Localisation in time

It is important to bear in mind that without the additional selection of one particular point called present (time) there is neither a future (time) nor a past (time). The primary concepts of the manifold called time are the notions of anteriority/posteriority and simultaneousness, i.e. those of “temporal precedence and simultaneity” [Poidevin1996, p.467]. Without the selection of a reference time there is no global chart¹⁰or coordinate system to localise situations in time.

Therefore, “the grammaticalization of location in time” [Fleischmann1990, p.15], i.e. tense, presupposes a reference time.

8Cf. [Stevenson 2007, p.3208, headwordtense], Old Frenchtens>Modern Frenchtemps [ibid.] This might explain why the Latintempusnever caught on amongst English and French linguists: etymologically, Englishtense, Frenchtemps and Latintempusare actually the same word. In English the wordtempus exists as a technical term in music: “In medieval mensurable music, the duration of the breve relative to that of the semibreve” [Stevenson 2007, p.3204, headwordtempus].

9Cf. [Guillaume1929].

10Chart ‘(local) coordinate system’ is a technical term from differential geometry. Its use here alludes to the view that time is a manifold, i.e. an abstract mathematical space whose structure is described by the choice of coordinate system. Singling out a point (or stretch) of the manifold by labelling it ‘present’ can be seen as such a choice of coordinate system, cf.

also p.27.

This reference time is normally the moment of speech but may be a surrogate temporal anchor indirectly linked to the moment of speech or conventionally established by the discourse. In contrast to other grammatical categories associated with the verb (aspect, voice, mood, evidentiality) tense is relational in that it involves at least two moments in time (which may coincide wholly or in part) [Fleischmann 1990, p.15, her italics].

To recap, localisation in time relates to the moment of encoding.

If tense is a grammatical category, i.e. “a class or group of items which fulfil the same or similar functions” [Richards and Schmidt 2002, p.232], then those items, i.e. the verb forms of English, require being interpreted. The very existence of the category tense hinges upon this interpretation, as does the number of tenses in English. Which of the oppositionsmod,pret,perf,prog and pass refers to a temporal difference involving – be it explicitly or implicitly – the moment of encoding? There are two almost clear-cut cases: [pass: +] is not a tense and [pret: +] is (mainly) a tense.

The binary opposition [pass: ∅/+] is not a temporal one because it refers to “the relationship between a verb and the noun phrases which are associated with it” [Richardsand Schmidt 2002, p.582]. This category is called voice by traditional grammars. It is normally devoid of any temporal relevance. Still, as switching on pass entails a change of emphasis, there might be cases of in-terference with other markers such asperf, cf. the famous example of *Einstein has visited Princeton vs.Princeton has been visited by Einstein.¹¹ Furthermore, using the passive voice might preclude a native speaker of English from switching on prog or perf because of the awkward combinations of be(en) and being.

11There are variants (different subjects and objects) of this in the literature, e.g. “The shift from active to passive may change the meaning [. . . ] of the perfective aspect: Winston Churchill has twice visited Harvard [vs.] Harvard has twice been visited by Winston Chrurchill.

It has been claimed that the active sentence can only be appropriately used in the lifetime of Churchill, since the subject of the sentence determines the interpretability of the perfective in terms of a period of time leading up to the present [. . . ]. The passive sentence, according to this claim, could appropriately be said now, after Churchill’s death, since Harvard University is still in existence. However,speakers have differing intuitions on this matter” [Quirket al. 1985, p.166, note; italics AE].

In most instances, the binary opposition [pret: ∅/+] refers to the category tense because switching on pret mainly expresses a remoteness which is prior to the moment of speech. An utterance such as Peter played localises Peter’s playing in the past time. Therefore, the traditional name past tense is an ap-propriate one for the majority of uses of [pret: +]. The best name for the unmarked counterpart [pret: ∅] is non-past because utterances such as Peter plays do not necessarily refer to present time but might refer to general time, i.e. past, present and future. Unfortunately, there are uses of [pret: +] which do not refer to past time but to an unreal present or general time, e.g. if I had a hammer.

The terminological difficulties alluded to in the previous paragraph are of a general nature. Firstly, the unmarked counterpart of a binary opposition seems to be defined by something which it is not, i.e. the mere existence of its marked counterpart. Secondly, it might be considered questionable to ascribe a temporal meaning to utterances referring to time in general. Thirdly, differing uses of a particular verb form impede our finding a basic meaning for it. All three of these problems need to be discussed at length. It is the key feature of markedness theory that “certain linguistic elements can be seen as unmarked, i.e. simple, core, or prototypical, while others are seen as marked, i.e. complex, peripheral, or exceptional” [Richards and Schmidt 2002, p.320].

It is not a weakness of this theory that the unmarked linguistic elements are defined by the existence of their marked counterparts – it is its strength. The notion of a ‘simple’ verb form would be devoid of any meaning if there were no

‘complex’ verb forms. In the case of [pret: ∅/+] the basic idea of markedness theory has led to ascribing a new name to [pret: ∅]: non-past. Apart from the fact that the traditional name (present tense) is misleading when [pret: ∅] refers to time in general or timeless statements such ascircles are round, the new name is backed up by morphology: the suffix -ed, which expresses [pret: +], is the only inflectional temporal marker in English. Therefore, one might adopt the view that there is just one tense in English. Adopting this view would mean disregarding periphrasis as a permissible means of localising events in time. This view would throw the baby out with the bath water becauseComrie’s definition of tense does not rule out periphrastic verbal expressions to localise events in

time. His definition is neutral concerning the ways of localisation. Still, the fact that the English past tense is the only inflectional English tense singles [pret:

∅/+] out as a basic dichotomy of English.

What is the temporal meaning of utterances referring to time in general, such as I don’t like spinach, Sicily is an island or 5 is an odd number? None of these examples singles out explicitly a temporal reference point. The statementI don’t like spinach refers to a time-interval which presumably corresponds roughly to a particular I’s life span. The same applies to the second example, Sicily’s life span being considerably longer. The third example represents an eternal truth in the sense that if the statement is true at any point in time, then it is always true: the number 5’s life span can be seen as infinite.¹² All three examples refer implicitly to time-intervals that contain the moment of speech but they do not relate to it. Therefore, utterances like the ones mentioned above are not ‘tensed’ in the sense of Comrie. This changes immediately after switching on pret: I didn’t like spinach and Sicily was an island refer to time-intervals that do not contain the moment of speech. They are located in past time. Strangely enough, *5 was an odd number can be seen as ungrammatical because it implies that the truth-value of the statement depends upon the parameter time.

A mapping establishing a one-to-one correspondence between any conceivable subdivision of the manifoldtime and English verb forms does not exist. Therefore, it is impossible to ascribe an exclusive temporal meaning to English verb forms.

Still, it is possible to list different temporal readings of a particular verb form and choose one of them as the prototypical meaning. Ideally, this choice is backed up by statistical data derived from a corpus of sample sentences. The idea of a one-to-one correspondence between the tripartite division of time into past, present and future time and the notions of past, present and future tense is an old one.

2,100 years agoDionys Thrax, an influential grammarian, wrote about Greek verbs: “There are three tenses, present, past and future” [Klein 1974, p.17].

This classical view might have been facilitated by the inflectional Greek verbal system and is not necessarily true for other languages. For instance, the name future tense for forms containing will is a specious one because the presence of will is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for locating a situation

12In this context one could also sayeternal or atemporal.

in future time. It is not a necessary condition because there are other ways of referring to the future, such as using a completely unmarked verb form plus a temporal adverb, e.g. the train arrives at 9:30, or using an expanded form plus a temporal adverb, e.g. I am leaving at 2, or using the structure (to) be going to, e.g. I’m going to publish this. It is not a sufficient condition because using will can refer to (present) volition, e.g. will you help us?, or to habit, e.g.they’ll drink one cup after the other, or to (present) assumption, e.g. (telephone rings) that’ll be John, or to general time, e.g.water will boil at 100 degrees.