II. Theoretical analysis of the Absolute Future System and the Pseudo-t 0 -System 539 the distribution of the two systems). In a complex sentence with an Absolute Future System form in the head clause, we sometimes find the Absolute Future System in the subclause and sometimes the Pseudo-t 0 -System. When a subclause uses the Absolute Future System (as in I will join you, whereas Tom will stay at home), the temporal relation between the situation time of the head clause and that of the subclause is not expressed by the tense forms: independently of one another, each of the two Absolute Future System forms relates its situation time to t 0 and in doing so establishes a post-present domain. (These two do- mains may be pragmatically interpreted as W-simultaneous with each other, but this relation is not expressed by the tense forms.) By contrast, if the sub- clause uses the Pseudo-t 0 -System (as in I will ask him tomorrow what date it is), the tense form of the subclause locates the situation time of the subclause in the temporal domain created by the Absolute Future System form in the head clause. 10.4.4 It follows that when the Absolute Future System is used in both clauses, the speaker makes two independent predictions: there are, as it were, two speech acts (see also 10.6.4). When the Pseudo-t 0 -System is used in the subclause, the speaker makes a single (but complex) prediction: he presents the contents of the two clauses as forming a unit. The use of the Pseudo-t 0 -System, which implies that the situation time of the head clause and the situation time of the subclause are located in the same domain, is therefore a sign that the two situations must be interpreted as related to each other. This relation may be purely temporal, but in most cases it is also a logical one: if there is no logical relation between two situations, there is as a rule no reason to relate them temporally to each other. The logical link may even be stronger than the temporal one. For example, in conditional clauses expressing an ‘open’ condi- tion (e. g. I’ll be happy if she comes), the use of Pseudo-t 0 -System forms (in this case: comes) is conventionalized as a means of expressing a logical relation- ship rather than a purely temporal one: the logical relation is expressed as if it were a temporal one Ϫ see 9.20.4 and 10.7.1 below. 4 10.4.5 In the preceding three subsections, some basic differences have been pointed out between the Absolute Future System and the Pseudo-t 0 -System. We will now indicate some further differences following from these. Because the Pseudo-t 0 -System is a way of expressing the temporal and logi- cal relation between the subclause situation and the head clause situation, it 4. Though the basic meaning of any tense is to express one or more temporal relations, there are many uses of tense forms that are metaphorical extensions of this. For example, the preterite, whose basic meaning is ‘remoteness in time’ (i. e. location in the past time- sphere) is conventionally used to express other forms of remoteness, e. g. remoteness from reality, as in I wish I knew the answer. Expressing a logical link as if it were a temporal one is also a kind of metaphorical use of a tense. 540 10. Two tense systems with post-present reference implies that the subclause is necessary for a correct interpretation of the head clause. The fact that the head clause and the subclause are thus presented as one interpretive unit means that it is not only the case that the subclause is dependent for its interpretation on the head clause (which is obvious, since the subclause is both syntactically and temporally subordinated to the head clause), but that it is also the case that the head clause depends for (at least part of) its interpretation on the subclause. It is no coincidence that the types of subclause in which the Pseudo-t 0 -System must or can be used show this close interpretive relationship between the two clauses. The following are some typical examples: (a) Conditional clauses expressing an open condition require the use of the Pseudo-t 0 -System (see 10.7.1 below). In this type of if then sentence the logical dependence of the head clause on the subclause is obvious. I’ll be disappointed if she doesn’t show up. (b) Adverbial time clauses also require the use of the Pseudo-t 0 -System rather than the Absolute Future System (see 10.7.2 below). In this case the tempo- ral interpretation of the head clause partly depends on the subclause in that the latter specifies the Adv-time which ‘contains’ the situation time of the head clause. Will you be here when the Gibsons arrive? (c) Concessive subclauses introduced by a wh-word in -ever normally use the Pseudo-t 0 -System if they have a conditional connotation (see 10.7.6): Whoever comes to see me, tell them I’m not at home. (d) Restrictive relative clauses tend to use the Pseudo-t 0 -System, but not if the form in question could be mistaken for an Absolute Future System form (which yields a different interpretation) Ϫ see 10.6.8: I’ll report this to the first policeman I see. There’ll be a medal for every competitor who reaches the finish. Restrictive relative clauses are essential to the interpretation of the head clause in that the identification of the referent of the antecedent NP depends on it. (e) Nominal clauses similarly tend to use the Pseudo-t 0 -System, but not if the form in question could be mistaken for an Absolute Future System form (with a different meaning) Ϫ see 10.6.3: [Don’t steal that money or] it will soon be common knowledge that it is in your possession. (dependent statement) Sleep on it and tell me tomorrow whether you still want to leave. (dependent ques- tion) Next time you should tell me what you think. (nominal relative clause functioning as object clause) II. Theoretical analysis of the Absolute Future System and the Pseudo-t 0 -System 541 A nominal clause helps to determine the interpretation of the head clause be- cause it functions as one of the essential arguments of the predicate. It is clear, then, that the use of the Pseudo-t 0 -System is a sign that the sub- clause is fully integrated in the head clause, both syntactically and semantically. (However, full integration is not a sufficient condition. In all types of subclause that allow the use of the Absolute Future System a co-operative speaker will have to use the latter system if the corresponding Pseudo-t 0 -System form would be mistaken for an absolute tense form. For example, in John won’t come because he is out of town, the present tense is naturally understood as referring to the present (and not as a Pseudo-t 0 -System form). Future time reference therefore requires the use of an Absolute Future System form: John won’t come because he will be out of town.) Because a post-present situation is ‘not-yet-factual’ at t 0 , a post-present temporal do- main is at the same time an ‘intensional domain’. 10.4.6 For obvious reasons, a situation that is located in the post-present is still ‘not-yet-factual at t 0 ’ (see 7.4). A clause with an Absolute Future System form makes a prediction rather than expressing a fact. This means that the semantics of an Absolute Future System form implies the modal element of not-yet-factuality-at-t 0 next to its basic temporal meaning of establishing a post-present domain. As a result of this modal element, a temporal domain created by an Absolute Future System form is a kind of intensional domain: the propositions ex- pressed by the clauses whose situation times are incorporated into the post- present temporal domain are interpreted in terms of a post-present possible world which is not the actual t 0 -world but a world of expectation which exists in the mind of the speaker. In other words, any subclause that is incorporated into a post-present domain by means of a Pseudo-t 0 -System form is interpreted ‘ opaquely’ (i. e. from the point of view of the pseudo-t 0 ), whereas a subclause that uses the Absolute Future System is interpreted ‘ transparently’ (i. e. from the point of view of the speaker at t 0 ). As we have seen in 10.4.4, this means that a subclause with a Pseudo-t 0 -System form is interpreted as part of the prediction made in the head clause, whereas a subclause with an Absolute Future System form is interpreted as an independent prediction made at t 0 .In many cases this distinction is a subtle one and there is hardly any difference between the two interpretations. For example, though it seems intuitively clear that the following examples are interpreted as indicated within brackets, it seems difficult to gauge what is the difference in communicative effect between them or to imagine contexts in which only one of them could be used. 542 10. Two tense systems with post-present reference John will be elected because he gets more votes than Tom. (ϭ ‘I predict: “John will be elected because he gets more votes than Tom”.’) John will be elected because he will get more votes than Tom. (ϭ ‘I predict that John will get more votes than Tom and [I predict] that John will be elected because of that.’) 5 Clause-order reversal confirms that there is a difference between these two sen- tences: ?? Because he gets more votes than Tom, John will be elected. (The because-clause no longer forms part of the prediction, so that there is no ground for using the Pseudo- t 0 -System.) Because he will get more votes than Tom, John will be elected. (The order of the clauses is irrelevant, because both make a prediction of their own.) Unlike the former set of examples, there are cases in which the distinction between the two systems is very important, viz. when there is some compelling reason for the subclause and the head clause to be interpreted in terms of the same intensional domain. If there is such a requirement, the Absolute Future System is predictably ruled out from the subclause. There are at least two types of subclause in which this is the case. (a) The first type consists of object clauses depending on an intensional (ϭ world-creating) verb such as a verb of saying or thinking, in other words, clauses forming part of a stretch of represented speech or thought. In repre- sented speech and thought, the object clause has to be interpreted opaquely (if the report is to be a genuine report), which means that the contents of the reported clause must be interpreted as belonging to the intensional domain created by the intensional (reporting) verb in the head clause. Since an intensional domain functions as a temporal domain, it follows that these object clauses must use the Pseudo-t 0 -System if the head clause uses the Absolute Future System. (The same is true of their subclauses if these are also to be interpreted opaquely.) The following examples illustrate this. (The # sign is used to indicate that an Absolute Future System form cannot replace a Pseudo-t 0 -System form, or vice versa, without a change of mean- ing. This does not imply that the form in question is ungrammatical.) [I can’t give you my umbrella.] My wife will wonder what I {have done /#will have done} with it. [If I give you my ring] I will have to explain to my wife why I {am not wearing / #will not be wearing} it any more. 5. Note that this interpretation is not the same as that in which the because-clause gives the reason for uttering the head clause. The latter interpretation requires a break (marked by a comma) before because. II. Theoretical analysis of the Absolute Future System and the Pseudo-t 0 -System 543 In these examples will creates an intensional domain (a future ‘possible world’) of which the intensional domain created by wonder or explain is a subdomain. Since the dependent question must belong to this subdomain, it must be repre- sented as belonging to the domain created by will. This necessitates using the Pseudo-t 0 -System. In this context we can draw attention to the difference between the follow- ing examples: The Prime Minister will be informed when the man is arrested. (The when-clause is an adverbial clause. The form is arrested expresses T-simultaneity in the post- present intensional domain.) The Prime Minister will be told when the man will be arrested. (The when-clause functions as object clause. The form will be arrested is not an Absolute Future System form but a Pseudo-t 0 -System form expressing T-posteriority to the central orientation time of the post-present intensional domain.) (b) The second type of subclause requiring the use of the Pseudo-t 0 -System because it forms part of an intensional domain is the conditional clause of an open conditional. Open conditionals refer to a future possible world in which the actualization of the if-clause situation entails (or at least enables) the actualization of the head clause situation. This possible world is an intensional domain, and hence a temporal domain, and both situation times must belong to it. This explains why the Pseudo-t 0 -System is the rule in the subclause: If it {doesn’t rain /*won’t rain} tomorrow, we will have a picnic. Because their tense structure starts from a different basic orientation time, an Absolute Future System form represents the contents of its clause as either asserted or presup- posed at t 0 , whereas a Pseudo-t 0 -System form represents the contents of its clause as asserted or presupposed at the post-present orientation time to which the situation time is temporally subordinated. 10.4.7 In this subsection we continue exploring the meaning differences be- tween the Absolute Future System and the Pseudo-t 0 -System. Because of the difference of ‘basic orientation time’ (see 10.4.1), the contents of an Absolute Future System-clause are represented as either asserted or pre- supposed at t 0 , whereas those of a Pseudo-t 0 -System clause are represented as asserted or presupposed at the post-present orientation time to which the situa- tion time is temporally subordinated. Let us examine this in more detail in the next paragraphs. 544 10. Two tense systems with post-present reference The prediction made in an Absolute Future System-clause is a tensed propo- sition which is presented at t 0 as true. That is, a (cooperative) speaker making a prediction implies that he believes (or at least assumes) that his prediction will turn out to be true. This means that the content of the Absolute Future System-clause is either asserted or presupposed at t 0 . When used in isolation, the clause John will come asserts that the tensed proposition ‘John will come’ is true at t 0 . In a suitable context, the same clause may constitute a presupposi- tion, as in It is around five p.m. that John will come, which is a ‘ specifica- tional ’ (see 5.20.1) sentence in which at five o’clock specifies the value satisfy- ing the presupposed variable ‘the t at which John will come’. In some types of subclause (such as nonrestrictive relative clauses) the proposition is always asserted, whereas in others (such as restrictive relative clauses) it is automati- cally presupposed. (For example, in The man who will be here tomorrow will fix it, the tensed proposition ‘a man will be here tomorrow’ is presupposed to be true at t 0 .) When the Pseudo-t 0 -System is used, the tensed proposition is not presented (ϭ asserted or presupposed) as true at t 0 . If the Pseudo-t 0 -System proposition is expressed in an object clause depending on a reporting verb, it is asserted as true in the mind of the reported speaker at the post-present basic orientation time. Thus, in Next time she will say that the boy is feeling sick the proposition ‘The boy is feeling sick’ is interpreted as asserted by the reported speaker (‘she’) at the post-present basic orientation time. 6 The proposition in question is there- fore interpreted opaquely, i. e. as true in the post-present intensional domain. In other types of subclause using the Pseudo-t 0 -System, the proposition is not asserted but supposed or presupposed in the post-present domain. This is the case, for example, in open conditional clauses, adverbial time clauses and re- strictive relative clauses using the Pseudo-t 0 -System: If John comes, I will tell her. (The if-clause proposition is supposed to be true in the post-present intensional domain.) I will tell him everything when he comes. (The when-clause proposition is presup- posed to be true in the post-present intensional domain.) Pupils who are late tomorrow will be punished. (The relative clause proposition is supposed to be true in the post-present intensional domain.) At first sight there would seem to be little pragmatic difference between pres- enting the proposition of a clause in the future tense as true at t 0 and presenting the proposition of a clause using the present tense (as Pseudo-t 0 -System tense) 6. The same is true of sentences like the following, in which there is no reported speaker, but there still is a ‘perceiving entity’ at the post-present basic orientation time, from whose perspective (point of view) the proposition of the subclause is evaluated: [Take his temperature every two hours.] A temperature of over 38 degrees will indicate that the crisis is approaching. II. Theoretical analysis of the Absolute Future System and the Pseudo-t 0 -System 545 as true at a post-present basic orientation time. In clefts, for example, the that- clause may be represented as presupposed at t 0 or as presupposed at the post- present basic orientation time without this leading to a clear difference of inter- pretation: [Next year we shall see another America’s Cup contest.] This time it will be Australia who will be making her first challenge. (LOB) Next year it will be Australia who is making her first challenge. However, there are also contexts in which only one of the two systems is suitable. Consider the following examples: (6) The man who {will solve / is going to solve / will be solving} this problem will receive a reward. (7) The man who solves this problem will receive a reward. In (6) the speaker presupposes that the tensed proposition ‘A man is going to solve this problem’ is true at t 0 . This means that the relative clause has the connotation of a ‘ closed condition’ (i. e. a condition which is assumed to be, or to be going to be, fulfilled), so that (6) can be paraphrased as follows: (6Ј) I assume that a (specific or nonspecific) man {will solve / is going to solve / will be solving} this problem. That man will receive a reward. By contrast, in (7) (in which solves is to be interpreted as a Pseudo-t 0 -System form and not as referring to a present habit) the speaker merely presupposes that the tensed proposition ‘A man is going to solve this problem’ is possibly true at t 0 . This means that the relative clause has the connotation of an ‘open condition ’ (i. e. a condition which is assumed to be one that may or may not be fulfilled), so that (7) can be paraphrased as follows: (7Ј) I assume that it is possible that a (specific or nonspecific) man will solve this problem. If a man does, he will receive a reward. The tense choice in the following sentence is in keeping with this explanation: The man who {will be solving / *solves} this problem will be 47 years old tomorrow. This sentence is fine with a future tense form in the relative clause because the tensed proposition ‘X will be 47 years old tomorrow’ expressed in the head clause presupposes the future existence of X, which is compatible with a closed condition reading of the relative clause. However, the same presupposition is incompatible with an open condition reading of the relative clause, which im- plies that X may or may not turn out to exist in the future. Since the Pseudo- t 0 -System form solves assigns to the relative clause the connotation of an open condition, it is unacceptable in this sentence. The above examples show that the difference between the idea ‘Absolute Future System-proposition presupposed at t 0 ’ and ‘Pseudo-t 0 -System proposi- . he presents the contents of the two clauses as forming a unit. The use of the Pseudo-t 0 -System, which implies that the situation time of the head clause and the situation time of the subclause. the tense form of the subclause locates the situation time of the subclause in the temporal domain created by the Absolute Future System form in the head clause. 10.4.4 It follows that when the. temporal relation between the situation time of the head clause and that of the subclause is not expressed by the tense forms: independently of one another, each of the two Absolute Future System