448 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones Another possible exception concerns the since-clause. If the situation it re- fers to does not continue up to the binding orientation time, the past perfect can be replaced by the past tense. The tree had grown a lot since it {had been / was} planted. John had been confused since he {had met / met} Jill. John had been confused since he {had known / *knew} Jill. (The situation of John knowing Jill continues up to the binding orientation time.) [Reichel laughed, a bit flustered.] Gates had been sending her e-mail and love letters since he met her the previous April. (www) [The following day I was back at work, which was the way] it had been since I found out that I had developed cancer. (www) [I drove across the San Fernando Valley to pick her up. I was happy to do this because] I hadn’t seen much of Jan since she met Beefheart at a party the month before. (www) B. The expression of T-simultaneity in a past domain 9.3 The relative past tense T-simultaneity in a past domain is expressed by means of the relative past tense, irre- spective of whether the binding time is the central orientation time or another orienta- tion time in that past domain. 9.3.1 In order to represent a situation time as T-simultaneous with an orienta- tion time in a past domain we use the relative past tense (preterite), irrespective of whether the binding orientation time is the central orientation time or an- other orientation time in the domain. (In other words, the relative past is the only tense that can express T-simultaneity in a past domain or ‘subdomain’ Ϫ see 2.50.) He said that he was feeling hungry. He promised he would do it when he had time. He said he had panicked when the milk boiled over. The tense structure of the latter sentence is represented in Figure 9.2. 9.3.2 Since the only condition for the use of a relative past tense is that the binding orientation time must form part of a past domain, and since a past I. Temporal subordination in a past time-sphere domain 449 Figure 9.2. The tense structure of He said he had panicked when the milk boiled over. domain has been defined as a domain whose central orientation time is located in the past time-sphere, the situation referred to by a relative tense form does not need to be W-anterior to t 0 . For example, a relative past tense can represent its situation time as T-simultaneous with the time of a situation which is W- interpreted as following t 0 . (In that case the time of the situation referred to in the relative past tense must also be W-interpreted as lying in the post-present. This follows from the fact that the relative past tense expresses T-simultaneity, i. e. strict coincidence Ϫ see 2.17.1.) Yesterday John announced that he would retire from business when he was sixty, [which is in two years’ time.] In this example, the situation time of would retire, as well as the situation time of was sixty (which is T-simultaneous with the former) must be understood as W-posterior to t 0 because of what is said in the final relative clause. 9.4 Theoretical remark The grammaticality of was in the above example is very important from a theoretical point of view, because it furnishes definitive evidence that English has two past tenses Ϫ see also 8.23Ϫ32. The semantics of the absolute past tense is: ‘The situation time is located in the past time-sphere, where it forms the central orientation time of a past domain; it lies completely before t 0 and is felt to be disconnected from the present’. The semantics of the relative past is: ‘The situation time is represented as T-simultaneous with an orientation time belonging to a past domain or subdomain (or to a pseudo-past subdo- main Ϫ see 9.18); its location relative to t 0 is not T-expressed’. Since the past tense form was in the example in 9.3.2 does not T-locate its situation time before t 0 , but rather represents it as coinciding with the binding situation time 450 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones of a situation which is represented (by which is in two years’ time) as lying entirely in the post-present, was cannot possibly be analysed as an absolute past tense form. C. The expression of T-posteriority in a past domain T-posteriority in a past domain is expressed by means of the conditional tense (i. e. ‘{would / should} ϩ present infinitive’) or by means of the past tense of a ‘futurish form’, irrespective of whether the binding time is the central orientation time or another orientation time within that past domain. The choice of a form to express T-posterior- ity depends on the precise meaning which is to be expressed. 9.5 The conditional tense 9.5.1 The unmarked tense form to express T-posteriority to an orientation time that forms part of a past domain is the conditional tense, i. e. ‘would ϩ infinitive’. (The term ‘conditional’ for the tense which is formally represented by ‘would ϩ infinitive’ is not ideal, since the use of would as a tense auxiliary, to express ‘future-from-the-past’, is quite separate from its use as a marker of conditional meaning in the head clause of a conditional sentence. However, the term is the one that has traditionally been used, and so we adopt it here for convenience. We will, however, make a point of referring to ‘the conditional tense’ rather than to ‘the conditional’ as a reminder that the function of ‘would ϩ infinitive’ as a tense form is to locate situation times in time rather than to convey conditional meaning.) Note that it is immaterial to the use of the conditional tense whether the binding orientation time is the central orientation time of the domain or an- other orientation time in the past domain (i. e. the central orientation time of a subdomain inside the past domain). I thought you would help me. John said that Bill thought you would help me. He had promised that he would henceforth behave himself. She predicted that Bill would soon tell me when he would make his decision. She said that he had promised that he would soon tell her when he would make his decision. The tense structure of the latter sentence is represented by Figure 9.3. 9.5.2 Because the conditional tense expresses no more than that the situation time is T-posterior to an orientation time in a past domain, it leaves vague I. Temporal subordination in a past time-sphere domain 451 Figure 9.3. The tense structure of She said that he had promised that he would soon tell her when he would make his decision. whether the situation time is W-anterior, W-simultaneous or W-posterior to t 0 Ϫ see also 9.6.9. Thus, we don’t know from Ruben said he would pray for her whether Ruben has already prayed for her, is praying for her right now, or will perhaps do so in the future. 9.5.3 In the same way as shall is still possible as an alternative to will in the future tense (see section 7.5.1), should can replace would after a first person subject. It is usually considered as more formal than would. I realized I {would / should} have to stay there for another three weeks. 9.6 The past versions of futurish forms It was pointed out in section 2.9 that not only future tense forms but also some ‘futurish’ verb forms can be used to represent a situation time as T-posterior to t 0 (i. e. to establish a post-present domain). In the same way, T-posteriority to an orientation time in a past domain can be expressed not only by the conditional tense but also by the past tense of these futurish forms. Since each of these forms has its own connotation(s) (see 7.7Ϫ16), the main problem for a nonnative speaker who wants to express T-posteriority in a past domain is to choose the particular form that is most suitable to express the desired conno- tation. In other words, there are contexts in which it is not suitable to use the conditional tense and there are contexts in which it is not suitable to use the past tense of one or other futurish form. The following rules (or tendencies) can be pointed out. 9.6.1 In past represented speech (as defined in 8.25.1) we can use all the past tense versions of the future and futurish verb forms and auxiliaries that can T- 452 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones locate a situation time in the post-present (with their own typical aspects of meaning Ϫ see 7.7Ϫ16). The librarian did not notice that the pile of books was about to fall over. Everybody could see that there was going to be a storm. (The posterior situation was predictable at the past time of the head clause situation.) You might have told us in advance you were coming. (arranged future-from-the-past) It was announced that the Prime Minister was to visit Australia in spring. (The posterior situation depends on an official decision.) He did not know what his father would say. I sensed that he was on the point of doing something stupid. (immediate future) Our coach told us their goalkeeper was injured and would not be playing. (‘matter of course’ meaning: given the circumstances, it was only natural that the goalkeeper would not be playing.) I hoped the train I was waiting for {wouldn’t be / wasn’t} late again. (Compare with 9.22.2 below.) I realized I would have to hurry because my train left at 5.12 p.m. 9.6.2 If we delete the head clauses of these examples, the result is a stretch of ‘ free indirect speech’, where someone’s words or thoughts are reported without there being an introductory verb of saying or thinking. As far as the use of tenses is concerned, free indirect speech is just like indirect reported speech, except that informal English will sometimes use was going to where less informal English uses would: [The girl was trembling with fear.] The burglar {wouldn’t have / wasn’t going to have} any hesitation about killing her [if he spotted her in her hiding-place]. [I was still running 6:20 miles, but I was struggling and breathing hard.] It wasn’t going to be long before I started to crash. (www) A condition for this use of was/were going to is that the speaker assumes someone’s point of view (located at the past narrative ‘now’), from which the situation referred to with the help of was/were going to is predictable. This explains why the use of were going to is odd in the first of the following examples, but not in the second: [The procession had now begun to climb the hill.] Soon they {would reach / ? were going to reach} the little church at the top. [The procession had now begun to climb the hill.] Soon they {would reach / were going to reach} the little church at the top [and discover that the famous statue was missing]. In the second example, the last clause is easily interpreted as representing the anticipation of an onlooker watching the procession, and this encourages an I. Temporal subordination in a past time-sphere domain 453 interpretation of were going to reach as the prediction made by that onlooker at the time that the procession begins to climb the hill. In the first example, there is no clear indication of such an extra, past, point of view, and the exam- ple is thus interpreted as involving only one ‘viewer’, namely the narrator lo- cated at speech time. 1 (Incidentally, the same restriction applies to epistemic modals.) In free indirect speech, was going to can also have its straightforward mean- ing ‘it was predictable that X would happen’. This use is similarly restricted. It needs not only a past point of view from which the situation is predictable but also a perceiver at that point of view. For example: The vase was always going to get broken, with so many people brushing past it. So many things get turned into exercise videos and classes it wasn’t going to be long before it happened with ballet. (www) It was always going to get a bit rough as everybody was jostling for position, [but, luckily, I had the horse to get me through.] (www) 9.6.3 If the speaker wants to express that a situation which did not yet hold at the past orientation time was at that time intended, predictable or expected to happen later , he will normally use was/were going to. This parallels the use of the present tense of be going to for predictable post-present situations (see 7.10). I was looking for my racket because I {was going to /*would} play tennis at ten o’clock. He told me confidentially that he {was going to /#would} leave the firm. (Would is fine if it has volitional meaning or if there is an implicit condition, but not with exactly the same meaning as was going to.) Anxiously, he looked at the clouds. There {was going to be /*would be} a storm within minutes. Was going to is certainly the normal form if the reference is to a past intention that was never fulfilled (see also 7.9.4). I{was going to /*would} pay you a visit this afternoon, [but I have to attend an emergency meeting of the board.] You {were going to /*would} give me your hairdresser’s telephone number. (used as a reminder) To T-represent the posterior situation as absolutely pre-determined by circum- stances that already exist at the binding orientation time, we use a nonpro- 1. The extra point of view could be the past point of view of the current narrator. For example, the second example could continue I knew I had to do something fast and could be nonfictional, but there would still be at least two points of view: the point of view of the person who is now the narrator but who then was someone located at the time of the procession, and the point of view of the person who is now the narrator, located at speech time. 454 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones gressive past tense form. This is the past counterpart of a nonprogressive pres- ent tense form which refers to post-present actualization (see 3.8) and is used in a similar way. [We would have to hurry.] The last train left at 11.46. (Compare with We will have to hurry. The last train leaves at 11.46.) [There was no time to waste.] It was already two o’clock in the morning and the regiment attacked at dawn. [He must get this message to them within the next two hours.] 9.6.4 When an ‘arranged-future-in-the-past’ (or rather ‘arranged-future-from- the past’, as it is a future relative to the time of a past arrangement) concerns a personal arrangement, we normally use the progressive form of the past tense. This parallels the use of the present progressive for arranged post-present situa- tions. [Mary and Bill were stuffing a goose.] They were having guests that evening. [There was no point in inviting the Robinsons, as] they were leaving the day before the party. [The man was very nervous.] He was getting married that morning. [I didn’t call him up to tell him the news because] I was going to his office the next day. This use of the progressive past is possible even if the context makes it clear that the action planned was not actually performed. He was leaving the country in June, [but his accident has made this impossible.] However, this idea of unreality is more frequently expressed by was going to. The latter is the only past futurish form that can implicate nonactualization by itself Ϫ see 3.8: [“Have you mended the fence yet?”] Ϫ “I was going to do it yesterday.” Here, the use of was going to implicates that the speaker did not mend the fence. If he did mend it, the speaker is expected to say Yes, I have or something like I did yesterday. This follows from the Gricean Maxim of Relation (rele- vance): other things being equal, the present is more relevant than the past. The speaker should not represent the mending of the fence as a past intention if he can represent it as something that has become a fact at t 0 . Like any conversational implicature, this implicature of ‘unfulfilled intention’ can be cancelled by the context without creating semantic contradiction: A: “Have you mended the fence yet?” B: “I was going to do it yesterday.” A: “And did you do it yesterday? B: “Yes.” . but there would still be at least two points of view: the point of view of the person who is now the narrator but who then was someone located at the time of the procession, and the point of view. immaterial to the use of the conditional tense whether the binding orientation time is the central orientation time of the domain or an- other orientation time in the past domain (i. e. the central. use the relative past tense (preterite), irrespective of whether the binding orientation time is the central orientation time or an- other orientation time in the domain. (In other words, the