378 8. Temporal domains and relative tenses: theoretical foundations terval of the time of the full situation of Jim’s being ill. This subinterval is identified through the relation of coincidence with the binding orientation time. (This implies that, since the situation time of noticed is interpreted as punctual, the situation time of was is also punctual, i. e. a punctual interval of the homo- geneous durative full situation of Jim being ill.) 8.17.2 It follows that T-simultaneity is a unidirectional relation: the bound situation time derives its temporal specification from the relation of coinci- dence with the T-binding situation time, not the other way round. This means (a) that the duration of the T-simultaneous situation time is determined by the duration of the T-binding situation time, and (b) that the precise temporal location of the T-simultaneous situation time in a particular time-zone is deter- mined by the precise temporal location of the T-binding situation time in that time-zone. 8.18 The definition of W-simultaneity 8.18.1 In 2.18, W-relations were defined as temporal relations that exist in the (real or nonfactual) world referred to but are not necessarily expressed by a tense form. Thus, two situations are (interpreted as) W-simultaneous if the times of the two full situations are interpreted as coinciding with each other or as overlapping (i. e. as having at least one point in common), even if there is no tense form expressing T-simultaneity. See 2.18.2 for some illustrations. 8.18.2 The times of two W-simultaneous situations can be referred to by absolute tense forms, which locate the two situation times in two different temporal domains within the same time-zone. In that case neither situation time is T-bound by the other, but the two situation times are the central orien- tation times of two different W-simultaneous domains (i. e. separate domains which are interpreted as W-simultaneous). For example: He looked at the figure in the distance but didn’t recognize him. (Both preterites establish a T-domain of their own, but these are interpreted as W-simultaneous with each other.) He watched the spectacle and thoroughly enjoyed it. (idem) Someone has used my bike and has damaged it (while doing so). (W-simultaneous pre-present domains) 8.18.3 It is also possible to locate the situation times of two W-simultaneous situations in the same domain. This is the case not only if one of the situation times is related to the other in terms of T-simultaneity (ϭ coincidence), but also in cases of ‘indirect binding’. As we will see in 9.28, indirect binding means that the situation time of a subclause is T-bound, not by the situation II. Temporal domains: further terminological apparatus 379 time of its head clause but by the situation time of the superordinate clause T-binding that head clause. In such cases the situation time of the subclause may be interpreted as W-simultaneous with the situation time of its head clause (though the former is not represented as T-simultaneous with the latter). Con- sider the following examples: [I remembered that] I had met a man who had been wearing blue jeans. [I remembered that] when I had first met him he had been wearing blue jeans. In both these examples, the situation times of had met and of had been wearing are interpreted as W-simultaneous with each other, but neither tense form ex- presses this W-simultaneity relation: both situation times are related as T-ante- rior to the situation time of remembered Ϫ see Figure 8.3. (The wavy line in Figure 8.3 represents the W-simultaneity relation not expressed by the tense form.) The kind of T-binding illustrated by had met will be called ‘indirect binding’. Figure 8.3. The tense structure of I remembered that when I had first met him he had been wearing blue jeans. 8.18.4 Unlike the T-simultaneity relation expressed by a relative tense, W- simultaneity need not be a relation of coincidence: it may also be a relation of inclusion (overlap) Ϫ see 2.18.2. Consider: [I remembered that] I had met Tim briefly at a party, where he {was wearing / had been wearing} a tuxedo. Here the situation of Tim wearing a tuxedo is interpreted as W-simultaneous with the situation of my meeting Tim, but, since the latter situation is interpre- ted as shorter than the former, W-simultaneity here means inclusion. Simi- larly, in I don’t want to tell him that. I’m a coward. 380 8. Temporal domains and relative tenses: theoretical foundations the two situations (located in different present domains) are interpreted as W-simultaneous, but they do not coincide: the second includes the first. 8.19 Temporal subordination vs syntactic subordination There is a certain correlation between temporal binding and syntactic subordi- nation: (a) Syntactically independent clauses cannot use a relative tense expressing T- simultaneity. This applies not only to the relative past tense but also to any other tense expressing T-simultaneity, such as the present tense used to express T-simultaneity in a post-present domain (see 10.3.1). Compare: [If you do that] I will tell your mother that you are being naughty. (Will tell estab- lishes a post-present domain, while are being expresses T-simultaneity in it and is therefore also W-interpreted as referring to a post-present situation.) You are being naughty. (In isolation this is not interpreted as referring to a post- present situation. The reason is that in a syntactically independent clause we can- not use the present tense as a relative tense form. Rather, it is an absolute tense form establishing a present domain.) 7 (b) Some kinds of adverbial subclauses (e. g. if-clauses referring to the future and expressing an ‘open’ condition) cannot use an absolute tense (e. g. The party will be ruined if it {rains / *will rain}.) However, the correlation between temporal subordination and syntactic subor- dination is far from perfect, as is clear from the following three considerations. Firstly, some types of subclause may or may not show T-binding: He said he {would / will} come.(Would come is a relative tense form, will come is an absolute one.) Secondly, relative tenses, which effect T-binding, may sometimes occur in syntactically independent clauses. This is the case, for example, when a sentence like He had worked hard all day is the opening sentence of a novel. Thirdly, in a sentence like The boy who told us about the accident had wit- nessed it himself, the subclause uses an absolute tense form while the head clause uses a relative tense form (effecting temporal subordination, i. e. T-binding). 8.20 Definition of ‘head clause’ and ‘matrix’ By head clause we mean superordinate clause. This is the clause on which a given subordinate clause (subclause) is syntactically and semantically depend- 7. There exist present tense forms that refer to the post-present in a syntactically independ- ent clause (e. g. I’m leaving tomorrow), but these are not relative tense forms but ‘futur- ish forms’ establishing a post-present domain Ϫ see 2.9. II. Temporal domains: further terminological apparatus 381 ent. A head clause may be a clause that does not syntactically depend on any other clause, but it may also itself be a subordinate clause. If it is a syntactically inde- pendent clause, it can also be referred to as the matrix, i. e. the highest clause in the inverted tree structure representing the syntactic structure of a sentence. 8 I knew he had told a lie when he had accused them of treason. (I knew is the matrix. It is the head clause of he had told a lie, which is itself the head clause supporting the when-clause.) 8.21 Shift of domain 8.21.1 We speak of a shift of domain when, instead of expanding an al- ready established domain, the speaker uses an absolute tense form to create a new domain. Compare: John left after I had arrived. (temporal binding) John left after I arrived. (shift of domain Ϫ see 14.18.1) Jill has often come to tell me that she had been beaten by her husband. (temporal binding) Sybil has never told me that she has had an abortion. (shift of domain) A shift of domain can also be a shift from one absolute time-zone to another: I was told he will be here tomorrow. (shift from the past to the post-present) I’ve never met anyone who lives in Singapore. In the following example, each clause establishes a domain of its own, as shown in Figure 8.4: Suddenly the phone rang. Jill stood up from her chair, went to the telephone and picked up the receiver. Figure 8.4. The tense structure of Suddenly the phone rang. Jill stood up from her chair, went to the telephone and picked up the receiver. 8.21.2 When there is a shift of domain within the same absolute zone, the two domains are established by forms of the same absolute tense. This means 8. ‘Matrix’ is sometimes used in the sense of ‘superordinate clause’. We will not follow this practice. 382 8. Temporal domains and relative tenses: theoretical foundations that the tense forms themselves do not express the temporal relation between the two domains. It follows that such a shift of domain is only pragmatically acceptable if the temporal order of the situations is either irrelevant or recover- able in some other way, e. g. from the use of time adverbials, from the order in which the situations are reported, from the linguistic context, from pragmatic knowledge (i. e. the extralinguistic context and our general knowledge of the world) or from the bounded or nonbounded aspectual character of the new clause and the preceding or following one. 9 The role of (non)boundedness is discussed in 8.41, which deals with the ‘Principle of Unmarked Temporal Interpretation’. The following is an example in which the precise temporal order of the situations is irrelevant: [“What became of your two sisters?”] Ϫ “Betty married an Australian. Meg died in a car accident.” 8.22 Shift of temporal perspective As noted in 2.20, this is the phenomenon that the tense system that is character- istic of a particular absolute zone is used in referring to another zone, i. e. a situation that is intended to be interpreted as located in one time-zone is re- ferred to by a tense form whose basic meaning is to locate a situation time in another zone. The use of the present tense with post-present reference (e. g. They’re leaving soon) is a typical illustration of such a shift of perspective: the present tense is used although the situation referred to is interpreted as actualiz- ing in the post-present. The domain established by the present tense is treated as a post-present domain when another situation time is introduced into it: They’re leaving soon, in fact right after the performance has ended Ϫ see 9.19.1. Another illustration of a shift of perspective is the use of the historic present: the present tense is used although the situation referred to is ‘bygone’, i. e. over at t 0 . (This is a metaphorical use of the present tense: the past time- zone is treated as if it were the present.) Another example (already mentioned in section 3.6) is the use of I {hear / understand / am told / etc.} that instead of I have {heard / understood / been told / etc.} that … as in I hear John has been promoted. 9. As explained in 1.44, a situation is L-bounded if it is represented as reaching a (natural or arbitrary) terminal point. Otherwise it is L-nonbounded, i. e. not represented as L- bounded. A situation that is not represented as L-bounded can often still be interpreted as W-bounded for reasons that have to do with the context or with pragmatics. III. Arguments for distinguishing between the absolute and the relative past tense 383 III. Arguments for distinguishing between the absolute and the relative past tense In section 8.12 we have claimed that English has two past tenses, i. e. two tenses which use the same past tense morphology and are therefore formally indistinguishable, but which differ in their semantics (temporal structure). An absolute past tense establishes a domain in the past time-sphere, whereas a relative past tense expresses T-simultaneity in such a past domain. In other words, the semantics of the absolute preterite is: ‘The situation time is located in the past time-sphere (defined relative to t 0 )’, while the semantics of the relative preterite is: ‘The situation time is T-simultaneous with an orientation time in a past domain or subdomain’. (A subdomain is a domain Ϫ i. e. a set of one or more times Ϫ whose ‘central orientation time’ (see 8.15) is not di- rectly related to t 0 but is a situation time or other orientation time ‘deeper down’ in a temporal domain. For example, He said that he had admitted that he was sick involves a temporal domain (whose central orientation time is the situation time of said), which itself involves a subdomain (whose central orientation time is the situation time of had admitted), which itself involves a (not further expanded) subdomain whose central orientation time is the situa- tion time of was. See the representation in Figure 8.5.) Figure 8.5. The tense structure of He said he had admitted that he was sick. Because there are many linguists who are not willing to accept the existence of a relative past tense, we will make a detour here to argue the case for it. (No fewer than ten arguments are presented here, the most cogent of which is argument 2. If the reader is convinced by this argument, s/he need not bother to scrutinize the further pieces of evidence.) 384 8. Temporal domains and relative tenses: theoretical foundations 8.23 Argument 1: similarity between past and post-present domains Let us start by adducing an argument that is suggestive rather than conclusive. The view that the sentence John felt unhappy when he was alone contains both an absolute past tense form (felt) and a relative one (was) is corroborated by the fact that we clearly distinguish an absolute tense form (will be) and a form indicating T-simulta- neity (is) in its post-present counterpart: John will be unhappy when he {is / *will be} alone. 8.23.1 Absolute preterites are not formally distinguishable from relative ones. However, tense forms used to establish a post-present domain (i. e. future tense forms or futurish forms Ϫ see 2.15) are formally distinguishable from tense forms used to express T-simultaneity with the central orientation time of a post-present domain, since (as we will see in 9.20.1) the latter are present tense forms. This suggests that we can identify the past tense form of a given clause by considering the corresponding post-present version of the clause. For exam- ple: John was unhappy when he was alone. John will be unhappy when he {is /*will be} alone. The second example shows that is is the only correct post-present counterpart of the form was in the first example. Since the future tense form will be is an absolute tense form, while the present tense in the when-clause expresses T- simultaneity with the central orientation time of the post-present domain, 10 it seems intuitive to conclude that in the first example too, the head clause uses an absolute tense form and the time clause uses a tense form expressing T- simultaneity. If this conclusion is warranted, the possibility of using a ‘back- shifted’ present tense form (i. e. a relative past tense form) in clauses expressing T-simultaneity with a situation time that is posterior to a past orientation time (rather than posterior to t 0 ) can be used as a simple and effective test to distin- guish between relative and absolute past tense forms: the ‘backshifted’ version of the second example is [I knew that] John would be unhappy when he {was / *would be} alone. 10. This is a slight simplification. As we will see in 13.3Ϫ7, a present tense form in a when- clause does express T-simultaneity, but with an implicit orientation time rather than with the situation time of the head clause. However, the latter two times are interpreted as W-simultaneous with each other. . pragmatically acceptable if the temporal order of the situations is either irrelevant or recover- able in some other way, e. g. from the use of time adverbials, from the order in which the situations are. possible to locate the situation times of two W-simultaneous situations in the same domain. This is the case not only if one of the situation times is related to the other in terms of T-simultaneity. relative tenses: theoretical foundations terval of the time of the full situation of Jim’s being ill. This subinterval is identified through the relation of coincidence with the binding orientation