504 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones John left at five. [John will no longer be there at six because] he will have left at five. John has already left. By then John will already have left. In the same way as left in John left at five establishes a past domain, will have left in the second example creates a pseudo-past subdomain in a post-present domain. And in the same way as has left in John has already left establishes a pre-present domain, will have left in the last example creates a pseudo-pre- present subdomain in a post-present domain. Pseudo-past and pseudo-pre-present subdomains are expanded in exactly the same ways as true past and pre-present domains Ϫ see 9.18 and 19.19. This is clear from a comparison of the sentences in the following pairs: (a) Tim gave a fiver to whoever {had paid / paid / would be paying} a visit to his mother in hospital today. (The head clause establishes a past domain.) (b) [By tonight John will be broke.] He will have given a fiver to whoever {had paid / paid / would be paying} a visit to his mother in hospital today. (The head clause establishes a pseudo-past subdomain.) (a) Has the mayor ever been able to claim that he {had helped / was helping / would help} us? (The head clause establishes an indefinite pre-present domain which is expanded as if it were a past domain.) (b) I doubt that by the end of his office the mayor will ever have been able to claim that he {had helped / was helping / would help} us. (The head clause establishes an indefinite pseudo-pre-present subdomain which is expanded as if it were a past domain.) (a) Tom’s father has known for some time that Jane and Tom are married. (The head clause establishes a continuative pre-present domain; the that-clause estab- lishes a present domain of its own.) (b) [Once Jane and Tom are married and have gone off to Angola, we’ll let Tom’s father know that they are married.] By the time they come back, he’ll have known for several months that they are married, [and with luck he’ll have got used to the idea]. (The head clause establishes a continuative pseudo-pre-present subdomain; the that-clause establishes another, W-simultaneous, subdomain.) F. The explanatory force of this analysis of tenses in post-present domains Our analysis of the English tense system in post-present temporal domains offers a natural explanation for some tense phenomena which might seem puzzling at first sight. IV. T-relations in a post-present domain 505 9.26 Observation 1 9.26.1 The model of the English tense system that we have presented, and which hinges on the notion of temporal domain, neatly accounts for an inter- esting difference that we may observe between (1) and (2): (1a) John had left at 5 p.m. (1b) John had left when Bill arrived. (2a) John will have left at 5 p.m. (2b) John will have left when Bill arrives. (2c) [According to the plan, John will no longer be there at midnight. He will have left much earlier.] More specifically, he will have left when Bill arrived. Sentence (1a) is ambiguous between two readings, which we can paraphrase as ‘It was the case that John had left Ϫ he left at 5 o’clock’ and ‘At 5 p.m. it was the case that John had already left’. (The latter interpretation is strongly invited if we give at 5 p.m. initial position in (1a), or when we insert already into had left.) Sentence (1b) is ambiguous in exactly the same way. (Compare John was no longer there at five, because he had left when Bill arrived at four with John had already left when Bill arrived.) Sentence (2a) is ambiguous too: at 5 p.m. again indicates (i. e. ‘contains’ Ϫ see 2.23.1) 12 either the situation time of John’s leaving or the orientation time to which that situation time is T-anterior. How- ever, when we replace at 5 p.m. by a when-clause, as in (2bϪc), we see that we cannot use the same tense form for both readings. If the when-clause is to indicate the time to which the situation time of John’s leaving is anterior, it must use the present tense (arrives). If it is to indicate the situation time of John’s leaving, it must use the past tense (arrived). The theory that has been presented accounts for this difference between (1b) and (2bϪc). In (1b) both situation times are located within the same past domain. The past perfect had left represents John’s leaving as T-anterior to some orientation time in that domain. Arrived can only be a relative preterite, since a shift of domain within the same absolute time-zone does not occur in adverbial when-clauses (except in two well-defined cases Ϫ see 13.15Ϫ16). Since the relative past tense can be used to express T-simultaneity with any orientation time in the past domain, it is not clear from the relative past form arrived whether Bill’s arrival is to be interpreted as T-simultaneous with the situation time of the head clause (i. e. the time of John’s leaving) or as T- simultaneous with the orientation time to which John’s leaving is anterior. 12. Since the Adv-time indicated by at 5 p.m. is punctual, ‘contains’ must be read as ‘coin- cides with’ Ϫ see 2.23. 506 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones Hence the ambiguity of (1b). In (2bϪc) there is no such ambiguity because the reference is now to a pseudo-past subdomain within a post-present domain. In a post-present domain different verb forms are used to express T-simultaneity. To express T-simultaneity with the central orientation time (or with another pseudo-t 0 ) the present tense is used. This is the case in (2b) (ϭ ‘When Bill arrives, John will already have left’), which uses arrives Ϫ see Figure 9.14. 13 To express T-simultaneity with the central orientation time of a pseudo-past subdomain we use the relative past tense. This is the case in (2c), which uses arrived Ϫ see Figure 9.15. So, both the ambiguity of (1b) and the nonambiguity of (2bϪc) are predictable from the theory. Figure 9.14. The temporal structure of John will have left when Bill arrives. Figure 9.15. The temporal structure of John will have left when Bill arrived. 9.26.2 The above explanation also accounts for the different tense forms in the following: I will thank you to wipe your feet when you enter the house. (A to-infinitive follow- ing thank refers to a posterior situation. The situation time of ‘to wipe your feet’ is 13. Figures 9.14 and 9.15 are simplified in that the complex temporal structure of when (explained in chapter 13) is disregarded. IV. T-relations in a post-present domain 507 therefore interpreted as a pseudo-t 0 , so that the when-clause uses the present tense to express coincidence.) I will now thank you for wiping your feet when you entered the house. (Because thank is followed by for, the situation time of wiping your feet is interpreted as anterior to the time of the thanking, which is the central orientation time of a post- present domain and is therefore a pseudo-t 0 . The time of the wiping is therefore treated as a pseudo-past orientation time. Entered expresses T-simultaneity in the pseudo-past subdomain that is established in this way.) [If you don’t stand by him now,] he will never forget your abandoning him when he needed you. 9.27 Observation 2 9.27.1 In 9.18Ϫ19 it was shown how the past perfect can be used to represent its situation time as T-anterior to a pseudo-past or pseudo-pre-present orienta- tion time which is T-anterior to the central orientation time (ϭ pseudo-t 0 )of a post-present domain. For example: (3a) [If you use the cover-story that you’ve come to check the lift as your way of getting into the building, how will you later explain the fact that you were still there six hours later?] The police will want to know why you didn’t leave when you had done your work. (The situation time referred to by didn’t leave is a pseudo-past orientation time; had done expresses T-anteriority to it.) (3b) [If you keep beating her she might go to the police, and then] the police will ask the neighbours if they have ever noticed that she had been beaten up. (The situation time referred to by have noticed is a pseudo-pre-present orientation time; had done expresses T-anteriority to it.) However, examples can be found in which the past perfect is used (seemingly similarly) without there being any mention of a pseudo-past binding orienta- tion time: (4a) [If you join our club,] you will know a lot about people that you had never dreamed of meeting before. (4b) [If a local pressure group can achieve results, the interest may gather momen- tum.] Individuals who had never considered taking part in public debate will be attracted to the success of certain ventures. (SEU) What is intriguing is not only that the past perfect is used in these sentences, but also that it cannot be used in other, seemingly similar, sentences: (5a) If you peep through this hole in the curtain, you will see the audience that {have /*had} come to watch the play. (5b) [Don’t tell that joke to everyone you talk with this afternoon or you will not be able to use it during your public appearance tonight.] I will not have you telling a joke which you {have /*had} already told several times. 508 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones If our analysis of the past perfect in (3aϪb) is correct, we must assume that in (4aϪb) the time of the situation described in the past perfect is each time located T-anterior to a pseudo-past orientation time which remains ‘unspeci- fied’, i. e. it is neither a situation time nor an orientation time specified by a time-specifying adverbial nor an orientation time that is implicit in the seman- tics of a temporal conjunction Ϫ see 2.14. Moreover, we will have to explain why there is apparently no such unspecified pseudo-past orientation time in the tense structure of (5aϪb). 9.27.2 The analysis we propose involves the following claims: (a) The past perfect forms in (3aϪb) are instances of ‘the past version of a present perfect’. This means that these past perfect forms imply the exis- tence of a period leading up to (but not including) a pseudo-past orienta- tion time. (See the definition of ‘pre-present’ in 2.35.) The pseudo-past orientation time in question remains unspecified. (b) The past perfect forms in (4aϪb) are instances of the past version of an indefinite present perfect. No examples can be found in which the past perfect receives a ‘continuative’ reading or an ‘up-to-now’ reading. (This is in keeping with the use of before and never in (4aϪb), which trigger an indefinite perfect reading.) (c) When a durative situation has never actualized in a period up to t 0 but is actualizing at t 0 , the speaker can choose between the present perfect and the past perfect to refer to it: I have never dreamed of meeting these people before. (before ϭ ‘before t 0 ’) I had never dreamed of meeting these people before. (before ϭ ‘before I started meeting these people a short time ago’) Sentence (4b) is fine because a durative full situation whose situation time is located at t 0 (and hence represented as punctual Ϫ see 3.1.1) must actually have started before t 0 . This means that the initial point of the full situation is anterior to t 0 and can therefore be treated as a past orientation time to which another situation time can be represented as T-anterior by the use of the past perfect. (d) In the same way, when a durative situation has never actualized in a period leading up to a post-present pseudo-t 0 but is actualizing at that post-pres- ent time, the speaker can choose between the present perfect and the past perfect to refer to it: [If you join our club,] you will know a lot about people that you have never dreamed of meeting before. (before ϭ ‘before the pseudo-t 0 , i. e. before the time of your knowing about these people’) IV. T-relations in a post-present domain 509 [If you join our club,] you will know a lot about people that you had never dreamed of meeting before. (before ϭ ‘before the time when you will know a lot about these people as a result of meeting them’) The second example is grammatical because a durative situation (viz. knowing a lot about people) whose situation time is located at a pseudo-t 0 (and hence represented as punctual Ϫ see 3.1.1) must actually have started before that pseudo-t 0 . This means that the initial point of the full situation is anterior to the pseudo-t 0 and can therefore be treated as a pseudo-past orientation time to which a situation time can be represented as T-anterior by the use of the past perfect. (e) Because the past perfect requires that the initial point of the post-present situation function as a pseudo-past orientation time, i. e. as an orientation time that is past with respect to (and hence treated as disconnected from) the pseudo-t 0 , the past perfect is only possible if there is no link (other than the temporal one) between the situation referred to by the past perfect and the pseudo-past binding orientation time. This means that it is the present perfect that has to be used if the speaker is to express a resultative link between the anterior situation and what is the case at the pseudo-past binding orientation time. The analysis outlined in (a)Ϫ(e) appears to account for the examples in (4). In (4a) [If you join our club, you will know a lot about people that you had never dreamed of meeting before], the situation of never dreaming of meeting certain people is represented as anterior to the beginning of the situation of knowing a lot about them, but there is no causative or resultative link between these two situations. In (4b) [Individuals who had never considered taking part in public debate will be attracted to the success of certain ventures], the situation of never considering taking part in public debate is represented as anterior to the beginning of the new situation (viz. the situation of people feeling attracted to the success of certain ventures) but does not have any bearing on the latter. Instead there is a sense of contrast between the two situations. (As a matter of fact, in each of (4aϪb) there is a contrast between the situation referred by in the future tense and the situation referred to in the past perfect. Thus, in (4a) the post-present situation of knowing a lot about certain people is contrasted with the anterior situation of never having met those people before.) However, things are different in (5). In (5a) [If you peep through this hole in the curtain, you will see the audience that {have / *had} come to watch the play], there is a resultative link between the anterior situation and the pseudo- t 0 at which the seeing is located: we interpret (5a) as ‘If you peep through this hole in the curtain, you will see the audience that are here to watch the play as a result of having come to watch the play.’ This resultative link means that the coming must be represented as anterior to the seeing and not as anterior 510 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones to a time which is treated as past with respect to the seeing. In other words, the condition for the use of the past perfect referred to in (e) is not satisfied. The past perfect would effectively represent the coming to see the play as anterior to the beginning of the seeing and represent the latter as past with respect to the rest of the situation of seeing. This divorcing of the coming and the seeing is not possible if there is to be a resultative link between the two. This is in keeping with the fact that the future situation of ‘seeing the audience that are here to watch the play’ does not contrast with the earlier situation of people having come to watch the play. It should be noted, however, that the past perfect must be used if (5a) is modified in such a way that the idea of present result (viz. ‘the audience are hear to watch the play’) is cancelled: If you peep through this hole in the curtain, you will see the audience that {*have / had} come to see the play talking among themselves and paying no attention to the actors. In this context, the resultative idea ‘they are here to see the play’ is no longer valid at the time of will see. It is clear that the audience are not watching the play and have forgotten about their initial intention of doing so. The use of had come to see the play is therefore normal: both the coming to see the play and the resultant state of being in the theatre to see the play are anterior to (in the sense of ‘completely over at’) the post-present time of seeing the audience talking among themselves and paying no attention to the actors. It is therefore impossible to use the present perfect have come to see the play with its concom- itant implication of ‘they are here to see the play’. This accords with the fact that there is a clear contrast between this anterior state and what is actually happening at the time referred to by will see. Sentence (5b) (repeated here) can be accounted for in a similar way: (5b) [Don’t tell that joke to everyone you talk with this afternoon or you will not be able to use it during your public appearance tonight.] I will not have you telling a joke which you {have /*had} already told several times. Again we have to use the present perfect (has told) because the relative clause implies a resultative link between the anterior repeated telling of the joke and what is the case at the time of the pseudo-t 0 at which tonight’s telling is located: the intended interpretation is ‘I will not have you telling a joke which people will already be familiar with as a result of your having told it several times before.’ The past perfect cannot express this meaning, for it would represent the past telling as anterior to the beginning of the post-present telling, while treating that beginning as past with respect to the post-present telling itself. This intervening past orientation time excludes the possibility of a resultative interpretation. . represent the coming to see the play as anterior to the beginning of the seeing and represent the latter as past with respect to the rest of the situation of seeing. This divorcing of the coming and the. intention of doing so. The use of had come to see the play is therefore normal: both the coming to see the play and the resultant state of being in the theatre to see the play are anterior to (in the. attracted to the success of certain ventures], the situation of never considering taking part in public debate is represented as anterior to the beginning of the new situation (viz. the situation of people