put emphasis on the fact that the unpacking was not yet a fact at the relevant situation time we have to use the conditional perfect usually in combination with the conditional tense in
Trang 1It was a long time before all the caseshad been unpacked.
[These laws were then ratified, although] it was a long time before custom had
obtained the vigor and effect of law (www)
[The stockpiling of treatment began and] it was a long time before enoughhad been
stored (www)
The past perfect situations are obviously interpreted as t0-factual If we want
to do no more than represent thebefore-clause situation as not-yet-factual (i e.
put emphasis on the fact that the unpacking was not yet a fact at the relevant
situation time) we have to use the conditional perfect (usually in combination
with the conditional tense in the head clause):
[John looked at the cases in despair.] It would still be a long time before all of them
would have been unpacked.
If the distance measured is not between the contextually given past orientation
time and the end of the before-clause situation but between the orientation
time and the beginning of the situation of the before-clause, there are three
possible tense combinations:
[Bill looked at the clock in despair It was three-thirty The car carrying his rescuers
had left Inverness at two, so] itwas still at least an hour before they would arrive.
[Bill looked at the clock in despair It was three-thirty The car carrying his rescuers
had left Inverness at two, so] it would still be at least an hour before they arrived.
(Arrived is a relative past tense form.)
[Bill looked at the clock in despair It was three-thirty The car carrying his rescuers
had left Inverness at two, so] itwould still be at least an hour before they would
arrive (indirect binding)
The following are some attested examples:
[There were no problems with that, but] therewas still like an hour before the boat
would be leaving, [so we walked around a bit, looked in the shops, ] (www)
[It was well into dark and Murphy had deduced that] itwould be still a few hours
before someone in Four Cornerswas wise to Tanner’s absence (www)
It would be still more years, however, before we would see the Church of Finland
come together in unity and commitment to make a disciple of their homeland
(www)
14.12 Counterfactual before-clauses
14.12.1 As noted in 14.6.6, a not-yet-factual before-clause can receive a t0
-counterfactual interpretation from the pragmatics of the context One
possibil-ity is that it is the context following the sentence with the before-clause that
imposes a counterfactual reading, as in
Trang 2I saw her before she had seen me [So I quickly turned into a side street and managed
to escape unseen.]
Another possibility is that the actualization of the before-clause situation is
prevented by the actualization of the head clause situation:
She burnt the letter before I had read it
In the latter case the past perfect in the nonstativebefore-clause could in
prin-ciple be replaced by the past tense because the factual reading suggested by the past tense is anyhow pragmatically excluded However, in sentences like the following the past tense is often judged unacceptable because it primarily sug-gests the nonsensical reading on which thebefore-clause situation did actualize:
The letter was destroyed before I {had read /?read} it.
Before we {had gone /??went} far the car broke down.
On the other hand, sentences like the following are quite common:
The car broke down before wegot very far.
He died before Icould tell him the news.
14.12.2 As noted in 14.6.14, abefore-clause can receive a counterfactual
read-ing from the use of the conditional perfect, provided before is preceded by a
measure phrase:
He died the day before hewould have married Eileen.
The measure phrase is necessary because it helps the hearer to identify the time when the counterfactual situation was expected to actualize (This information cannot be conveyed by a time-specifying adverbial if thebefore-clause is in the
conditional perfect: *He died before he would have married Eileen last Satur-day This is in keeping with the fact that He died the day before he would have married Eileen means ‘He died the day before the time at which he would have
married Eileen’ It is not possible to insertlast Saturday into the relative clause
of this paraphrase either.)
14.13 Not-yet-factual before-clauses
14.13.1 In a sense all before-clauses are not-yet-factual because ‘not yet B
when A’ logically follows from ‘A before B’ In this trivial sense, t0-factual
before-clauses and counterfactual before-clauses are also not-yet-factual What
we will be dealing with in this section are before-clauses that are
not-yet-factual-at-t without also being t0-factual or t0-counterfactual
14.13.2 In section 14.6.5 we have seen that there is a special tense we can use
to represent thebefore-clause situation as not-yet-factual, viz the past perfect.
Trang 3In nonstativebefore-clauses this tense is used instead of the past tense, because
the past tense implicates t0-factuality:
It is also worth noting that the t0-factual implicature of the past tense is a
very strong one Though it can be blocked by the context, it cannot be
can-celled by an addition to the contrary The following is unacceptable because it
is interpreted as contradictory (and hence nonsensical):
*I left before John arrived, but he didn’t arrive
In Gricean terms, this means that the t0-factual sense of the past tense in the
before-clause is a conventional implicature rather than a conversational one.
14.13.3 In 14.11.6 we have discussed the cleft-like construction It was not
long before they reached the capital, in which the before-clause refers to a
factual past situation There is a similar, but this time existential
construction-like, type of sentence in which thebefore-clause explicitly represents its
situa-tion as not-yet-factual:
[Adam yawned, and looked at the clock above the entrance to the North Library.]
There was still a long time to go before his bookswould arrive (BM)
There’s still a long time to go before the otherswill be here.
Note that the use of would and will in this type of before-clause is rather
special If both clauses of a sentence with a before-clause refer to the
post-present (e g I will leave before he arrives), both situations are represented as
expected (predicted) rather than as t0-factual It follows that as a rule the head
clause uses an absolute (⫽ Absolute Future System) tense form to establish the
post-present domain, while thebefore-clause uses a relative (⫽ Pseudo-t0
-Sys-tem) form The reason is that a prediction creates an opaque (intensional)
context and that, as argued in 10.4.6, an intensional domain functions as a
temporal domain: whatever situation is to be interpreted intensionally must
normally be incorporated into the intensional domain, i e must be expressed
by a relative tense form In the case of post-present domains, this means that
the subclause must as a rule use a Pseudo-t0-System form In fact, the latter
System is quite possible in examples like the above ones:
And there’s a long time to go before the Federal electionis called, so anything could
happen (www)
Because there is some time before this new methodologyis put in place, [now is an
opportune time to design a system that will …] (www)
Irrespective of which System is used, the head clause can also be in the future
tense:
Therewill be some time before the others will be here.
[Since these standards were remanded to EPA by a federal court in May 1999,] there
will be some time before the exact form of the standards is known (www)
Trang 4In sum, the following four constructions can all be used without a clear differ-ence of meaning:
[It’s five o’clock now.] Therewill be some time before the others will be here.
[It’s five o’clock now.] Therewill be some time before the others are here.
[It’s five o’clock now.] Thereis still some time before the others will be here.
[It’s five o’clock now.] Thereis still some time before the others are here.
Sections 14.14⫺16 are devoted to until-clauses, which show many similarities with
adverbialbefore-clauses, but are ‘bifunctional’ (⫽ indicating duration and time) rather
than purely time-specifying
Likebefore, until expresses (or at least implies) anteriority The main difference
betweenbefore and until is that before-clauses function as pure time-specifying
adverbials whereasuntil-clauses function as ‘bifunctional temporal adverbials’
(see 2.22.3), i e they indicate duration as well as time The other distinctions that can be made between the two types of clause follow from this basic differ-ence
14.14 The semantics of the conjunction until
14.14.1 Until is interpreted as ‘until the time at which’ Diachronically, it has
developed from an old English phrase ‘until the time that’ via Middle English
until that This means that there is an implicit orientation time (which, as in
the case ofbefore-clauses, we can refer to as the ‘Anchor time’) in its semantics.
As in the case ofbefore, this Anchor time is the final point of the Adv-time (⫽
the period indicated by theclause) The basic difference between an
until-clause and a before-clause is that while the latter is a pure time-specifying
adverbial, anuntil-clause is a ‘bifunctional adverbial’ (see 2.22.3): it both
estab-lishes an Adv-time and indicates the duration of the full head clause situation For example:
Jim stayed in the pub until Prudence came in
The head clause situation is said to last till Prudence came in Theuntil-clause
indicates an Adv-time which coincides with the situation time of the head clause The situation time of the head clause coincides with the time of the full situation because the head clause situation is made bounded by the addition of
Trang 5the until-clause, which specifies the end of the head clause situation In sum,
theuntil-clause is a duration adverbial because it specifies the length of the full
head clause situation, and it is a time-specifying adverbial because it specifies
an Adv-time which contains the situation time of the head clause in terms of
coincidence It is therefore a bifunctional adverbial The Adv-time is a definite
period because it is ‘anchored’ (see 12.1.1) by the fact that its endpoint is
specified This endpoint (⫽ Anchor time) may be the situation time of the
clause or another orientation time binding the situation time of the
until-clause⫺ see 14.15.2 below
14.14.2 Because anuntil-clause is a bifunctional adverbial, the contained
ori-entation time of the head clause coincides with the Adv-time It follows that
the situation time of the head clause must as a rule be the contained orientation
time of the head clause The only possible (but very marginal) exception is
when the situation time of the head clause is represented as T-posterior to the
contained orientation time by means ofbe about to or be going to:
Until John said everything was safe again, his menwere about to shoot at anything
that moved
14.15 The tenses used in head clause and until-clause
As far as tenses are concerned, until-clauses allow the following possibilities:
14.15.1 If the reference is to the past, both the head clause and the
until-clause can create a domain of their own This is not possible when the reference
is to the post-present:
Iwas there until Bill came back.
*Iwill be there until John will be back.
In the former example, both verb forms are absolute tense forms Both
situa-tions are therefore interpreted as t0-factual See Figure 14.11
Figure 14.11 The temporal structure of I was there until Bill came back.
14.15.2 When the situation time of the head clause is interpreted as
W-poste-rior to another orientation time, the until-clause forms part of an ‘intensional
Trang 6domain’ (see 10.4.6) In that case the situation time of theuntil-clause must be
T-bound by the implicit Anchor time:
[Bill said] he would stay in the pub until Jill {arrived / *would arrive} (⫽ ‘He would stay in the pub until the time of Jill’s arrival.’) (The until-clause represents its situation time as T-simultaneous with the implicit Anchor time It is not possible
to effect indirect binding by representing the situation time of the until-clause as T-posterior to the situation time of the head clause.)
[Bill said] he would stay in the pub until Jill {had arrived / *would have arrived} (⫽ ‘He would stay in the pub until such time as Jill had already arrived.’) (The until-clause represents its situation time as T-anterior to the implicit Anchor time.
It is not possible to effect indirect binding by T-relating the situation time of the until-clause to the situation time of the head clause by using would have arrived.)
She intended to stay up until her husband {came / *would come / had come / *would have come} home.
The same system applies if the verb of the head clause itself evokes the idea of
a W-posterioruntil-clause situation, as in the following example:
I was waiting until the others {came / *would come / had come / *would have come} home (⫽ ‘I was waiting for the others to {come / have come} home.’)
When the head clause refers to the post-present, it automatically creates an intensional domain It is therefore predictable that theuntil-clause will use the
Pseudo-t0-System to relate the situation time of the until-clause to the implicit
Anchor time:
I will postpone the meeting until we {have / *will have / have received / *will have received} more information.
Please stay here until the doctor {comes / *will come}.
When the head clause uses a verb like wait, it can refer to the present while
theuntil-clause still refers to the post-present In that case too, the until-clause
uses the Pseudo-t0-System:
I am waiting until the others {come / *will come / have come / *will have come}
home
In examples like this, the central orientation time of the post-present domain
is an ‘implicit’ (see 2.14) orientation time
14.15.3 The choice between the past tense and the present perfect in the head clause of anuntil-clause has been dealt with in 12.13.
14.16 The semantics of not … until
When the head clause is negative, there are in principle two possible inter-pretations ofnot … until The first is that theuntil-clause has its usual
Trang 7func-tion of specifying both an Adv-time (containing the situafunc-tion time of the head
clause) and the duration of the full head clause situation:
[“For how long didn’t he speak to you?”]⫺ “He didn’t speak to me until I addressed
him myself.”
Here the reference is to a negative situation, viz the situation of his not saying
a word to me Such a negative situation can be located in time with the help
of anuntil-clause.
In many cases, however, the not in the head clause does not really negate
the head clause, so that there is no reference to a negative head clause situation
Instead,not is directly combined with until in interpretation, and not … until
is interpreted as specifying a time which is seen as later than might have been
expected:
Jim didn’t arrive until five
The primary idea here is not ‘Jim’s not arriving lasted until five’ but rather
‘Jim only arrived at five’, or ‘It was as late as five when Jim arrived’ In this
interpretation, theuntil-clause is not a bifunctional adverbial any more: it does
not specify the duration of the full head clause situation but merely functions
as a time-specifying adverbial More specifically, it says at what time Jim
ar-rived The same is true ifuntil is used as a conjunction rather than as a
preposi-tion:
I didn’t leave the office until I had replied to all my e-mails.(⫽ ‘It was only after I
had replied to all my e-mails that I left the office.’) (The situation time of the
until-clause is represented as T-anterior to the Anchor time.)