II. Temporal relations in a pre-present domain 469 the situation time of the subclause and the situation time of the head clause: the situation time of the subclause is directly related to t 0 . This is in keeping with the principle that only past time-sphere tenses can be used to express T- relations in a domain established by an indefinite present perfect. 9.9.9 When the head clause contains just, the situation referred to is automat- ically recent. Because of this, temporal subordination is less likely in the sub- clause. However, the influence of recency may conflict with factors promoting temporal subordination. For example, in represented speech the speaker may prefer to apply temporal subordination because he does not want to assume responsibility for what he reports, i. e. because he wants the subclause to be interpreted ‘opaquely’, i. e. from the point of view of the reporting speaker, rather than ‘transparently’, i. e. from his own point of view (see 8.24.3): “The army has just said they would release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, [but we do not know when,” he said, adding that he had no specific information about the release.] (www) Pyongyang, however, has just said it would not be going back to multilateral negotia- tions on its nuclear program, stating that it wants to boost its nuclear potential in response to a US “hostile” attitude. (www) In the following example would not do could not be replaced by will not do because the ‘it’ in question has already been done at t 0 . [“Therefore, this Board will not make a finding about the adequacy of nearby inter- sections or other elements related to the adequacy of public facilities.” (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless,] it immediately did that which it has just said it would not do, [by bootstrapping specific traffic safety matters under the general provisions of the Code.] (www) In the following example, would lend cannot be replaced with will lend because the context suggests that there may not be any lending in the post-present: [Not only do I feel like an unemployed wastrel (which I’m not really, my first shift at Sports Soccer is on Wednesday), but I also feel like a money-driven little bitch.] My dad (Jim) has just said he would lend me some money for rent [because he has offered a million times, but then after saying it was fine he said “but then at Christ- mas I sent you the money for a train ticket to come and see us and you didn’t.”] (www) However, there are also examples in which the conditional tense form could easily be replaced by the future tense: President Mubarek of Egypt has just said he would allow opposition candidates to run in their upcoming election. (www) GM has just said it would add a 7.5-liter V12 to its powertrain lineup. (www) [In a less then clever vein, I left the hose connected to the faucet. Yes, yes, I know. There’s a little warning on the flange that says “Remove hose during freezing 470 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones weather or pipe may burst ”. I’ve learned my lesson and] the insurance company guy has just said they would cover everything, including a stay in a nice hotel. [Sadly, you will be paying for my stupidity, by ever so slightly increased rates.] (www) [The heat just got turned up a notch.] Marissa from The Hotrod Store has just said she would be there on Saturday to race so grudge matches. (www) Kodak has just said they would be issuing a new version in the fall. (www) The use of the conditional tense with just is no doubt related to the fact that many (especially Am. E.) speakers consider just as possibly referring to a past time, witness the fact that they use ‘X just said that …’ next to (or instead of) ‘X has just said that …’. 9.9.10 In 9.11 we will see that a pre-present domain established by a present perfect clause receiving a continuative interpretation cannot normally be ex- panded: Ever since I was a soldier I have known that I {am /*was} reluctant to follow orders that I {do /*did} not find sensible. A similar restriction applies when the pre-present domain is established by an indefinite perfect which is interpreted inchoatively, so that the focus is on the continuative state resulting from it (see 5.26.2): I have been suspended from work while investigations into alleged misconduct are taking place. [What should I do?] (www) (are taking cannot be replaced with were taking) But in France, four men sent back from Cuba have been remanded in custody while they are investigated for possible links to terrorist organisations. (www) (*were in- vestigated) 9.9.11 Up to now we have only considered examples in which the head clause establishes a pre-present domain and in which the subclause either expands this domain (as if it were a past domain) or shifts the domain. In this subsection we will discuss examples in which it is the other way round: the pre-present domain is established by the subclause. In these examples the subclause typi- cally refers to a repetitive hypersituation. The head clause typically refers to a homogeneous background situation and shifts the domain by using the absolute past tense, the present perfect or the present tense: Everything I’ve ever done was wrong. Every time I’ve met him, he’s been so polite and a really nice person to talk to. (www) Every time we’ve tried [this restaurant] it’s either closed or the wait is too long. (www) II. Temporal relations in a pre-present domain 471 Let us have a closer look at these three possibilities of tense choice. (a) The past tense in examples like Everything I’ve ever done was wrong is an absolute past tense creating a W-simultaneous domain. (This is in keeping with the fact that this past tense can be ‘backshifted’ in past represented speech: He said that everything he’d ever done had been wrong Ϫ see 8.25 for this ‘indirect speech test’). The following further illustrate this possibil- ity: Whenever I’ve been there, I felt like I was wandering through a friend’s house looking at their art collection. (www) (This resembles I’ve been there several times and each time I felt like I was wandering through a friend’s house looking at their art collection, which itself resembles The president has had talks with the protest- ers. She told them that their cause was a just one in that the present perfect is used to introduce a situation and the past tense is used to give more information about it Ϫ see 8.25.3.) Every time I’ve met him he was quite the gentleman. (www) Since then, whenever I’ve seen him, he was always the same loving, friendly person always giving that grin and a hug. (www) [I’ve never had a serious problem though, but] whenever I’ve been there, I was cool to them and they were cool to me. (www) Every time I’ve seen him he was alone. In such examples the subclause establishing the pre-present domain is typically a clause referring to a repetitive hypersituation and functioning as (or like) a temporal clause. This clause always precedes the head clause. It is only because the pre-present domain is established first that the domain established by the past tense in the head clause can be interpreted as W-simultaneous with the pre-present domain. (b) When the head clause (supporting the subclause which is in the present perfect and refers to a repetitive hypersituation) uses the present tense, it also receives a repetitive interpretation and therefore establishes a number of W-simultaneous present domains: But whenever I’ve looked at the job board the job asks for experience. (www) (Has asked is also possible.) This sentence seems to be a blending of Whenever I’ve looked at the job board the job has asked for experience and Whenever I look at the job board the job asks for experience. (Not surprisingly) the speaker wants to talk at the same time about what he believes is habitually the case and what has habitually been the case and is thus evidence for his assertion about the habitual present. In other words, the head clause locates its situation in the present and the sub- clause locates its situation in the pre-present, and the listener is expected to 472 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones make sense of these temporally unconnected T-locations, using the repetitive adverbial as a guide to make the double interpretation. The following are similar: And every time I’ve met him he impresses me more Ϫ [he is so unassuming and modest for one who has accomplished so much]. (www) Whenever I’ve been really upset and crying, most of my cats look startled and at a loss, [because they’re not really used to it]. (www) [The food here is always fabulous,] everything I’ve ever tried is always superbly spiced and flavoured and sooo fresh! (www) (c) When the head clause (supporting the subclause which is in the present perfect and refers to a repetitive hypersituation) uses the present perfect, it establishes a pre-present domain of its own and also receives a repetitive interpretation. In that case there are in principle two possible readings. The first is that the two pre-present domains are W-simultaneous with each other, in the sense that each subsituation constituting the repetitive hypersituation of the head clause is W-simultaneous with a subsituation constituting the repetitive hypersituation of the subclause): Whenever I’ve been in trouble, Tim has helped me out. Every time I’ve asked for a salary increase my boss has threatened to fire me. Every time I’ve met him, he’s been so polite and a really nice person to talk to. (www) The second possible reading is that the head clause domain is interpreted as W-anterior to the subclause domain. Consider: Every time I’ve met him he’s been drunk. Whenever I’ve seen John he’s been ill. How many times has John been ill when you have seen him? In these examples the two clauses establish pre-present domains which may be interpreted as W-simultaneous with each other. However, there is also another possible interpretation, in which each of the situation times of the subsituations making up the repetitive hypersituation referred to in the temporal subclause is treated as if it were t 0 and in which the situation times implied by the head clause lie in the ‘pseudo-pre-present’ periods leading up to these ‘pseudo-t 0 ’s’. 3 For example, Whenever I’ve seen John he has been ill can be interpreted as meaning ‘Every time I have seen John he had been ill in the period leading up to my seeing him’. This interpretation can be brought out by the addition of just to the head clause: Whenever I’ve seen John he has just been ill. 3. This is a case of shift of temporal perspective which we have not yet referred to. II. Temporal relations in a pre-present domain 473 In sum, it is possible for the repetitive time clause to use a present perfect implying a number of ‘pseudo-pre-present’ periods and for the repetitive head clause to represent the times of the subsituations referred to as holding within or throughout these pseudo-pre-present periods. This possibility is in principle available irrespective of the W-reading (i. e. indefinite, continuative or up-to- now) which the head clause in the present perfect receives. Thus, the example Has John been ill when you have seen him? can be altered in various ways which each bring out one of the three interpretations: Has John ever been ill for some time when you have seen him? (On the most obvious interpretation of the head clause, the sentence is interpreted as: ‘You have seen John a number of times. Has it ever happened that he had been ill for some time (and still was) then?’. This means that each illness was continuing into an orientation time in the pre-present period.) Has John ever just been ill when you have seen him? (indefinite interpretation of has John been ill: ‘You have seen John a number of times. Has it ever happened that he had been ill just before you saw him (but no longer was when you saw him)?’) On each occasion when you have seen John, how many times has he been ill since your previous visit? (quantificational constitution interpretation of has John been ill: ‘You have seen John a number of times. On each of those occasions, how many times had he been ill in the period following your previous visit and leading up your seeing him?’) As a further example, consider the following: Every time I’ve seen Gilda in the last few weeks she has been playing football. This sentence presupposes that I have seen Gilda several times in the past two weeks and says that on each of these occasions it would have been true (at the time) to say ‘Gilda has been playing football’ or to say ‘Gilda is playing foot- ball’. In other words, the sentence is ambiguous between (a) ‘At the time of my seeing Gilda it has each time been true to say that she has (‘just’ or other- wise) been playing football’, and (b) ‘At the time of my seeing Gilda it has each time been true to say that she was playing football’. 4 The form has been playing in the former of these paraphrases receives the same interpretation as it does in isolation, except for the fact that the relevant pre-present period is not a time span leading up to t 0 but a time span reaching up to the times referred to by every time I’ve seen Gilda (which are interpreted as being indefi- nite times in a period up to t 0 ). Similarly, the form is playing in the second 4. Not surprisingly, the two readings above can also be expressed by sentences in which there is no shift of domain but the pre-present domain established by the Adv-time- clause is expanded (as if it were a past domain Ϫ see 9.9) by the tense forms in the head clause: Every time I have seen Gilda she had just been playing football. (T-anteriority) Every time I have met Gilda she was playing football. (T-simultaneity) 474 9. Temporal subordination in the various time-zones paraphrase locates its situation time at the various pseudo-present times in the period up to now rather than at the real t 0 . Sentences like this differ from nonrepetitive indefinite perfect sentences in that they involve an intermediate type of ‘ basic orientation time’ (see 10.4.1) 5 Ϫ that is, an intermediate orientation time functioning as if it were t 0 Ϫ in their temporal structure. Whereas I have seen Gilda locates its situation time in a period leading up to t 0 , every time I have seen Gilda implies that there are a number of situation times in a period leading up to an (each time different) ‘basic orientation time’ and that the various basic orientation times are themselves indefinite intervals in an implicit period up to t 0 . 6 Needless to say, the present perfect cannot realize the above kind of tempo- ral schema in a nonrepetitive sentence. When I have seen John, he has been ill is only grammatical if when means ‘whenever’ or ‘every time that’. If when is to be read as ‘on the particular occasion when’, the sentence that must be used instead is When I saw John, he was ill or When I saw John, he had been ill (for some time). 9.10 T-relati ons on an up-to-now reading of the he ad clause If the pre-present domain is established by an up-to-now perfect (in which case the situation time fills the entire pre-present but does not include t 0 ), there are in principle two possibilities in the subclause: temporal subordination (involving a shift of temporal perspective to the past zone) or a shift of domain. The former possibility can only occur when the speaker can discern enough ‘bygone-ness’ in the up-to-now situation expressed in the head clause to expand the pre-present domain as if it were a past domain. The latter possibility occurs when the up-to-now situation is given a recency interpretation. 5. In 10.4.1, ‘basic orientation time’ is defined as follows: “The basic orientation time (represented as ‘orientation time 1 ’) is that orientation time in the structure of the tense from which the temporal relations expressed by the tense begin to be computed. In most cases orientation time 1 is t 0 , but there are cases in which it is a post-present binding orientation time (i. e. a pseudo-t 0 ).” 6. The use of an intermediate orientation time functioning as if it were t 0 is also exemplified by present perfect sentences of a different kind: He has been going to invite me for months (but he has not done so yet). Here again the implication is that there have been several occasions in the pre-present when a proposition was applicable whose default interpretation is that it is applicable at t 0 , viz. the tensed proposition ‘He is going to invite me’. That is, the sentence is interpreted as ‘For months he has been intending to invite me.’ II. Temporal relations in a pre-present domain 475 9.10.1 On an up-to-now reading the terminal point of the full situation lies close to t 0 . This means that an up-to-now reading can easily be treated as a recency reading, in which case the pre-present domain established by the head clause is not expanded (as if it were a past domain) but the subclause shifts the domain (i. e. establishes a new domain). On the other hand, expanding an up-to-now pre-present domain is also possible provided one can discern enough ‘pastness’ (‘bygone-ness’) in the up-to-now situation to treat the pre-present domain as if it were a past one. This means that in many cases both a shift of domain and temporal subordination are possible in the subclause. (However, restrictions may be imposed by the type of subclause or by pragmatic factors.) 9.10.2 In complement clauses there is generally a slight preference for shifting the domain if the head clause situation is not a repetitive hypersituation. How- ever, temporal subordination is also grammatical: [You want to know what I’ve just been doing?] I’ve been teaching your son how he {can / could} open a lock with a hairpin.” [“At last you’re back. What have you been doing?”] Ϫ “I’ve been explaining to your children why you {have / had} forbidden them to play in the park.” [“Ah, there you are. What have you been doing?”] Ϫ “I’ve been telling your children that they {will / would} have to clean the kitchen tomorrow.” 9.10.3 When the pre-present situation is repetitive (and receives an up-to-now reading) both temporal subordination (i. e. expanding the domain as if it were a past one) and the use of an absolute tense (shifting the domain) are in prin- ciple equally possible in a complement clause. This is because some of the subsituations of the repetitive hypersituation are divorced from t 0 while the last one is not: the former can be treated as if they were past situations, whereas the last subsituation is treated as recent. If the first option is chosen (i. e. the subclause is temporally subordinated), the speaker is primarily concerned with the non-recent subsituations. In most of the examples that we have found, temporal subordination is actually obliga- tory because (as is clear from the context) it would be false to represent the subclause situation as actualizing at t 0 : I’ve been telling myself that I wasn’t ready yet, [but honestly I’ve been afraid to fail if I even started trying!] (www) (Am not will not be used because the implication would be that I am actually ready.) [Homecoming isn’t just for queens anymore. Eight young men are vying for the noble title of homecoming king, an honor that has never before been bestowed in Dade County.] “For the last three years the girls and the boys on student council have been saying that it wasn’t fair, [that there should be boys too,” said Donna Street, a coordinator of the homecoming committee. “When Mr. Hall came it was one of the things they asked.” New principal Fred Hall granted the students’ wish and a homecoming committee was formed.] (www) (Isn’t fair cannot be used because the unfair situation no longer holds at t 0 .) . pre-present domain 469 the situation time of the subclause and the situation time of the head clause: the situation time of the subclause is directly related to t 0 . This is in keeping with the principle. ‘opaquely’, i. e. from the point of view of the reporting speaker, rather than ‘transparently’, i. e. from his own point of view (see 8.24.3): The army has just said they would release Daw Aung. was playing football’. 4 The form has been playing in the former of these paraphrases receives the same interpretation as it does in isolation, except for the fact that the relevant pre-present