The grammar of the english verb phrase part 103 ppsx

Neither clause uses a tense relating its situation time to the situation time of the other clause, because both establish a past domain of their own.. This is in keeping with our claim t

absolute preterite, as in Bill arrived before I did In that case both situations

referred to are represented as t0-factual Neither clause uses a tense relating its

situation time to the situation time of the other clause, because both establish

a past domain of their own However, the temporal W-relation between the

situation times is indicated bybefore ⫺ see Figure 14.4 in section 14.4.1.

14.6 Absolute tense in the head clause and relative tense

in the before-clause

14.6.1 In 14.5 we have discussed the possibilities of using an absolute tense

in both the head clause and thebefore-clause in cases where the latter functions

as a situation-time adverbial (i e if the before-clause establishes an Adv-time

which contains the situation time of the head clause) In the present section we

consider structures with a before-clause used as a situation-time adverbial in

which the head clause uses an absolute tense while the before-clause uses a

relative one

14.6.2 Sometimes when the head clause uses an absolute tense, or is an

infini-tive clause forming part of a head clause using an absolute tense, the

before-clause functioning as situation-time adverbial can show temporal

subordina-tion There are two important conditions for this First, the head clause has to

form part of an intensional (opaque) context or establish one (for example, by

the use of the future tense ⫺ see 8.24.3) Secondly, the situation time of the

before-clause must be T-related to the implicit Anchor time and not to the

situation time of the head clause The following are some examples, which

show that the relation between the situation time of the before-clause and

the Anchor time may be that of simultaneity or anteriority, but hardly

T-posteriority (Note that the before-clause is meant to specify the time of the

speaking, not the time of the wanting to speak.)

I wanted to speak to Mary before shemoved into her new flat.

I wanted to speak to Mary before shehad moved into her new flat.

??I wanted to speak to Mary before shewas going to move into her new flat (This

is hardly acceptable as a means of saying ‘I wanted to speak to Mary before the time

when she was going to move into her new flat’.)

It should be noted that in none of these examples is the posteriority relation

implied by before expressed by the tense form Sentences in which the tense

form does express this relation are ungrammatical:

*I wanted to speak to Mary before shewould move into her new flat.

*I wanted to speak to Mary before shewould have moved into her new flat.

*I wanted to speak to Mary before shewould be going to move into her new flat.

These sentences are ungrammatical because the situation time of the

before-clause is T-related to the situation time of the head before-clause rather than to the Anchor time This kind of indirect binding is not allowed in before-clauses.

(However, it is pointed out in 14.4.4 that, in archaic English, should can be

found in thebefore-clause of such sentences This is in keeping with our claim

that inI wanted to speak to Mary before she moved into her new flat the form moved is a relative tense form, expressing simultaneity with the Anchor time,

and not an absolute tense form.)

The following are similar examples in which the intensional domain is estab-lished by the future tense form in the head clause itself:

I will speak to Mary before she {moves / *will move} into her new flat.

I will speak to Mary before she {has moved / *will have moved} into her new flat.

I will speak to Mary before she {??is going to move / *will be going to move} into

her new flat

14.6.3 InI wanted to speak to Mary before she had moved into her new flat

andI will speak to Mary before she has moved into her new flat, the reason

why the speaker chooses to express T-anteriority in thebefore-clause is that he

wants to refer to the resultant state produced by the before-clause situation

rather than to the situation itself In addition, the choice of a perfect tense form promotes a not-yet-factual reading (see 14.6.5 below)

In other sentences the reason for expressing T-anteriority may be that the speaker wants to convey a continuative reading of thebefore-clause, i e that

he wants to represent thebefore-clause situation as continuing at (and possibly

beyond) the Anchor time:

Mary wanted to move into the flat before she had been pregnant for longer than

five months

Mary will move into the flat before she has been pregnant for longer than five

months

Note that in examples like these, ‘before X’ means ‘before the Anchor time’,

i e ‘before the temporal point when thebefore-clause situation has lasted for

five months’, and not ‘before the beginning of thebefore-clause situation’.

14.6.4 The analysis (in terms of an implicit Anchor time) proposed here ac-cords with the observation that in many cases we can substitute by the time that for before without changing the tenses There is little difference of meaning

between the following sentences:

Mary intends to be married before she moves into her new flat

Mary intends to be married by the time she moves into her new flat

In the phraseby the time that, the NP the time makes explicit the Anchor time

which remains implicit when we use the conjunctionbefore (⫽ ‘before the time

that’) In the second example, the Pseudo-t0-System formmoves clearly relates

the situation time of the that-clause to the time, not to the situation time of

the head clause The fact that before-clauses use exactly the same verb form

therefore confirms our hypothesis that the same temporal relation is expressed

14.6.5 One of the consequences of relating the situation time of the

before-clause to the implicit Anchor time (rather than using an absolute tense form)

is that the before-clause situation is not represented as being a fact at t0 The

only element of interpretation is that the before-clause situation is something

which was (or is) expected to take place at some time later than the head clause

situation, which means that thebefore-clause situation is represented as

not-yet-factual( i e as ‘still nonfactual at the situation time of the head clause’⫺

see 14.4.2), i e that the before-clause situation has not yet actualized at the

time of the head clause situation

(4a) Bill intends to go home before the play is over

(4b) I want to leave before the police {arrive / have arrived}

(4c) The thief will run away before the police {arrive / have arrived}

In (4a⫺b) the head clause forms part of an intensional domain; in (4c) it creates

the intensional domain itself by using the future tense (which creates an

inten-sional world ⫺ see 8.24.3) In each case the before-clause locates its situation

time in the temporal domain established by the head clause because it is to be

interpreted as part of the intensional domain⫺ see 10.4.6 It does so by relating

the situation time of the before-clause to the Anchor time In (4b) and (4c),

arrive and have arrived express T-simultaneity and T-anteriority, respectively.

In the latter case the speaker is more concerned with the state resulting from

the arrival than with the arrival itself The result is anyhow a not-yet-factual

reading: ‘A before B’ is interpreted as ‘A when not yet B’ Thus (4b) can be

paraphrased as follows: ‘I want to leave at a time when the police {do not

arrive / have not arrived (⫽ are not there)} yet’ The sense of not-yet-factuality

is stronger when have arrived is used than when simultaneity is expressed At

least, while I want to leave before the police arrive strongly implies that I

expect the police to arrive,I want to leave before the police have arrived tends

to draw the hearer’s attention away from this implication That is, with

dy-namic verbs, expressing T-anteriority instead of T-simultaneity is a

conven-tional device to abstract away from the expected actualization and bring

not-yet-factuality into focus

14.6.6 The not-yet-factual reading ‘The before-clause situation is not yet a

fact at the situation time of the head clause’ can also be expressed in

non-intensional contexts:

Mary recognized the visitor before hehad entered the house.

Mary recognized the visitor before hewas in the house.

[When the men started fighting] Bill hurriedly left the pub before the policearrived.

The first two examples receive the same interpretations (respectively) as the fol-lowing:

Mary recognized the visitor, and when she did he had not yet entered the house Mary recognized the visitor, and when she did he was not yet in the house The third example is ambiguous between a t0-factual and a purely not-yet-factual reading of thebefore-clause In the former case the speaker is taken to

assert that the police arrived In the latter case there is an implicit intensional domain, viz a world of expectation, and the before-clause explains why Bill

left hurriedly: he left in a hurry because he expected the police to arrive soon

and wanted to have left before that The use of hurriedly thus promotes the

not-yet-factual interpretation: ‘A before B’ means ‘A at a time when not yet B’ Whether A did or did not actualize after A is left vague: it is irrelevant to the truth of the sentence (on the purely not-yet-factual interpretation) whether the police actually arrived or not

Because sentences like the above three leave it vague whether the situation

of the not-yet-factualbefore-clause eventually actualized or not, they can occur

in a context making it clear that the situation did not actualize at all, as in the first two examples below, or did eventually actualize, as in the third example:

I saw him before hehad seen me So I had time to conceal myself.

The letter was destroyed before Ihad read it.

He read the paper before Ihad read it I did not read it until I was back from work.

In these examples it is the linguistic context that makes it clear whether the

before-clause situation ever actualized or not The purely not-yet-factual be-fore-clause itself does not tell us anything about this It just represents its

situa-tion time as T-anterior to the Anchor time, which is itself interpreted as W-posterior to the situation time of the head clause (because this is the contained orientation time included in the Adv-time and preceding the Anchor time) It follows that the before-clause situation is interpreted as still nonfactual at the

situation time of the head clause

14.6.7 Apart from the context, pragmatic knowledge can also induce a factual

or counterfactual reading of the not-yet-factual before-clause Thus, out of

context, the not-yet-factualbefore-clause of the first example below is

interpre-ted as counterfactual, whereas that of the second is not:

The sergeant removed the fuse before the bomb exploded

The sergeant took off his helmet before the bomb exploded

The interpretation of such sentences happens in accordance with the following

pragmatic principle:

When both the head clause and the not-yet-factual before-clause are in the past

tense, the before-clause is given a counterfactual interpretation if the head clause

situation is represented as t0-factual and its actualization is seen as a necessary and

sufficient condition to prevent thebefore-clause situation from actualizing.

In other words,The sergeant removed the fuse before the bomb exploded yields

a counterfactual interpretation because the following conditional is

pragmati-cally plausible:

If the sergeant had not removed the fuse, the bomb would have exploded (later)

By contrast, The sergeant took off his helmet before the bomb exploded does

not yield a counterfactual interpretation because the following conditional is

not plausible:

If the sergeant had not taken off his helmet, the bomb would have exploded (later)

The above pragmatic principle is only one of a pair The second is the

follow-ing:

A not-yet-factual adverbialbefore-clause in the past tense receives a t0-factual

inter-pretation if the head clause situation is represented as t0-factual and its actualization

is seen as a necessary and sufficient condition for thebefore-clause situation to

actu-alize

In accordance with this principle, thebefore-clauses in the following examples

are interpreted as t0-factual:

We had to bribe the secretary before we were accepted as members of the club

They had had to kill him before they could get at his money

This type of sentence is special in that the head clause expresses necessity and

does not allow the insertion of a measure phrase (e g.long) before the

before-clause As a rule, t0-factual before-clauses do allow such an insertion ⫺ see

14.6.13 The fact that a measure phrase is not allowed here suggests that the

before-clause is not primarily interpreted as a time adverbial but rather as a

conditional clause (This would mean that the idea of temporal precedence has

been metaphorically extended to the idea of logical precedence: the head clause

and the before-clause express something like condition and consequent, or

cause and effect.)

14.6.8 When the before-clause represents its situation as nonstatic (⫽

dy-namic) and is interpreted as t -counterfactual for pragmatic reasons (and not

because of the verb form) ⫺ see 14.6.7 ⫺ it can use a verb form expressing simultaneity or a verb form expressing anteriority:7

(5a) The letter was destroyed before Iread it.

(5b) The letter was destroyed before Ihad read it.

Actually, there is a double difference of meaning between such sentences To begin with, (5a) is only possible if it means ‘The letter was destroyed as a precaution against my reading it’ This aspect of interpretation is not conveyed

by (5b), which has an extensionalbefore-clause rather than an intensional one.

The second meaning difference between (5a) and (5b) is brought out by the following paraphrases:

(a⬘) The letter was destroyed before the time when it would have been the case that

I read it (if it had not been destroyed)

(b⬘) The letter was destroyed before the time when it would have been the case that

I had (already) read it (if it had not been destroyed)

In other words, the destruction of the letter is located before the (imaginary) time of my reading it in (5a) and before the (equally imaginary) time of my already having read it in (5b) However, this difference of meaning is blurred

by the fact that thebefore-clause situation is anyhow interpreted as

counterfac-tual: if there is no actualization, then there is neither a time at which the situation actualizes nor a time at which it has already actualized Still, there is

a reason why even in this case the past perfect is often used instead of the preterite: the past tense by itself suggests a t0-factual reading, and it takes considerable processing effort on the part of the hearer to conclude that this

t0-factual reading does not fit in with the context, which requires a t0 -counterfactual reading The past perfect, by contrast, brings the not-yet-factual reading into focus (see 14.6.5 above); it is a small step from ‘not-yet-factual at t’ to ‘not-yet-factual at t0’, and an easy further step to ‘counterfactual at t0’ if such a reading is imposed by the context

14.6.9 When the before-clause uses a stative verb and is interpreted as t0 -counterfactual for pragmatic reasons and not because of the verb form (because this is not a conditional perfect form), there is a difference of meaning between

a verb form expressing T-simultaneity and one expressing T-anteriority Whereas the first two of the following examples (with a nonstative verb) only show the two meaning differences discussed in the previous section (in connec-tion with (5a⫺b), the latter two clearly yield different not-yet-factual inter-pretations:

7 In this case the Adv-time-bounding orientation time is interpreted as the time when the before-clause situation would have actualized if it had not been prevented by the

actualization of the head clause situation.

?The company closed down before John finished his apprenticeship (Unlike (5a),

this sentence is questionable because its natural interpretation ⫺ ‘The company

closed down as a precaution against John’s finishing his apprenticeship’ ⫺ is

prag-matically unlikely.)

The company closed down before Johnhad finished his apprenticeship.

The company closed down before Johnfelt at home in the job.

The company closed down before Johnhad (ever) felt at home in the job (Had felt

is interpreted as a ‘perfect of experience’ ⫺ see 5.16.1: the before-clause means

‘be-fore John had ever had the experience of feeling at home in his job’.)

This difference results from the fact that in abefore-clause, the past perfect of

a stative verb (e g had felt) can only receive a ‘perfect of experience’ reading

(see 5.13.1), whereas the past perfect of a nonstative verb (e g had finished)

invites a resultative reading

14.6.10 When the context or our shared pragmatic knowledge of the world

does not induce a t0-factual or t0-counterfactual interpretation, the

interpreta-tion of a before-clause with a nonstative VP will be as follows Other things

being equal, a past perfect will be interpreted as explicitly representing the

situation as not-yet-factual, whereas a past tense will be interpreted as

repre-senting the situation as t0-factual Thus,John read the letter before I had read

it merely expresses that I had not (yet) read the letter when John read it; it

does not say anything about whether or not I did read it afterwards By

con-trast,John read the letter before I read it suggests that I did read the letter, but

only after John had read it first

In a post-present domain, there is a similar difference of interpretation

be-tween a present tense in thebefore-clause and a present perfect (of a nonstative

verb): in John will read the letter before Mary has read it, the before-clause is

interpreted as not-yet-factual, i e as expressing no more than that John will

read the letter at a time when Mary has not read it yet By contrast, John will

read the letter before Mary reads it suggests that Mary too will read the letter,

but only after John has done so (This implicature can be overridden by the

pragmatics of the context, as inMary will catch John before he hits the floor.)

In sum, when the verb of the before-clause is nonstative and neither the

context nor pragmatic knowledge induces a t0-factual or t0-counterfactual

in-terpretation, thebefore-clause uses a tense form expressing T-simultaneity with

the Anchor time to suggest a factual interpretation and a form expressing

T-anteriority to emphasize the not-yet-factual interpretation without suggesting

a factual or counterfactual reading

When the anteriority form is used, the distance between the Anchor time

(to which the situation time of the before-clause is represented as T-anterior)

and the situation time of the before-clause is felt to be minimal: the Anchor

time lies right after the terminal point of the situation of the before-clause.