Date: 11-Apr-2008
From: Tero Tulenheimo <tero.tulenheimohelsinki.fi>
Subject: Deictic Reading of an Embedded Tense
E-mail this message to a friend
Please Note: Summaries are typically a compilation of responses to a Query,but the summary that follows is, this time, regarding a Discussion item,which you can read at:http://linguistlist.org/issues/19/19-609.html
Dear all,
In this posting I wish to summarize the responses I received to my query19.609 (''Tense interactions: uniform vs. non-uniform?''). Further, I'dwish to indicate what puzzles me in these responses in view of certaindiscussions in the literature [1, 2, 3, 4]. I will reformulate the mainquestion of my previous query in a later posting. I'm grateful to ElenaBashir (EB), Julian Bradfield (JB), Damien Hall (DH) and Mike Maxwell (MM)for their responses. (The summary represents my understanding of theresponses, and may not represent the views of the people to whom they areascribed.)
SUMMARY
My main question was (unfortunately, as it turned out) phrased by referenceto the sentences
(1) John thought that Harry will leave,(2) John forgot that Mary will come,(3) Mary believed that Harry will be late.
(Unfortunately, since the focus of my original query moved to an unintendeddirection.) As the question was formulated, a prerequisite was finding outwhether (1 - 3) are grammatical. Everyone who responded was a nativespeaker. Some considered these sentences plainly ungrammatical, othersexpressed reservations. Everyone agreed that what (1 - 3) attempt toexpress is best expressed in standard English by replacing ''will'' by''would'': no one suggested that these sentences could have a readingexpressing something different from the result of such substitution. (Inparticular, only one person, and with much hesitation, was prepared tointerpret the embedded ''will'' deictically in a suitable context; stillthis person said he would not personally go for using ''will'' in that way.)
DH said that in the UK, (1 - 3) would definitely be ungrammatical but, inhis judgment, in the US sentences like (1 - 3) are sometimes or even oftenconsidered grammatical. JB said the sentences are ungrammatical in standardEnglish but might not be considered ungrammatical in suitable contexts. AndMM said he would not consider the sentences strictly ungrammatical, whilehe still would not choose to use such sentences, but would replace ''will''by ''would'' instead.
EB characterized the need for replacing ''will'' by ''would'' by sayingthat in English ''the reported perceived event is treated as though theperceiver shares the same temporal perspective as the reporter,'' pointingout that in other languages, e.g. Urdu, ''the action in the embedded clauseis viewed from the temporal stance of the perceiver at the time ofperception''; this would then fit the pattern of (1 - 3), insofar as thesyntax is concerned. That is, what in English is expressed by thegrammatical sentence
(1a) John thought that Harry would leave,
would be expressed in Urdu by a sentence where there indeed appears theequivalent of ''will leave'' in the embedded clause. The action in theembedded clause (leaving) is viewed from the perspective of the perceiver(John) at the time of his perception (thinking): John would have used theequivalent of ''Harry will leave'' to express what he then thought.
It may be worth pointing out that this analysis of (1) is diametricallyopposed to the analysis attempting to construe ''will'' deictically. For,the reading of (1) construing ''will'' deictically, uttered at t_0, wouldstate that what John thought in the past was that Harry leaves after t_0.Hence (or so it seems) it is the person perceiving who happened to have,according to the report (1), the rather strangely specified belief in thepast that there is a time (t_1) later than that of reporting (t_0) suchthat John leaves at t_1. The embedded clause is not viewed from thetemporal stance of the perceiver at the time of perception, but the contentof the perception is determined relative to the temporal stance of thereporter!
QUESTION: DEICTIC READING OF AN EMBEDDED TENSE
But can sentences such as (1 - 3) actually carry a reading where ''will''-- or more generally, the tense of the embedded clause -- appears asdeictic? The fact that no one who replied to my query found these sentencesunproblematically grammatical seems to me to suggest that there is no suchuncontroversial reading. Yet in the literature several authors seem to takeit for granted that there is one. Here is a list of sentences discussed inthe literature and claimed to have a reading (apparently unproblematic, forthat matter) which would be destroyed by turning ''will'' into ''would'' or''is'' into ''was'' [or ''ran'' into ''had run'' in (3.4)]. Sentence of theform (x.n) is from the reference [x]:
(1.1) John said that he will leave tomorrow (p. 115)(1.2) John said that he will leave before Jane returns (ibid.)(1.3) John said that he is ill (ibid.)
(2.1) John heard that Mary is pregnant (p. 636)(2.2) We found out that John loves Mary (ibid.)
(3.1) John said that Harry will leave (p. 120)
(3.2) John said that Harry is leaving (ibid.)
(3.3) John heard that Mary is pregnant (ibid.)
(3.4) John thought that Harry ran (ibid.)
(4.1) It was predicted that the Messiah will come (p. 496)
Comrie [1:114-5] says e.g. of (1.3) that it is applicable when what Johnsaid is considered by the reporter to still have relevance/continuedvalidity. He explains (1.2) by saying it has the implication that John'sleaving and Jane's return are possible future events.
Enç [2:636] says of (2.1) that unlike ''John heard that Mary waspregnant'', the sentence (2.1) must be interpreted evaluating ''is''relative to the time of utterance. She argues that via this analysisComrie's idea of 'present relevance' can be made more precise.
Hornstein explains (3:121) that in all of (3.1 - 3.4), the event time ofthe embedded clause is interpreted temporally relative to the utterancetime,
whereby these sentences have an interpretation altogether differentfrom the sentences with ''would'' in place of ''will'' (in which ''would''appears in an embedded clause with a sequence-of-tense reading). Hornsteinis very explicit about his interpretation. He goes so far as to say e.g.:''[W]hat John heard was that Mary was with child at the moment of utteranceof [(3.3)] as a whole. If John's information is accurate, then Mary isstill pregnant.''
Kamp & Reyle [4:497] explain that unlike the sentence ''It was predictedthat the Messiah would come,'' sentence (4.1) reports a past predictionabout an event lying in the future of the time at which (4.1) is asserted,not about an event that lies in the future of the time of the predictionbut might have taken place before the time of assertion.
As to truth-conditions of sentences with deictically interpreted embeddedtense, MM pointed out to me in his response to me that (4.1) ''makes itsound like the prediction, which was made let's say in 500 BC, was that theMessiah would come after the year 2008 AD. That's of course a possibleprediction, just rather odd.''Perhaps such an odd character of the truth-condition is the reason why thesuggestion, according to which there is a systematic possibility (or evennecessity) of deictically interpreting a suitable embedded tense (such asthat of ''is'' or ''will''), does not gain spontaneous support among nativespeakers.
Apparently, it seems to me, the best way of making sense of theavailability of such systematic readings is to say that they arise from theutterer maximizing the information given by his/her report, byappropriately relating the event time of the embedded clause to the time ofutterance. (Hence if the utterer X wishes to convey that in past, John said''Harry will leave'' and X furthermore is aware that Harry hasn't left asyet, then by uttering (3.1) with ''will'' interpreted deictically, X stateswhat in the circumstances of the utterance more accurately describes whatJohn said than would the utterance of the sentence ''John said that Harrywould leave''; the expression of the truth-condition is so to say updated.)
Given that various linguists have apparently taken deictic reading of anembedded tense as being a genuinely possible reading -- and accordingly,have not considered (1.1 - 4.1) as unsuccessful attempts at stating whatrather should be stated using a form adapted to sequence-of-tense -- I'mpuzzled by the fact that no one who responded to my query naturallyconsidered the deictic reading of the relevant sentences but rather choseto propose replacing ''will'' by ''would.'' Not being a native speaker, I'mnot able to properly figure out what is at stake. I'd be grateful for anyclarifications.
Kind regards, Tero Tulenheimo University of Helsinki
[1] B. Comrie: Tense, Cambridge University Press, 1985.[2] M. Enç: ''Anchoring Conditions for Tense,'' Ling. Inq. 18(4):633-657, 1987.[3] N. Hornstein: As Time Goes By. Tense and Universal Grammar, The MITPress, 1990.[4] H. Kamp & U. Reyle: From Discourse to Logic, Part 2, Kluwer, 1993.
Linguistic Field(s):
Pragmatics
Semantics
|