The grammar of the english verb phrase part 105 ppt

I. Adverbial before -clauses 721 I will be glad if my son is already feeling somewhat better before he has attended half of the prescribed therapy sessions. [A patient admitted to hospital in pursuance of an application for admission for assessment may be detained for a period not exceeding 28 days beginning with the day on which he is admitted, but shall not be detained after the expiration of that period unless] before it has expired he has become liable to be detained by virtue of a subsequent application, order or direction under the following provisions of this Act. (www) (ϭ ‘unless he has become liable … before it has expired’) 14.7.7 Another case in which both the head clause and the before-clause use a relative tense is illustrated by the following: The thief will have left the building before the police {arrive / have arrived}. This is special only in that the tense of the head clause is not a pure relative tense but an ‘absolute-relative’ one Ϫ see 2.47. 14.7.8 In section 14.5.2.(f), we have pointed out the existence of examples like the following: It will be another week before you will be able to return to full physical activity. (www) T he past time-zone counterpart of such sentences uses two relative tense forms: [People said that] without her humour and skill it would have been a long time before women would have been given the vote. (www) 14.7.9 A final case in which both clauses use a relative tense would seem to be exemplified by the following: This hawk [had no chance of survival on its own, but] would have suffered for many days before death would have come from dehydration and starvation. (www) It should be noted, however, that the conditional perfect is not used as a tense form here (expressing no more than temporal relations) but is used twice as a modal form expressing counterfactuality. This is not a type of sentence, then, in which both the head clause and the before-clause use a relative tense form. 14.8 Relative tense in head clause and absolute tense in before-clause In 14.5 we have discussed the use of absolute tenses in both head clause and before-clause if the before-clause functions as a situation-time adverbial (i. e. if it establishes an Adv-time which contains the situation time of the head clause). In 14.6 and 14.7 we have considered structures of the type ‘absolute tense in the head clause ϩ relative tense in the before-clause’ and ‘relative tense in the 722 14. Adverbial before-clauses and after-clauses head clause ϩ relative tense in the before-clause’, respectively. In this section we will continue examining structures with a before-clause used as a situation- time adverbial, but this time we will focus on the cases in which the head clause uses a relative tense while the before-clause uses an absolute tense. 14.8.1 One kind of sentence which arguably combines a head clause in a relative tense and a before-clause (functioning as a situation-time adverbial) in an absolute tense is exemplified by sentences like He had left before I arrived, whose temporal structure could then be represented by Figure 14.7. On this analysis, the situation time of the head clause, which is T-anterior to the central orientation time of a past domain, is contained in the Adv-time established by before, whose Anchor time is the situation time of the before-clause, which functions as central orientation time of the domain. It follows that arrived is an absolute preterite form. (This is in keeping with what has been argued in 14.4.2Ϫ5.) This analysis correctly predicts that before-clause situation will be interpreted as t 0 -factual because the speaker locates it in the past by means of an absolute preterite. (The head clause situation is also interpreted as t 0 -factual, because what the speaker represents as anterior to a t 0 -factual situation is auto- matically also t 0 -factual.) Figure 14.7. Temporal structure 1 of He had left before I arrived. It should be noted, though, that arrived in He had left before I arrived can in theory also be analysed as a relative preterite, representing its situation time as T-simultaneous with the implicit Anchor time, which is interpreted as W- simultaneous with the (equally implicit) central orientation time of the past domain. This analysis is represented in Figure 14.8. In what follows we will work with analysis 1. There is no clear evidence for or against either of the analyses, and which of them is assumed is irrelevant to interpretation, because T-simultaneity has been defined as strict coincidence (see 8.3), so that on both analyses the situation time of arrived coincides with the Anchor time. Because it is irrelevant to interpretation which of the two analyses we adopt, we may as well adopt the structurally simplest one, which is the analysis in which arrived is treated as an absolute preterite form. I. Adverbial before -clauses 723 Figure 14.8. Temporal structure 2 of He had left before I arrived. 14.8.2 The analysis which we adopt is in keeping with the fact that the nor- mal interpretation of John had left before Bill arrived is not (a) but (b): (a) At some time before Bill’s arrival it was the case that John had [already] left. (b) At the time of Bill’s arrival it was the case that John had [already] left. There are two anteriority relations involved in (a): ‘John’s leaving was anterior to a time anterior to Bill’s arrival’. The first anteriority relation is expressed by had left, the second by before. This complex temporal structure can be expressed in a grammatical sentence only if there are two adverbials measuring the length of the time spans corresponding with the two anteriority relations: Three days before Bill arrived John had already left {a week earlier / for a week}. As is clear from this paraphrase, the situation time of the head clause is T-anterior to the contained orientation time, which is interpreted as included in the Adv-time established by the before-clause. This implies that the before- clause is used as an orientation-time adverbial: the contained orientation time is not the situation time of the head clause but another orientation time to which the situation time of the head clause is T-anterior. Because the present section (viz. section 14) is concerned with before-clauses used as situation-time adverbials, we will not go into reading (a) any further here. It has been dealt with in section 14.10.3. By contrast, there is only one anteriority relation expressed in (b), which paraphrases the normal interpretation of John had left before Bill arrived: ‘John’s leaving was anterior to Bill’s arrival.’ However, this anteriority relation is expressed twice, viz. both by had left and by before. This means that the contained orientation time (viz. the situation time of the head clause) is in- cluded in the Adv-time and, because it is punctual, does not reach up to the Anchor time. It follows that, as far as the temporal W-interpretation is con- cerned, there is little difference between (b) and the way we interpret the fol- lowing: John had left when Bill arrived. (ϭ ‘At the time of Bill’s arrival, John had already left’) John left before Bill arrived. (ϭ ‘John left before the time of Bill’s arrival’) 724 14. Adverbial before-clauses and after-clauses The temporal structures of these sentences are represented in Figures 14.9 and 14.10. Figure 14.9. The temporal structure of John had left when Bill arrived. Figure 14.10. The temporal structure of John left before Bill arrived. If we use when instead of before, the anteriority relation between John’s leaving and Bill’s arrival is expressed only once: by the past perfect had left in John had left when Bill arrived, and by before in John left before Bill arrived.The two constructions yield a slightly different interpretation. Whereas John had left when Bill arrived stresses the fact that John was no longer there when Bill arrived, John left before Bill arrived stresses the temporal order of the situa- tions: ‘A happened before B’. In other words, the use of the past perfect in John had left when Bill arrived suggests a resultative interpretation, 15 whereas the use of before and two absolute past tense forms in John left before Bill arrived emphasizes the chronological order of the situations. When interpreted as ‘At the time of Bill’s arrival it was the case that John had (already) left’, the sentence John had left before Bill arrived combines the past perfect of John had left when Bill arrived and the before of John left before Bill arrived. This has as a result that both aspects of meaning (resultativeness ϩ emphasis on the 15. In examples like these, in which the W-anteriority relation is expressed twice, the past perfect may sometimes receive a continuative rather than resultative interpretation: John had been in the house for several minutes before he heard someone approach. In this case the use of the past perfect is obligatory in the head clause. The choice of before rather than when results in a certain emphasis on the idea of not-yet-factuality- at-t (‘not yet B at A’), which might suggest that the before-clause situation actualized later than might have been expected. I. Adverbial before -clauses 725 chronological order) are present at the same time. As noted above, John had left before Bill arrived then arguably realizes the following temporal structure (ϭ analysis 1) Ϫ see Figure 14.7 in section 14.8.1: The situation time of the before-clause is the Anchor time and is the central orienta- tion time of the past domain (established by arrived). The situation time of the head clause is the contained orientation time, and is represented (by had left) as T-anterior to the central orientation time. 14.8.3 When the reference is to the post-present, the before-clause has to use the Pseudo-t 0 -System. That is, the speaker has to use a construction in which the head clause indirectly establishes the post-present domain (by means of a future perfect, which represents the situation time of the head clause as anterior to the implicit central orientation time) and represent the situation time of the before-clause as T-simultaneous with the Anchor time (functioning as implicit central orientation time of the domain): John {will have left /*has left} before Bill {arrives /*will arrive}. (Has left is meant to be read as a Pseudo-t 0 -System form.) Gordon {will have visited /*has visited} the cathedral before Bryan {goes / *will go} to the town hall. (similar) He will have been living there for a long time before everybody accepts him. This is in keeping with the general rule that reference to the post-present in an adverbial time clause requires the use of the Pseudo-t 0 -System rather than the Absolute Future System Ϫ see 10.7.2. 14.9 Summary of section B Sections 14.5Ϫ8 have made it clear that adverbial before-clauses functioning as situation-time adverbials basically allow three major tense configurations (apart from some others not repeated here). They are exemplified by the fol- lowing sentences, which can all be used to describe the same state of affairs but are interpreted in subtly different ways: Jim left before Bill arrived. Jim left before Bill had arrived. Jim had left before Bill arrived. 14.9.1 The first possibility is for the speaker to represent both situations as t 0 -factual by using two absolute past tense forms: Jim left before Bill arrived. In such sentences the speaker just reports that two situations actualized in a particular order. The head clause situation is not interpreted as continuative 726 14. Adverbial before-clauses and after-clauses and there is no resultative implication. The two absolute tense forms establish separate past domains. The temporal W-relation between the situation times is exclusively expressed by before. Both situations are interpreted as t 0 -factual, i. e. as past facts. Because we cannot normally use the Absolute Future System in an adverbial before-clause, a similar use of two tense forms establishing separate domains is not possible if the reference is to the post-present: Jim will leave before Bill {leaves /*will leave}. 14.9.2 In the second possibility, illustrated by Jim left before Bill had arrived, the speaker represents the head clause situation as t 0 -factual (by using an abso- lute preterite) and represents the before-clause situation as not-yet-factual at the time of the head clause situation by using the past perfect. In doing so the speaker leaves it vague whether the before-clause situation eventually actual- ized (ϭ became t 0 -factual) or not: Jim left before Bill had arrived. (ϭ ‘Jim left; Bill had not arrived when Jim left’) The head clause is interpreted as t 0 -factual because it uses an absolute preterite. The situation time of the before-clause is represented as T-anterior to the An- chor time. When the reference is to the post-present, the tense of the head clause also establishes the domain, but it is not interpreted as t 0 -factual, because the post- present is by definition not-yet-factual-at-t 0 . Jim will leave before Bill has arrived. (Has arrived is a Pseudo-t 0 -System form ex- pressing T-anteriority to the implicit Anchor time.) 14.9.3 The third possibility is for the speaker to represent the before-clause situation as t 0 -factual by means of the absolute past tense and to represent the head clause situation as t 0 -factual by representing its situation time as T-ante- rior to the central orientation time of the past domain: Jim had left before Bill arrived. He had been living there for many years before everyone accepted him. When the reference is to the post-present, the head clause uses the future perfect to establish the domain and locate its situation time anterior to the central orientation time. The before-clause must represent its situation time as T-simul- taneous with the implicit Anchor time, which is interpreted as coinciding with the central orientation time: Jim will have left before Bill arrives. (The before-clause uses the present tense as Pseudo-t 0 -System form. Its situation is expected to actualize but it is still nonfactual at t 0 .) He will have been living there for a long time before everybody accepts him. (idem) I. Adverbial before -clauses 727 C. The tense system if the before -clause is an orientation-time adverbial 14.10 Using a before-clause as orientation-time adverbial 14.10.1 A before-clause functions as an orientation-time adverbial when the Adv-time which it establishes specifies (‘contains’) an orientation time (from the tense structure of the head clause) other than the situation time of the head clause, in other words when the situation time of the head clause is not the contained orientation time but is represented as T-anterior or T-posterior to the contained orientation time. 14.10.2 As noted in 14.2.2, a before-clause can only exceptionally be used as an orientation-time adverbial. However, the following is an example in which the head clause represents its situation time as T-posterior to the contained orientation time: [It is not only recently that John has been saying that he is going to retire.] He was already going to retire before he came to live here three years ago. (free indirect speech) In this case the verb form expressing T-posteriority must be of the ‘prospective’ type: was going to is fine, but would is not. We have noted the same restriction on similar examples using a when-clause Ϫ see 13.8.2. Reference to the post-present requires an absolute-relative form with will be about to (seldom: will be going to) in the head clause: [I predict that] John will already be about to go to bed before we arrive at his house. 14.10.3 Consider also the following: John had seen a doctor two days before he died. Out of context, this sentence allows two interpretations. The default reading is that the situation time of the head clause is located two days before the situation time of the before-clause. This interpretation is much the same as that of John saw a doctor two days before he died. It implies that the W- anteriority relation ‘The situation time of the head clause lies before the situa- tion time of the before-clause’ is expressed simultaneously by before and by the past perfect form had been. However, on this default reading, the before- clause is used as a situation-time adverbial rather than as an orientation-time adverbial. It is only on the secondary reading that the before-clause of the above example is taken to be an orientation-time adverbial: ‘Two days before he died it was the case that John had already seen a doctor’. In fact, this reading only comes to the fore if the head clause involves already and/or follows the . orientation-time adverbial: the contained orientation time is not the situation time of the head clause but another orientation time to which the situation time of the head clause is T-anterior. Because the. situation time of the before-clause is the Anchor time and is the central orienta- tion time of the past domain (established by arrived). The situation time of the head clause is the contained. stresses the fact that John was no longer there when Bill arrived, John left before Bill arrived stresses the temporal order of the situa- tions: ‘A happened before B’. In other words, the use of the