andwould not be playing (‘matter
of course’ meaning: given the circumstances, it was only natural that the goalkeeper would not be playing.)
I hoped the train I was waiting for {wouldn’t be / wasn’t} late again (Compare with 9.22.2 below.)
I realized I would have to hurry because my trainleft at 5.12 p.m.
9.6.2 If we delete the head clauses of these examples, the result is a stretch
of ‘free indirect speech’, where someone’s words or thoughts are reported without there being an introductory verb of saying or thinking As far as the use of tenses is concerned, free indirect speech is just like indirect reported speech, except that informal English will sometimes use was going to where
less informal English uses would:
[The girl was trembling with fear.] The burglar {wouldn’t have / wasn’t going to have} any hesitation about killing her [if he spotted her in her hiding-place].
[I was still running 6:20 miles, but I was struggling and breathing hard.] It wasn’t going to be long before I started to crash (www)
A condition for this use of was/were going to is that the speaker assumes
someone’s point of view (located at the past narrative ‘now’), from which the situation referred to with the help of was/were going to is predictable This
explains why the use of were going to is odd in the first of the following
examples, but not in the second:
[The procession had now begun to climb the hill.] Soon they {would reach /?were going to reach} the little church at the top.
[The procession had now begun to climb the hill.] Soon they {would reach / were going to reach} the little church at the top [and discover that the famous statue
was missing]
In the second example, the last clause is easily interpreted as representing the anticipation of an onlooker watching the procession, and this encourages an
Trang 6interpretation ofwere going to reach as the prediction made by that onlooker
at the time that the procession begins to climb the hill In the first example,
there is no clear indication of such an extra, past, point of view, and the
exam-ple is thus interpreted as involving only one ‘viewer’, namely the narrator
lo-cated at speech time.1 (Incidentally, the same restriction applies to epistemic
modals.)
In free indirect speech,was going to can also have its straightforward
mean-ing ‘it was predictable that X would happen’ This use is similarly restricted
It needs not only a past point of view from which the situation is predictable
but also a perceiver at that point of view For example:
The vasewas always going to get broken, with so many people brushing past it.
So many things get turned into exercise videos and classes itwasn’t going to be long
before it happened with ballet (www)
Itwas always going to get a bit rough as everybody was jostling for position, [but,
luckily, I had the horse to get me through.] (www)
9.6.3 If the speaker wants to express that a situation which did not yet hold at
the past orientation time was at that time intended, predictable or expected to
happen later, he will normally usewas/were going to This parallels the use of the
present tense ofbe going to for predictable post-present situations (see 7.10).
I was looking for my racket because I {was going to / *would} play tennis at ten
o’clock
He told me confidentially that he {was going to / #would} leave the firm (Would
is fine if it has volitional meaning or if there is an implicit condition, but not with
exactly the same meaning as was going to.)
Anxiously, he looked at the clouds There {was going to be / *would be} a storm
within minutes
Was going to is certainly the normal form if the reference is to a past intention
that was never fulfilled (see also 7.9.4)
I {was going to / *would} pay you a visit this afternoon, [but I have to attend an
emergency meeting of the board.]
You {were going to / *would} give me your hairdresser’s telephone number (used
as a reminder)
To T-represent the posterior situation as absolutely pre-determined by
circum-stances that already exist at the binding orientation time, we use a
nonpro-1 The extra point of view could be the past point of view of the current narrator For
example, the second example could continueI knew I had to do something fast and
could be nonfictional, but there would still be at least two points of view: the point of
view of the person who isnow the narrator but who then was someone located at the
time of the procession, and the point of view of the person who is now the narrator,
located at speech time.
Trang 7a personal arrangement, we normally use the progressive form of the past tense This parallels the use of the present progressive for arranged post-present situa-tions
[Mary and Bill were stuffing a goose.] Theywere having guests that evening.
[There was no point in inviting the Robinsons, as] theywere leaving the day before
the party
[The man was very nervous.] Hewas getting married that morning.
[I didn’t call him up to tell him the news because] I was going to his office the
next day
This use of the progressive past is possible even if the context makes it clear that the action planned was not actually performed
Hewas leaving the country in June, [but his accident has made this impossible.]
However, this idea of unreality is more frequently expressed bywas going to.
The latter is the only past futurish form that can implicate nonactualization by itself⫺ see 3.8:
[“Have you mended the fence yet?”]⫺ “I was going to do it yesterday.”
Here, the use of was going to implicates that the speaker did not mend the
fence If he did mend it, the speaker is expected to sayYes, I have or something
like I did yesterday This follows from the Gricean Maxim of Relation
(rele-vance): other things being equal, the present is more relevant than the past The speaker should not represent the mending of the fence as a past intention
if he can represent it as something that has become a fact at t0 Like any conversational implicature, this implicature of ‘unfulfilled intention’ can be cancelled by the context without creating semantic contradiction:
A: “Have you mended the fence yet?”
B: “Iwas going to do it yesterday.”
A: “And did you do it yesterday?
B: “Yes.”