9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones I. Temporal subordination in a past time-sphere domain 444 A. The expression of T-anteriority in a past domain 444 9.1 The past perfect 444 9.2 Further remarks 446 B. The expression of T-simultaneity in a past domain 448 9.3 The relative past tense 448 9.4 Theoretical remark 449 C. The expression of T-posteriority in a past domain 450 9.5 The conditional tense 450 9.6 The past versions of futurish forms 451 D. The T-relation expressed by the conditional perfect tense 457 9.7 The conditional perfect tense 457 II. Temporal relations in a pre-present domain 459 9.8 The relevance of the W-interpretation of the present perfect clause 459 9.9 T-relations in a domain established by an indefinite perfect 460 9.10 T-relations on an up-to-now reading of the head clause 474 9.11 Shifting the domain after a continuative perfect 478 9.12 Temporal subordination after a continuative perfect 483 9.13 Pre-present domains and use of tenses: summary 484 III. Present domains 485 9.14 Head clauses referring to a nonrepetitive present situation 485 9.15 Head clauses referring to a present repetitive hypersituation 487 IV. T-relations in a post-present domain 488 A. Definition of ‘post-present domain’ 488 9.16 What counts as a post-present domain? 488 B. T-relations in a post-present domain 488 9.17 Expanding a post-present domain 488 C. Expressing T-anteriority in a post-present domain 491 9.18 The past tense expressing T-anteriority in a post-present domain 491 9.19 The present perfect expressing T-anteriority in a post-present domain 493 D. The expression of T-simultaneity in a post-present domain 494 9.20 Coincidence with the central orientation time of a post-present domain 494 9.21 T-simultaneity with an orientation time coinciding with the central orientation time 498 E. The expression of T-posteriority in a post-present domain 499 9.22 T-posteriority in a post-present domain 499 9.23 The theoretical status of pseudo-absolute tense forms 501 9.24 Subdomains and recursivity 502 442 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones 9.25 Relating a situation time to the situation time of a future perfect 503 F. The explanatory force of this analysis of tenses in post-present domains 504 9.26 Observation 1 505 9.27 Observation 2 507 V. Direct and indirect binding 516 9.28 Definitions 516 9.29 The distribution of direct and indirect binding 519 VI. Summary 523 9.30 The expression of T-relations in a past domain 523 9.31 The expression of T-relations in a pre-present domain 524 9.32 The expression of T-relations to a present orientation time 525 9.33 The expression of T-relations in a post-present domain 526 9.34 Direct and indirect binding 527 Abstract 443 Abstract In chapters 3Ϫ7 we have seen how temporal do- mains can be established in each of the four ab- solute time-zones by the use of the preterite, the present perfect, the present tense and the future tense, respectively. In this chapter we investigate which tenses can or must be used to ‘expand’ such a temporal domain. For example, in I’ve told you before that I had cancer, the present perfect form have told establishes a pre-present domain, which is expanded by the use of the past tense had, which represents my having can- cer as T-simultaneous with the pre-present time of my speaking to you. In part I (ϭ sections 9.1Ϫ7) we examine the expansion of temporal domains that are estab- lished by a preterite form. It is shown that the past perfect, the relative preterite and the condi- tional tense are used to express T-anteriority, T- simultaneity and T-posteriority, respectively, ir- respective of whether the binding time is the central orientation time of the domain or a situ- ation time that is itself temporally subordinated. An example like He said he would beat up any customer who did not pay for the drinks they had ordered illustrates this: would beat up, didn’t pay and had ordered express T-posterior- ity, T-simultaneity and T-anteriority, respecti- vely, to an each time different binding time in the past domain established by said. Part II (ϭ sections 9.8Ϫ13) deals with pre- present domains. It is shown that the only way to expand a pre-present domain involves a ‘shift of temporal perspective’: the pre-present central orientation time is treated as if it were a past time, so that the tenses used to T-relate a situa- tion time to it are the same as are used in past domains. For example: He has often told me that he would beat up any customer who did not pay for the drinks they had ordered. However, it is shown that a pre-present domain can be ex- panded this way only if the central orientation time lies completely before t 0 . When the present perfect receives a ‘continuative’ reading or a ‘re- cency’ interpretation, the subclause that is added normally uses an absolute tense, which shifts the domain: You’ve known for some time that I have cancer. In part III (ϭ sections 9.14Ϫ15) it is explained that a present domain cannot be expanded, be- cause the central situation time is located at t 0 . Any relation to this central time is a relation to t 0 , i. e. an ‘absolute relation’, expressed by a verb form creating a new domain. Part IV (ϭ sections 9.16Ϫ25) explains that when a post-present domain is expanded, there is again a shift of temporal perspective: the central situation time is treated as if it were t 0 , so that the tense forms used to T-relate a situa- tion time to this ‘pseudo-t 0 ’ are ‘pseudo-abso- lute’ tense forms. Thus, in If you kill him tonight you will regret for the rest of your life that you murdered him in front of his children, the form murdered locates the killing anterior to the time of the regretting. The form murdered creates a ‘pseudo-past’ subdomain within the over-all post-present domain. This subdomain can be ex- panded as if it were a real past domain. Part IV also discusses the theoretical status of pseudo- absolute tense forms, the recursivity of the rules governing the tense sysem (which can establish domains as well as subdomains) and the analysis of temporal domains established by a future per- fect. Part IV is closed off with the discussion of two particular test cases which nicely illustrate the explanatory force of the proposed analysis. Finally, part V (ϭ sections 9.28Ϫ29) is con- cerned with the difference between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect binding’. In the former case a subclause is T-bound by its own head clause (as in When he first visited the house, he had noticed the strange smell in the kitchen); there is indirect binding if a subclause is not bound by the situa- tion time of its own head clause, but by the situ- ation time of the syntactically higher clause binding its head clause (as in When he had first visited the house, he had noticed the strange smell in the kitchen.) 444 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones I. Temporal subordination in a past time-sphere domain Each kind of domain (whether past, pre-present, present or post-present) has its own system to express the (domain-internal) T-relations that form part of the process of temporal subordination. The purpose of Part I (ϭ sections 9.1Ϫ 7) is to investigate the system of relative tenses expanding a past time-sphere domain. A. The expression of T-anteriority in a past domain 9.1 The past perfect T-anteriority in a past domain is expressed by means of the past perfect, irrespective of whether the binding time is the central orientation time or another orientation time within that past domain. In order to represent a situation time as T-anterior to another time in a past domain, the past perfect is used. This is the case irrespective of whether the binding time is the ‘central orientation time’ (see 8.15) of the past domain or another orientation time located in that domain. Maud left her husband after he had wrongly claimed that he had seen with his own eyes how Maud had made advances to a young man she had run across in the street. (Only had claimed T-relates its situation time to the central orientation time, which is the situation time of left. Each of the other past perfect forms T-relates its situation time to the situation time of its head clause, which each time uses the past perfect.) He thought I had been living there for some time. (The central orientation time is the binding orientation time.) She said that she would tell Mary that John had said that he had done it all by himself. (The situation time of had done is bound by the situation time of had said, which is itself bound by the situation time of would tell, which is itself bound by the central orientation time, i. e. the situation time of said.) The tense structure of the last example is represented by Figure 9.1. 9.1.1 The past perfect can express the same types of T-anteriority as are ex- pressed by the absolute past tense and the present perfect. Thus, when the past perfect represents the situation time as past with respect to the binding orienta- tion time, it resembles the absolute past tense (which represents the situation time as past with respect to t 0 ). I. Temporal subordination in a past time-sphere domain 445 Figure 9.1. The tense structure of She said that she would tell Mary that John had said that he had done it all by himself. [Two weeks ago fire destroyed the cottage] that I had sold a couple of months before. (Compare with: ‘[Fire has destroyed the cottage that] I sold a couple of months ago’.) When it locates its situation time in a period leading up to a past orientation time, the past perfect resembles the present perfect (which locates its situation time in a period leading up to t 0 ). Like a present perfect clause, the clause in the past perfect may then receive either the T-reading ‘situation time completely before orientation time’ (which leads to the ‘indefinite’ W-reading) or the T- reading ‘situation time co-extensive with the period leading up to the orienta- tion time’ (which leads either to a continuative past perfect W-reading or to an ‘up-to-then’ W-reading, which is the past counterpart of an ‘up-to-now W- reading Ϫ see 5.4). [We could easily have entered the temple because] someone had just unlocked the door. (past perfect with indefinite interpretation implicating a resultant state) [When I found the medal in the gutter,] it had apparently been lying there for some time. (past perfect with continuative interpretation: compare with The medal has been lying here for some time.) [When he came back, I asked him] what he had been doing. (nonquantificational constitution reading) [When I lit the cigarette I realized that] that was the tenth cigarette I had smoked that day. (quantificational constitution reading) See chapter 5 for a discussion of the various T-readings (‘before now’ and ‘co-extensive’) and W-readings (‘indefinite’, ‘up-to-now’ and ‘continuative’) of clauses in the present perfect. 446 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones 9.2 Further remarks 9.2.1 It should be remembered that the temporal relation which exists be- tween two situations in the real world is not necessarily expressed by the verb forms of the clauses reporting these situations. (In other words, there may be W-relations that are not expressed as T-relations Ϫ see 2.16.1). This explains why sentences of the type In May I spoke to the boy whose father had died in the February bomb attack can alternate with sentences like In May I spoke to the boy whose father died in the February bomb attack. Both sentences receive the same temporal W-interpretation but they differ in the T-relations that they express. In the former case had died temporally subordinates the situation time of the subclause to the situation time of the head clause: had died is a relative tense form expressing T-anteriority in a past domain. However, there is no temporal subordination when the preterite is used: died is an absolute preterite establishing a new domain (i. e. ‘shifting the domain’ Ϫ see 8.21.1). This kind of shift of domain is quite common in after-clauses and in clauses functioning as the head clause of a before-clause, because the temporal relation between the head clause situation and the subclause situation is sufficiently clear from the semantics of the temporal conjunction: He retired soon after he {turned / had turned} sixty. After the board {had met / met}, the company called a press conference. Some students {had left / left} before the lecture ended. (There is a slight difference of interpretation between had left and left: only the former implicates the resultant state ‘some students were no longer present’ Ϫ see 5.37.) The wounded pedestrian {had died / died} before the ambulance arrived. (similar) It should be noted, however, that (in Standard Br. E.) there are two cases in which the past tense cannot alternate with a past perfect: (a) The past tense cannot alternate with a past perfect which receives a ‘co- extensive’ (see 5.2) T-reading (i. e. the situation time leads up to the binding time but does not include it): She first came to visit me after I {had been / *was} living in Hurford for 15 years. (continuative W-reading) He divorced his wife after they {had been / *were} married for 30 years. (idem) I{had been / *was} living in Hurford for 15 years before she paid me a visit. (idem) There is one exception: the past tense can alternate with the past perfect (on a co-extensive T-reading) in a head clause combining with a before-clause that is a ‘ narrative time clause’, i. e. a time clause which does not specify an Adv- time but ‘pushes forward the action’. (For more details on ‘narrative’ time clauses, see 13.1.2 and 14.11.4.) I. Temporal subordination in a past time-sphere domain 447 I{lived / had lived} in Hurford for 15 years before I found out that it was built on the remains of a Roman fortress. They {had been / were} married for 30 years before they suddenly decided to di- vorce. (b) The past tense cannot alternate with the past perfect either in nonbounded (homogeneous) Adv-time-clauses when there is no adverbial, contextual or pragmatic indication that the clause should not be interpreted in terms of W-simultaneity: He said that he had been in love with her (when he was young). (The that-clause is interpreted in terms of anteriority.) He said that he was in love with her when he was young. (The that-clause is still interpreted in terms of anteriority.) He said that he was in love with her. (Out of context, the that-clause is not inter- preted in terms of anteriority. Therefore, this sentence cannot substitute for He said that he had been in love with her.) 9.2.2 Apart from the past perfect, there is another tense that would seem to express T-anteriority in a past domain, viz. the conditional perfect (would have V-en). However, the conditional perfect does more than just express T-anteri- ority. It also makes it clear that the binding orientation time to which the situation time is T-anterior is itself T-posterior to another orientation time in the past domain. The conditional perfect thus expresses a complex T-relation, which means that it does not belong to the set of ‘pure’ relative tenses (which express a single T-relation) but relates to another part of the system Ϫ see 9.7. 9.2.3 A sentence involving a since-clause that refers to a period leading up to some past orientation time normally makes use of the past perfect in both head clause and since-clause. [He whispered that] he had been waiting for this moment ever since he had seen her walk past his window three years before. [Herman looked at the bottle of pills.] He had been thinking of suicide more and more since he had been living in Bournemouth. However, the past tense may be found in the head clause of a since-cleft, i. e. in a specificational sentence of the form ‘it was ϩ measure phrase ϩ since- clause’ (see 5.21.1). In that case the sentence always forms part of a stretch of free indirect speech. [The lioness looked at us with greedy eyes.] It was probably days since she had last had a decent meal. (expresses the narrator’s thoughts) It was a long time since I had stopped drinking alcohol. In such examples the past perfect can also be used in the head clause, though it sometimes sounds rather cumbersome. . to another time in a past domain, the past perfect is used. This is the case irrespective of whether the binding time is the ‘central orientation time’ (see 8.15) of the past domain or another. analysis of temporal domains established by a future per- fect. Part IV is closed off with the discussion of two particular test cases which nicely illustrate the explanatory force of the proposed. Part IV also discusses the theoretical status of pseudo- absolute tense forms, the recursivity of the rules governing the tense sysem (which can establish domains as well as subdomains) and the