See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276272926

Sequence of tenses in English

Article  in  Folia Linguistica · January 1990

CITATIONS READS

15 4,276

1 author:

Renaat Declerck
KU Leuven
87 PUBLICATIONS   1,053 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Generic sentences View project

Relative clauses View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Renaat Declerck on 19 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SEQUENCE OF TENSES IN ENGLISH

RENAAT DECLERCK

1. INTRODUCTION

Comrie (1986) raises the question of why English speakers

use the preterite in the complement clauses of examples like
(1) Arthur said that he was sick.
The fact that we use was in the subclause, and not is (as in
the Russian equivalent of (1)), is traditionally traeed back to the
so-called 'Sequence of Tenses' (SoT) rule, which is claimed to be
operative in indirect speech in English. It is difficult, however, to
determine the exact nature of this rule. Is it a formal (syntactic)
rule, which is applied mechanically, or is it a rule that is seman-
tically motivated? And if it is semantically motivated , which is
the relevant semantic factor?
As far as I know, the linguistic literature shows three differ-
ent hypotheses to answer these questions. The first is that the
subclause of (1) is in the past tense because it refers to past time.
Comrie (1986) calls this the 'absolute deixis hypothesis', because
it treats was as an absolute tense form, i.e. as a tense which re-
lates a situation (i.e. event, state, etc.) directly to the moment of
speaking. The second hypothesis is that was is in the past tense
because it expresses that the subclause situation is simultaneous
with the head clause situation, which lies in the past. Let us call
this hypothesis the 'relative time hypothesis'. The third hypoth-
esis is that indirect speech in English is subject to a formal SoT
rule which automatically backshifts the tense forms from direct
speech when the introductory verb is in the past tense. Comrie
(1986) aims to prove that only the third hypothesis is consistent
with the facts of English.

Folia Linguistica XXIV /3-4 0165-4004/90/24-513 $ 2,-

[C) Mouton/de Gruyter, Betliti - Societas Linguistica Eutopeee
514
My aim in this paper is to show that Comrie's attempt fails. I
will argue that the 'formal SoT hypothesis' does not always make
the correct predictions, and that the tense of a complement clause
in indirect speech may be either a relative tense (as in (1)) or an
absolute tense.
2. A THEORY OF TENSE
It is not possible to argue for or against one of the three
hypotheses without incorporating them into a coherent theory of
tense. Such a theory is offered in Declerck (forthcoming). Since
expounding a full theory of tense is obviously a major undertak-
ing, only the bare essentials can be pointed out here. However, I
think that the following brief sketch should be sufficient to ren-
der it possible to evaluate the alternative answers to the question
raised in section l.
English speakers view a situation as either past or non-past
with respect to the moment of speech. That is, they locate a
situation either in the 'past time-sphere' or in the 'present time-
sphere'. The past time-sphere lies wholly before the moment of
speech (i.e. it does not include the time of utterance). To locate
a situation in it the speaker uses the preterite. The present time-
sphere is divided into three 'sectors' by the moment of speech: the
portion of the present time-sphere that precedes the moment of
speech is the 'pre-present sector'; the portion that is centered
around the moment of speech is the 'present sector'; and the
portion that follows the moment of speech is the 'post-present
sector'. The tenses used to locate situations in these three sectors
are the present perfect, the present tense and the future tense,
respectively.
For ease of reference we can use the term 'absolute sectors'
to refer to the above three sectors plus the past time-sphere. (I
call these timespans 'absolute' because they are defined in direct
relation to the the moment of speech.) The four tenses that are
used to locate situations in one of these four sectors can therefore
be called 'absolute tenses'.
When two situations are located within the same time-sphere,
there are two possibilities: either both of them are represented as
related to the time of speech, or one situation is related to the time
515
of speech while the second is related to the first. To capture these
possibilities we can introduce the notion of 'temporal domain'.
A (temporal) domain is a time interval taken up either by one
situation or by a number of situations that are temporally related
to each ot her by means of special tense forms. Consider, for
example:
(2) John said that he had worked hard all day, that he was
tired and that he would go to bed early.
The first clause contains an absolute tense form (said) which
locates a situation in the past time-sphere and by doing so cre-
ates a past time-sphere domain (or 'past domain ' for short). The
second clause contains a relative tense form (had worked), which
relates the situation of working to the situation of the first clause,
and not to the moment of speech. That is, the second clause does
not establish a domain (as the first clause does) but incorporates
its situation into the already existing domain. The third clause
does exactly the same thing, only the relation is now different:
whereas had worked rèpresents its situation as anterior to the
'central situation ' of the domain (said), was tired represents its
situation as simultaneons with it. The fourth clause, finally, again
incorporates its situation into the domain, but the situation in
question is now represented as posterior to the central situation.
When a situation is introduced into a domain, it need not
always be related to the central situation. The 'binding situation'
mayalso be another situation (which is itself directly or indirectly
related to (i.e. bound by) the central situation). For example,
in (3), where the three situations referred to are again located
within a single domain, the third clause represents its situation
as simultaneous with the situation of the second clause, while the
latter is respresented as anterior to the central situation referred
to in the first clause:
(3) John said he had felt very tired when he was working.
It should be noticed that in (2) and (3) the relative tense
form used to express simultaneity is each time the past tense,
irrespective of whether the binding situation is or is not the cen-
tral situation of the domain. This means that there is a single
system of relative tenses to represent domain-internal relations
516
in the past time-sphere: we always use the past tense for simul-
taneity, the past perfect for anteriority, and the conditional tense
(would+present infinitive) for posteriority.
It appears, then, that the past tense can be used in two
ways: either as an absolute tense (establishing a past domain)
or as a relative tense (expressing the domain-internal relation of
simultaneity). The past perfect and conditional, on the other
hand, can only be used as relative tenses.
As noted before, when two situations are located within the
past time-sphere, the second mayor may not be incorporated
into the domain established by the first situation. If there is no
incorporation, the second situation establishes a new domain. In
that case we can speak of a 'shift of domain'. For example, in
John went to the door, opened it and left the reference is to three
consecutive past domains. A shift of domain is also to be noticed
in (4), which can be compared with (5):
(4) The boy ran away from home. He never came back.
(5) The boy ran away from home. He would never come
back.
There is a shift of domain in (4): both clauses establish a do-
main of their own, using the preterite as absolute tense. In (5), in
contrast, the first clause (using an absolute past tense) establishes
the domain and the second clause (using a relative tense) incorpo-
rates a new situation into it. It should be noted that when there
is a shift of domain in the past time-sphere, no temporal relation
between the two domains is expressed by the tenses. Absolute
past tense forms relate their situations to the moment of speech,
not to the time of some other situation. The hearer interpreting
sentences like (4) will therefore have to deduce the temporal order
of the situations from the time adverbials (if any), from contex-
tual inforrnation, or from pragmatic considerations. In (4), where
there is no definite time adverbial or context, the hearer will de-
duce the order of the situations from his pragmatic knowledge:
he knows that one can only come back after one has left. If the
pragmatics of the situation cannot help him either, the hearer can
still rely on the fact that , by convention, we preferably report sit-
uations in the order in which they have happened (cf. Dinsmore
1982:218). However, this is far from being an absolute principle.
517
In John stood by the window and Mary sat on the sofa, the most
plausible interpretation is probably that the two situations were
simultaneous, Why this should be so is a question we need not
go into here. For our present purpose the only important thing is
that it should be clear that situations which establish their own
domains are not temporally related to each other by the tense
system (since tenses that establish domains are absolute tenses,
i.e. tenses that relate situations directly to the moment of speech).
Examples like (4) illustrate the possibility of shifting the do-
main within the same time-sphere. It is clear, however, that a
shift of domain mayalso be a shift from one time-sphere to the
other. Thus in I am sad because my dog died the head clause
establishes a present domain and the subclause a past one. In He
left because his mother-in-law is in town today it is just the other
way round.
Apart from this possibility of switching from one absolute
sector to another, there is also the possibility of 'shifting the tem-
poral perspective'. A shift of temporal perspective is a type of
shift which may occur, not when a new domain is established, but
when a domain-internal relation is expressed. It means that the
time to which the situation is related is treated as if it belonged
to an absolute sector that is different from the one to which it
actually belongs, so that the relative tense used to relate another
situation to it is a tense which is actually characteristic of another
sector. The following sentences illustrate the phenomenon:
(6) Has the woman ever told you that she loved you?
(7) Has the woman ever told you that she had been beaten
by her husband?
(8) I have never promised that I would help you.
In each of these examples the head clause establishes a pre-
present domain. In each case the subclause is temporally bound
by the head clause. However, the relative tenses used for this are
those typical of past domains. This means that the pre-present
domain behaves as if it were a past one. In other words, once
the domain is established there is a shift of perspective from the
pre-present to the past.
 518
There is a similar shift of perspective in post-present do-
mains. The cent ral situation of a post-present domain behaves
as if it were a present situation (i.e. as if it coincided with the
moment of speech) when other situations are related to it. This
means that in order to relate situations to this post-present time
we use the same tenses as we use to relate situations to the mo-
ment of speech. That is, the set of relative tenses used in a post-
present domain coincides with the four absolute tenses. This is
clear from examples like the following:
(9) (said when planning someone's murder:) The police will
think that he was killed by accident.
(10) His excuse next time will be that he has been ill all week.
(11) He will tell you that he does not know anything.
(12) Bill will not believe that you will help him.
. In each of these examples the head clause establishes a post-
present domain and the subclause situation is incorporated into
it. Since the speaker treats the time of the central situation as if
it were the moment of speech, he uses a 'pseudo-absolute' tense
form in the subclause. That is, the tenses used to express relations
in a post-present domain are the preterite or present perfect for
anteriority, the present tense for simultaneity and the fut ure tense
for pasteriarity.
3. TENSE IN INDIRECT SPEECH
The principles outlined above constitute only a portion of
what is needed for a full theory of tense in English;' but they
suffice to describe and explain the use of tenses in indirect speech
in English. As far as I ean see, the principles governing this use
ean be summarized as follows:
1 For example, nothing has been said about the status of such tenses as the
future perfect and the conditional perfect. In Declerck (forthcoming) it is ar-
gued that the future perfect combines the functions of absolute tense (since it
establishes a domain) and relative tense (because it also expresses the domain-
internal relation of anteriority), whereas the conditional perfect expresses two
domain-internal relations at once. However,for our present purpose it is not
necessary to take these tenses into account.
519
Principle A: In indirect speech the complement clause can
in principle use either absolute or relative tense. That
is, the complement clause situation can either shift the
domain (i.e. establish a new domain) or be incorporated
into the domain referred to in the head clause.
Principle B: If both clauses refer to the same time-sphere,
the use of relative tense in the complement clause is the
unmarked choice. This means that, in such sentences,
relative tense is always possible, whereas Grice's (1975)
maxims of conversation allow the use of absolute tense
only if the temporal order of the situations (which is not
expressed by the absolute tense forms) is clear from a
temporal adverb, the context or from the hearer's prag-
matic knowledge of the world.
These two principles account for the following array of possibili-
ties:
a. They predict the grammaticality of canonical examples of the
application of SoT, such as John said that he was ill, Bill believed
that he had seen a ghost, Betty threatened that she would leave
him. In each of these sentences the subclause uses relative tense
to incorporate the situation into the domain established by the
head clause. Since the domain is a past domain, the relative tense
forms in question belong to the system of relative tenses typical
of the past time-sphere.
b. The principles prediet the grammaticality of sentenees like
John said that Bill was in London the day before. In such sen-
tenees the subclause shifts the domain instead of ineorporating
its situation into the head clause domain. The tense used in the
complement clause is therefore the preterite (whieh is the only
absolute tense that can establish a past time-sphere domain). Be-
eause there is no tense form expressing a domain-internal relatian,
the tempora! order of the situations is expressed only by the time
adverbial (the day before). If we omit this adverbial (John said
that Bill was in London), the idea that one situation is anterior
to the other is na longer expressed.
 520
c. Since the expression of temporal relations in a pre-present
domain may involve a shift of temporal perspective to the past
(cf. above),2 principle A correctly predicts that a head clause in
the present perfect can be followed by a past time-sphere tense in
the complement clause (as in He has always admitted that he had
made amistake ).
d. Principles A and B predict the grammaticality of examples
like (13)-(14), because they provide for the possibility of using an
absolute tense in a complement clause.
(13) John said that he will come.
(14) John said that New York is an interesting city.
Moreover, principle B states that these sentences realize a
marked possibility (the unmarked possibility being the use of past
time-sphete tenses in the that-clauses, as in (15)-(16)). This ac-
cords with the fact that there are restrictions on the use of sen-
tences like U3)-(14), whereas there are no restrictions on the use
of (15)-(16).
(15) John said that he would come.
(16) John said that New York was an interesting city.
The restrietion on the use of (13)-(14) is that these sentences
can only be used if, in the opinion of the (reporting) speaker,
the subclause situations are still valid at the moment of speech.
There is no such condition for the use of (15)-(16).
e. Our theory correctly predicts that 'backshifting' of tenses will
not always take place after a reporting clause in the past tense.
'Backshifted' tense forms are by definition relative tense forms.
There is therefore no 'backshifting' if the that-clause shifts the
domain. Moreover, even if the that-clause is temporally sub or-
dinated, there is no 'backshifting' of tense forms that express a
relation in a past domain. Consider:
2 The shift of perspective from the pre-present to the past takes place only
if the situation referred to by the present perfect is over at the moment of
speech. If the situation continues into the present, the subclause situation
must be directly related to the moment of speech, as in I have known for a
long time that Bill is unreliable.
521
(17) 1 r alized that I was late and that I would have to hurry.
(18) Bill said that he had realized that he was late and that
he would have to hurry.
The verb of the head clause of (17) is 'backshifted' in (18)
because the situation is now represented as anterior to Bill said
instead of as anterior to the moment of speech. The other tense
forms, however, are not 'backshifted' because the temporal rela-
tions which they express are not affected by this change. Both in
(17) and in (18) was late expresses simultaneity and would have
to hurryexpresses posteriority. (Remember that, in a past do-
main, we use the preterit for simultaneity and the conditional for
posteriority irrespective of whether the binding situation is or is
not the central situation of the domain. )
The conclusion from this section is that principles A and B
make correct predictions in conneetion with the different cases
of indirect speech that present themselves. According to these
principles, the tenses in indirect speech complement clauses are
usually relative tenses, but absolute tenses can also appear, sub-
ject to certain conditions, This means that what I propose is
basicallya 'relative time hypothesis' supplemented with some el-
ements from the 'absolute deixis hypothesis'.
4. COMRIE'S ARGUMENTS
The above conclusions run counter to Comrie (1986), where
it is claimed that the formal SoT hypothesis is the only of the
three hypotheses that is in keeping with the data of English. It
is therefore necessary that we should go into Comrie's arguments
and show in what way they are deficient.
Before doing so, however, I would like to point out that there
is one point on which lagree with Comrie (1986), viz. where
he claims that the absolute deixis hypothesis cannot (by itself)
account for the use of tenses in English indirect speech. Comrie
argues this point effectively by showing that the absolute deixis
hypothesis (which holds that indirect speech complement clauses
make use of absolute tense forms) makes the wrong predictions
in each of the following cases:
522
a. The absolute deixis hypothesis predicts that the indirect speech
version of (19) is (20), and not (21):
(19) Diana will say, 'I am dancing.'
(20) Diana will say that she will be dancing.
(21) Diana will say that she is dancing.
Comrie's formal SoT hypothesis (according to which the
tense of the original utterance is retained in the that-clause if
the tense of the verb of reporting is non-past) accounts for the
fact that the correct reported version of (19) is not (20) but (21).
The hypothesis I have been arguing also accounts for this fact,
because it states that the that-clause in (21) represents the situ-
ation of dancing as simultaneous with the head clause situation.
As we have seen, the relative tense used to express simultaneity
in a post-present domain is the present tense.
b. The second argument concerns sentences like the following:
(22) In 2010, Ebenezer will say, 'I got ten ure in 2000.'
(23) In ~010, Ebenezer will say that he got tenure in 2000.
(24) *In 2010, Ebenezer will say that he will get tenure
in 2000.
Since the year 2000 is future with respect to the moment of
speech, the absolute deixis hypothesis predicts that Ebenezer's
statement should be reported in the form of (24). However, the
correct indirect version of (22) is not (24) but (23). Cornrie's for-
mal SoT hypothesis is in keeping with this, as it states that a past
tense should be retained after a verb of reporting in a non-past
tense. Our own hypothesis also accounts for the data, because,
as we have seen, it provides for the possibility that the expression
of temporal relations in a domain established by a future tense
involves a shift of temporal perspective to the past time-sphere.
That is, the past ten se is used to represent a situation as being
past relative to the centra! situation of the future domain.
c. Consider:
(25) Tomorrow, Frances will say, 'I was absent yesterday.'
(26) Tomorrow, Frances will say that she was absent today,
(27) *Tomorrow, Frances will say that she is absent today.
523
The absolute deixis hypothesis wrongly predicts that (26)
should be ungrammatical (since an absolute past tense cannot re-
fer to present time) and that (27) should be the correct indirect
speech version of (25). The forma! SoT hypothesis, on the other
hand, correctly predicts the grammaticality of (26) and the un-
grammaticality of (27). Our own hypothesis does so too, because
it provides for the use of the past tense to represent a situation
as past with respect to the central situation of a future domain ,
This is the case in (26), where today indicates a time that is past
with respect to the time indicated by tomorrow.
It should be noted, however, that senten ces like (27) are not
always ungrammatical. The use of the present tense in the sub-
clause is occasionally possible, witness the following examples:
(28) One day John will regret that he is treating me like this.
(Dowty 1982:50)
(29) They will report tomorrow that Harry is transmitting.
(Ejerhed Braroe 1974:47)
In these examples, the that-clauses can be interpreted as re-
ferring to present (rather than future ) time. In that case they are
the indirect representations of a thought or utterance which, in di-
rect speech, would not be phrased in the present tense, but rather
in the preterite. That is, (29) (on the relevant interpretation) is
the indirect version of (30), not of (31):
(30) They will report tomorrow: 'Henry was transmitting
(yesterday). '
(31) They will report tomorrow: 'Henry is transmitting.'
Similarly, the thought which is reported in (28) and whiri is
the cause of the subjeer's regret is 'I treated (or: was treating)
her badly ', and not 'I am treating her badly'.
Sentences like (28)-(29) are subject to very severe restric-
tions: the substitution of the present tense for the preterite is
only exceptionally possible. Even so, there are examples (such as
(28)-(29)) that are grammatical, and this grammaticality should
be accounted for by an adequate theory of indirect speech. And
now we see that Comrie's formal SoT hypothesis is no longer up
to the mark: since it holds that "the tense of the original utter-
ance is retained" "if the tense of the verb of reporting is non-past"
 524
(Comrie 1986:279),it cannot account for the fact that a thought
or utterance in the past tense becomes a present tense statement
in indirect speech. The theory I have been arguing, however, does
provide for the grammaticality of (28)-(29). It holds that the tense
in an indirect speech complement clause may be either a relative
tense (expressing a domain-internal relation) or an absolute tense
(shifting the domain), and that the latter possibility is marked,
and therefore subject to restrictions. This theory predicts that
the normal (unmarked) reported version of (30) is They will re-
port tomorrow that Henry was transmitting today (in which was
transmitting is a relative tense ),3 but it also provides for the pos-
sibility that the that-clause shifts the domain from the future to
the present by using the present tense (as absolute tense). More-
over, it correctly predicts that this shift of domain is subject to
restrictions, since it is the marked possibility.
In sum, this is a clear example of a case in which our hypoth-
esis proves to be superior to Comrie's formal SoT analysis.
d. The fourth argument advanced by Comrie (1986) against the
absolute deixis hypothesis concerns sentences like the following:
(32) In 1970, Graham said, 'I will get tenure in 1980.'
(33) In 1970, Graham said that he would get tenure in 1980.
(34) *In 1970, Graham said that he got tenure in 1980.
The absolute deixis hypothesis incorrectly predicts that (34)
should be grammatical (since the subclause refers to a time that
is past with respect to the moment of speech). The formal SoT
analysis rules out (34), as it states that will must be backshifted
to would after a verb of reporting in the past tense. Our own
hypothesis also predicts the grammaticality of (33), as it states
that the tense in a complement clause is norrnally a relative tense,
and the relative tense needed here (to express posteriority in a
past domain) is, indeed, the conditional. (Note that , if (34) had
been grammatical, we would have accounted for that in terms
3 As noted in section 2, the tenses used to relate situations to the central
situation of a post-present domain are the same as the (absolute) tenses we
use to relate situations directly to the moment of speech. This explains that
we can use the preterite (was transmitting) to express a situation as anterior
to the central situation (will report) of a post-present domain.
525
of a shift of domain. However, we have seen that shifting the
domain is a marked possibility, which is subject to (often severe)
restrictions, and there is such arestriction forbidding the shift of
domain in sentences like (34). The restrietion in question is that
what is uttered as aprediction cannot be reported as a past facto
Such a report would not do justice to the contents of the original
utterance. )
e. The final piece of evidence adduced by Comrie against the
absolute deixis hypothesis concerns examples like the following:
(35) Yesterday, Henrietta said, 'I will be absent tomorrow'.
(36) Yesterday, Henrietta said that she would be absent to-
day.
(37) *Yesterday, Henrietta said that she is absent today.
The absolute deixis hypothesis incorrectly predicts that (37)
should be grammatical ("since a time point that is subsequent to
a time point prior to the present moment could happen to coincide
with 'the present moment" (p.282». Comrie's hypothesis (which
requires backshifting after said) accounts for the grammaticality
of (36) and the ungrammaticality of (37). Our hypothesis does so
too. It accounts for the use of the conditional tense in (36) (since
the conditional is the tense to be used to represent a situation as
posterior to the central situation ofthe past time-sphete domain),
And it accounts for the ungrammatlcality of (37) because it holds
that the use of an absolute tense (shifting the domain) in an in-
direct speech complement clause is a marked possibility which is
often blocked. (Sentence (37) is unacceptable as a report of (35)
for the same reason as (34) is unacceptable as a report of (32):
the contents of aprediction (which are by definition nonfactual)
should not be reported as a (past or present) fact.)
The above discussion can be summarized as follows. There
are five sets of data which the absolute deixis hypothesis cannot
account for. AH these data are consistent with both Comrie's
hypothesis and ours. However, the discussion has revealed that
there are other data (viz. sentences like (28)-(29» which our hy-
pothesis can account for, whereas Comrie's cannot.
526
Let us have a look now at the evidenee which Comrie adduees
against the 'relative time hypothesis '. (This evidence should also
refute our hypothesis, sinee this is basically a relative time hy-
pothesis, supplemented with the claim that the use of absolute
tense is sometimes pos sibie too.) Since a relative time hypothesis
is more plausible than the absolute deixis hypothesis - I know
of only three linguists that have advanced the latter, viz. Brecht
(1974), Riddle (1978) and Heny (1982:124), whereas the former
analysis is fairly widespread - we might expect Comrie to devote
even more space to refuting the former than he has devoted to
refuting the latter. However, this is by no means the case. Com-
rie treats the relative time hypothesis as if it were hardly worth
considering, and adduces only two arguments against it. The first
of them is really a nonargument: "Russian does use relative time
reference; English differs from Russian, therefore English cannot
use relative time reference" (p.278). Let us skip this argument
and move on to the second. It hinges on the example Andrew
said that he was sick (although he now claims to be better) and
runs as follows:
One possible interpretation of the indirect speech, and the one
that we shall be concerned with here, is that Andrew's actual
words were I arn sick, i.e. that the sickness in question is simul-
taneous with Andrew's utterance. If tense were conditioned by
relative time reference, however, the past tense would be inappro-
priate in these circumstances, or at least the present (simultaneity
with a contextually given reference point) should also be possible,
but in fact the present is not possible on this interpretation (in
particular, where Andrew's real or putative sickness does not ex-
tend to the present). Thus tense in indirect speech in English is
not conditioned by relative time reference. (p.278)
There are two (explicit or implicit) claims underlying this argu-
ment: (a) there is no tense in English that expresses relative time;
(b) if the expression of relative time were possible, simultaneity
would always have to be expressed by the present tense. Claim
(a) is made explicitly elsewhere in the article. After pointing out
(on p.272) that the preterite, the present tense, and the future
tense express absolute time in independent clauses, Comrie goes
on to claim that the sarne thing is true in embedded clauses:
527
It is important to note that these characterizations of the meanings
of these three tenses apply just as much in subordinate clauses as
in main clauses, as in (19):
(19) While Ian was singing, Jennifer was dancing.
In (19), the past tenses in both clauses are determined by past
time reference relative to the here-and-now, i.e. are absolute deictic
expressions; the fact that the actions of singing and dancing were
simultaneous (relative deixis) is not expressed grammatically in
English.
It is clear that we cannot subscribe to this view, which is as-
serted dogmatically, without a single piece of evidence supporting
it .. How can one accept (as Comrie does) that there are special
tenses (viz. the pluperfect and the conditional tense) to represent
a situation as anterior or posterior to a past situation, while at
the same time denying that it is possible to represent a situation
as simultaneous with a past situation? I certainly know of no
language (particularly in the Indo-European group) whose tense
system allows the expression of anteriority and posteriority, but
has no form( s) to express simultaneity. Moreover, the claim that
the past, present and future tenses can only be used as abso-
lute tenses is flatly contradicted by examples like Jennifer will be
dancing when Jan is singing or Tomorrow you will say that you
are sick, where the present tense forms (is singing, are) cannot
be interpreted as referring to the moment of speech and can only
be taken to be relative tense forms expressing simultaneity.
The second claim underlying Comrie's argument against a
relative time hypothesis is equally vacuous. If English allows the
expression of simultaneity, why should it be the case that only the
present tense could be used for this? This is again a claim that
is presented without evidence, and which is obviously in contra-
diction with the facts of English. I maintain that the preterite is
the tense to be used to express simultaneity in a past time-sphere
domain, and all the examples involving past time reference that
have been discussed so far support this view.
In sum, Comrie's arguments against a relative time hypoth-
esis turn out to be no arguments at all because they are based
on fallacies. This takes us back to the conclusion of the previ-
ous section, viz. that so far we have found one set of examples
that are inconsistent with Comrie's analysis, but none that are
inconsistent with the hypothesis I have been arguing.

528
5. FURTHER FACTS FROM COMRIE (1986)
Comrie (1986) also considers some "apparent problems"
(p.283) for the formal SoT hypothesis. Let us see if these data
are problems for our hypothesis too.
a. A formal SoT rule stipulating that backshifting of tenses is
obligatory after a verb of reporting in the past tense wrongly pre-
diets that sentences like the followingshould be ungrammatical:
(38) Yesterday, John said that he will arrive tomorrow.
(39) Bill said that he is ill.
Comrie solves this problem by adding arestriction to his rule of
SoT. The rule now stipulates that backshifting after a verb of
reporting in the past must take place, except "if the content of
the indirect speech has continuing applicability". In that case
"the backshifting is optional" (p.285).
Comrie also points out that some of these cases of continuing
applicability cannot be handled by the absolute deixis hypothesis.
For example:
(40) *Yesterday, Linda said she will arrive tomorrow,
but she immediately changed her mind.
Comrie's argument runs as follows."
Absolute deixis is incapable of distinguishing bet weengrammatical
examples like (39) and ungrammatical examples like (40), because
in both sentences the verb in the future has future time reference
relative to the here-and-now of the reporter, and should therefore
be grammatical. But whereas in (39) the content of the original
utterance still has continuing applicability, in (40) the final dause
makes it dear that the content of the original utterance does not
have continuing applicability. What is crucial in the examples dis-
cussed in this section is thus not the time reference of the content
of the original utterance, but rather its continuing applicability,
and examples like (40) show that these are not necessarily the
same. (p.286)
It is clear that this criticism applies to the absolute deixis hypoth-
esis but not to the one we have been arguing. Our hypothesis
explains the use of present time-sphere tenses in the that-clauses
4
I have substituted my own reference numbers for Comrie's in this quotation,
and in another that follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------,
529
of (38)-(39) as resulting from a shift of domain. It also says that a
shift of domain is a marked possibility (the unmarked alternative
being the use ofrelative tenses), and is therefore subject to restric-
tions. In the case of (38)-(40) this restrietion is that the statement
must have continuing applicability. (By relating the subclause sit-
uation to his own here-and-now the speaker makes clear that he
believes in the truth of the subclause. Of course he cannot do this
-- at least not without violating Griee's Maxim of Quality -- if
he has (and reports) information to the contrary.) Our hypothesis
is thus perfectly in keeping with Comrie's remarks. Moreover, it
is superior to Comrie's analysis in that it accounts for the use of
present time-sphere tenses in the that-clauses of (38)-(39) without
having to introduce an additional (and rather ad hoc) stipulation.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that Comrie's solution (ac-
cording to which backshifting is optional if the original utterance
has continuing applicability) fails to account for the fact that it
is sometimes impossible to use the present tense, in spite of the
fact that there is continuing applicability. The followingis a case
in point:
(41) This is John's wife. -- Yes, I THOUGHT he was mar-
ried.
As pointed out by Oakeshott-Taylor (1984:4),it is not possible to
substitute is married for was tnarried in the reply sentence (whieh
is to be read with the nuclear accent on thought). Vet it is obvious
that the speaker takes the truth of the that-clause for granted.
Examples like this make clear that there are restrictions on the
use of the present tense in indirect speech clauses depending on
a head clause in the past tense. This is in accordance with our
theory, which treats the use of the present tense as a shift of
domain, i.e. as a marked possibility, which is naturally subject to
restrictions. Comrie's theory, however, does not provide for such
restri ctions.5
5 The restrietion that is at work in (41) has to do with the fact that the verb of
the head dause is a cognition verb (thought). In general, cognition verbs very
seldom allow a shift of domain. The reason is that the report of a thought
is not feIt to be a faithful report if it involves a shift of domain, because the
shift changes the structure of the thought. This follows from the fact that
the speaker relates the contents of the that-dause to his own here-and-now
rather than to that of the original speaker.
530
b. The second of Comrie's "apparent problems for the SoT hy-
pothesis" arises from examples like the following, which should
be interpreted as uttered on Wednesday:
(42) On Friday, Oswald will say, 'I arrived on Thursday.'
(43) On Friday, Oswald will say that he arrived on Thursday.
(44) ?On Friday, Oswald will say that he arrived tomorrow.
The absolute deixis hypothesis wrongly predicts that (43)
and (44) are ungrammatical, The forma! SoT analysis predicts
that they should both be grammatical, and therefore also meets
with a problem, for it turns out to be the case that many speak-
ers find (44) ungrammatlcal. Comrie's solution to this problem is
that, for those speakers who reject (44), a collocation restrietion
should be formulated which says that a sentence is ungramrnat-
ical if it combines a tense that has past time reference with a
"time adverbia! whose meaning incorporates future time refer-
ence" (p.288). (Note that on Thursday in (43) "does not have
future time reference as part of its meaning" (p.288). It is only
because of the context that it is here interpreted as referring to
the future. ) Comrie concludes: "If this collocation restrietion
accoun t is correct, then the ungrammaticall ty of (44) (for some
speakers) is accounted for by a principle independent of the se-
quence of tenses rule, and the validity of this rule is unaffected."
(p.288) Since this statement is also applicable to our hypothesis
- we will also have to accept the existence of a restrietion of
this kind - the conclusion is that cases like (44) do not provide
evidence for or against either of the competing hypotheses.
c. Comrie stresses that his SoT rule "is completely independent
of the meaning of the tense forms involved, it is a purely formal
operation" (p.290). It follows that sentences like (46), in which
the predicted backshifting of the past tense to the pluperfect does
not take place, form a challenge for the formal SoT theory:
531
(45) Yesterday, Wendy said, 'I arrived yesterday.'
(46) Yesterday, Wendy said that she arrived the day before
yesterday.
(47) Yesterday, Wendy said that she had arrived the day be-
fore yesterday.
The fact that both (46) and (47) are grammatica! presents no
problem for our hypothesis: (47) illustrates the normal rule that
the past perfect is used when a situation that is incorporated into
a past time-sphere domain is represented as anterior to another
situation in that domain; (46) is an instanee of a shift of domain,
i.e. the that-clause situation is not incorporated into the existing
domain but is represented as establishing a domain of its own (by
the use of the preterite as absolute tense).
However, the grammaticality of (46) does present a problem
for Comrie's theory. In order to solve it, Comrie proposes that
we should accept the following two principles:
(a) "Where the verb in the original utterance is in a past tense
already, it remains unchanged after a main clause verb in the
past tense in indirect speech" (pp.290-291)
(b) "In English, any event in the past can be referred to by the
past. If that event is located prior to some contextually es-
tablished reference point in the past, then the past may be
replaced by the pluperfect" (p.292)
According to Comrie, principle (a) explains the grammaticality
of (46), while principle (b) accounts for that of (47).
Several things should be noted here:
1) These principles again constitute ad hoc supplements to the
SoT rule. Our hypothesis, in contrast, accounts for them
without any additional apparatus.
2) Principle (b) involves reference to a temporal relation. This
means that Comrie is moving away here from a pure formal
SoT hypothesis (which hinges on the claim that SoT happens
independently of tempora! relations) and is trespassing on the
ground of the relative time hypothesis. (As a matter of fact,
this is the second time that Comrie has recurred to semantics,
for the not ion of continuing applicability is also asemantic
notion. )
532
3) Principle Ca) is flatly contradicted by the observation
loved her cannot be reported as He said he loved her, un-
less there is a context that excludes interpreting loved as a
relative tense form expressing simultaneity. (Since Comrie's
principles are of a purely formal nature, they operate inde-
pendently of the context. Principle (a) therefore wrongly
predicts that I loved her can always be reported as He said
he loved her.) (Note that our theory naturally accounts for
the fact that this kind of report is not always possible, as it
holds that a shift of domain is only admissible if it does not
obscure the temporal relations.)
4) The two principles do not account for the restrictions that
are to be observed in the following examples:
(48) (a) I spoke to her when she came home.
(b) He said he had spoken to her when she camel
had come home.
(c) *He said he spoke to her when she had come home.
(ungrammatical as a report of (48,a))
(49) (a) I spent some time with John, who felt lonely.
(b) She said that she had spent some time with John,
who felt/had felt lonely.
(c) *She said she spent some time with John, who had
felt lonely.(ungrammatical as a report of (49,a))
(50) (a) I was sad while I was alone.
(b) She said she had been sad while she was/
had been alone.
(c) *She said she was sad while she had been alone.
(51) (a) I decided not to buy the house because it was
on a main road.
(b) He explained he had decided not to buy the house
because it wasl*had been on a main road.
(52) (a) John said: 'I told Betty that I was feeling ill.'
(b) John said that he had told Betty that he was
feeling/*had been feeling ill.
(53) (a) Ileft the money where it was.
(b) He said he had left the money where it was/
*h;;tdbeen.
533
that I In our theory the use of the past tense in the most deeply em-
bedded subclauses of the (b) sentences (i.e. in the subclauses
that appear in final position) follows naturally from the fact
that these subclauses represent their situations as simultane-
ous with a past binding time. The fact that the past per-
fect is sometimes also possible in these clauses follows from
the fact that in some types of subclause 'indirect binding' is
allowed. This means that the subclause in question is tem-
porally bound, not by its own matrix (superordinate clause),
but by the clause that also binds its matrix (cf. chapter 2
of Declerck, forthcoming). In Comrie's theory, principle (b)
will have to account for the past perfects in the sentence-final
clauses of (48,b), (49,b) and (50,b): we will have to say that
the past perfect can each time be used in the third clause
because the situation referred to is anterior to the situation
of the first clause (whose verb is said). However, this expla-
nation fails to account for the fact that the past perfect is
not possible in the third clause of (51,b), (52,b) and (53,b),
where the same anteriority relation exists between the third
clause and the first. (Our analysis can account for this, since
indirect binding is a restricted option, which is only available
if it does not obscure the temporal relations.)
Another problem for Comrie's theory is that it wrongly
predicts that the (c) sentences of (48)-(50) are grammatical
reports of the (a) sentences. According to Comrie the past
tense of the original report can always be retained (which is
what happens in the first subclause of each (c) sentence) or
can under certain conditions be backshifted to a past perfect
(which is what happens in each of the final clauses of the (c)
sentences ). The condition under which the past perfect can
be used is that there is some contextually given past refer-
ence point to which the relevant situation is anterior. This
condition is satisfied in the (c) sentences, since the situation
of the final clause is each time anterior to that of the first
clause. Still, the (c) sentences are no grammatical reports of
the (a) sentences, which means that Comrie's theory makes
incorrect predictions. (In our theory the observation that the
final clause of the (c) sentences cannot be in the past perfect
is explained from the fact that this clause must be bound
534
by its matrix and that the relation to be expressed is that
of simultaneity, (Using a past perfect would be an instanee
of indirect binding, but this is not possible here because the
second clause is not bound: it shifts the domain. The second
and third clauses thus belong to a domain that is different
from the one established by the first clause. Self-evidently
this means that the first clause cannot bind the third.))
5) Last but not least, Comrie's principles (a) and (b) imply that ,
in pairs like (46)-(47), where the that-clause refers to a situa-
tion that is anterior to the head clause situation, the preterite
is the unmarked choice in the that-clause, whereas the use of
the past perfect is a marked altemative. This runs counter to
our theory, which holds that the use of the past tense (which
shifts the domain ) is the marked possibility. The unmarked
alternative is the use of the past perfect (which incorporates
the that-clause situation into the existing domain). Now, it
is not difficult to prove that it is indeed the past tense that
is the marked choice, i.e. the choice that is subject to restric-
tions. When a direct speech statement in the past tense is
embedded under a verb of reporting in the past tense, the
'backshift ' from the absolute preterite to the pluperfect is
always possible. It is not subject to any restrictions what-
soever. The use of an absolute past tense, however, requires
that the anteriority relation between the that-clause situation
and the head clause situation should be clear from an adver-
bial, the context, or the hearer's knowledge of the world (cf.
above). If that is not the case, the preteri te will make for
a sentence that is unacceptable because it violates the gen-
erally accepted principles of conversation. Thus a sentence
like John said he had been ill, if presented out of context,
cannot be replaced by John said he was ill without violation
of Grice's (1975) Maxim of Quantity (which requires that the
speaker should make his contribution sufficiently inforrnative
to guide the hearer unequivoca.lly to the intended interpreta-
tion). Failing evidence to the contrary, John said he was ill
will be interpreted as a report of I am ill, not as a report of
I was ill.
535
Examples of domain shifting in temporal clauses confirm this
conclusion. (I feel entitled to include time clauses in the discus-
sion because Comrie (1986:292) does so too: He refers to the tense
vacillation in After he ate/had eaten breakfast, Xenophon put on
his armor as evidence for his principle (b).) Like complement
clauses, time clauses allow a shift of domain (entailing that the
situation is no longer related to any ot her situation) only if the
temporal relation between the situations of head clause and time
clause are recoverable in some ot her way. In the above exam-
ple, the relation is recoverable because it is explicitly expressed
by after. But the relation is no longer recoverable if we replace
after by a temporally vague conjunction such as when. In con-
sequence, the Maxim of Quantity forbids replacing When he had
eaten breakfast, Xenophon put on his armour by When he ate
breakjast. Xenophon put on his artnour.
We must conclude that Comrie's treatment of sentences like
(46) (in which the preterite from the origina.l utterance is not
'backshifted") is not satisfactory. This is another case, then, where
the formal SoT hypothesis is deficient, whereas the analysis ar-
gued here neatly accounts for the data.
6. FURTHER ARGUMENTS
Let us now consider some data which are not mentioned in
Comrie (1986) and which provide further evidence against his SoT
hypothesis.
a. Examples can be found of indirect speech sentences whose
complement clauses are in the present perfect although the tense
of the head clauses is past:
(54) The Secretary of Labor stated the other day that in the
past couple of months there have only been 200 lost man
days. (Ota 1963:115)
(55) Not too long ago (...) a gentleman who'd been on foreign
service mentioned that Latin America has not had its
New Deal. (ibid)
(56) The Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday that
Britain's economy has looked up considerably during the
past two months.
 536
In our theory such sentences are explained in terms of a shift of
domain: the head clause establishes a domain in the past time-
sphere, whereas the subclause establishes one in the present time-
sphere. As usual, the shift is semantically motivated. In this case
the motivation is that the embedded statement concerns a period
which started in the past and reaches up to the present. As is
well-known, the present perfect is the normal tense to refer to
such a period.
Sentences like (54)-(56) run counter to the formal SoT hy-
pothesis because they exhibit no backshifting in spite of the fact
that the verb of reporting is in the past tense. To salvage the SoT
rule one would have to formulate still another ad hoc restrietion
providing for this kind of exception. Needless to say, this would
erode the rule even further.
b. We now come to a piece of evidence which is really detrirnen-
tal to the formal SoT hypothesis. As noted briefly in section 2,
domain-internal relations within a domain established by a so-
called 'indefinite' perfect are normally expressed by the system of
tenses typical of the past time-sphere." That is, once the present
perfect has established the domain, there is a shift of temporal
perspective to the past time-sphere. The following sentences ex-
emplify this:
(57) He's been here once or twice, while his wife was on holi-
day,
(58) Have you ever spoken to her af ter she had had one of
her fits?
The same shift of temporal perspective is to be observed in indi-
rect speech sentences:"
6
An 'indefinite perfect' refers to a pre-present situation that is completed
before the moment of speech.
7 We can also find indirect speech sentences that use a present perfect in the
complement clause after a present perfect in the head clause:
(i) I have always maintained that I have never said that.
In this sentence the speaker does not use a relative tense incorporating the
subclause situation into the head clause domain. Instead, he uses an absolute
tense which shifts the domain, i.e. which creates a new pre-present domain.
The semantic motivation for this shift is that the speaker wants the comple-
ment clause to refer to a time interval reaching up to the moment of speech.
537
e 59) I have never said that you were stupid.
e60) (He has met her several times but) he has never told his
wife that he had met her.
(61) (He has met her many times and) he has always
promised her that he would not say anything to her hus-
band.
Wh en we reconstruct the direct speech statements that are re-
ported in these sentences, we see that they are in the present,
present perfect, and fut ure tense, respectively. This means that ,
in the terminology of the formal SoT hypothesis, (59)-( 61) are
instances of backshifting after a verb in the present perfect. Such
sentences constitute an insurrnountable problem for Comrie's the-
ory, as they are incompatible with the most basic claim of the hy-
pothesis, viz. the claim that backshifting is "a purely formal op-
eration" (p.290) which is triggered by the past tense of the verb
of reporting in the head clause and which consequently cannot
occurif the tense of the verb of reporting is non-past. Since sen-
tences like (59)-(61) have a reporting verb in the present perfect,
they present a case of backshifting which simply falls outside the
scope of the forrnal SoT rule. (The present perfect is a non-past
tense. Comrie himself treats it this way on p.290 of his article.)
This thrusts to the heart of the SoT hypothesis. This time the
hypothesis can no longer be salvaged by the forrnulation of an ad
hoc restrietion on its applicability.
c. Up to now I have only adduced arguments that are based
on observations. Obviously, these arguments in themselves are
amply sufficient to demonstrate that the formal SoT hypothesis
is untenable. However, it is worth pointing out that this analysis
also raises all kinds of theoretical problems.
1) As has often been pointed out, a quotative analysis of indirect
speech (i.e. an analysis which derives indirect speech sentences
from direct speech ones) meets with the problem that some verbs
(e.g. realize, regret) can be foUowed by an indirect speech (or
indirect thought) clause but not by a direct quote.
2) Comrie himself argues that the 'adaptation ' of deictics other
than tense (i.e. pronouns and adverbs of time or place) in indirect
speech is not the result of a forrnal rule. The deictics in question

538
are related either to the here-and-now of the reporting speaker
(as in He told me that he would do it tomorrow) or to the time
of the head clause situation (as is the case for the next day in He
said he would do it the next day). Given this fact , it is hard to
imagine that the verbal deictics should be analysed in a totally
different way. Our hypothesis, which holds that verb forms in
indirect speech are either absolute deictics (relating the situation
to the here-and-now of the reporting speaker) or relative ones
(relating the situation to the time of the head clause situation),
treats verbal deictics in exactly the same way as the pronominal
and adverbial ones.
3) Comrie's analysis of indirect speech is not applicable to so-
called 'free indirect speech' (erlebte Rede), unless it is assumed
that a free indirect speech sentence is the result of ellipting the re-
porting clause of a direct speech sentence. (The lat ter solution is
not without problems. To mention only one: how is the hearer to
know whether the verb ofthe deleted clause is thought or believed,
said to himself, realized, noticed, etc.? That is, this kind of dele-
tion would not satisfy the well-known recoverability requirement.)
Our theory, however, does not need to posi t a deleted hyperclause
in order to account for the 'backshifted' tenses in free indirect
speech. As is well-known, the speaker may assume the temporal
standpoint of a. participant in a past situation in order to suggest
that the situation is expressed from his point of view. This means
that he relates the situations to a particular past time (the time
when the relevant character said, thought or observed something)
rat her than to his own here-and -now. The past time-sphere tenses
in free indirect speech are thus explained as tenses that are bound
by the past time that the speaker is focussing on. Our analysis
therefore does not need to consider free indirect speech senten ces
as derived (through deletion of the reporting clause) from indi-
rect speech sentences (which, on this hypothesis, are themselves
derived from sequences involving a direct quote).
4) Comrie is at pains to argue that he can account for the use
of tenses in indirect speech without referring to the semantics of
the temporal relations. He repeatedly makes statements of the
following kind:
One feature of tense backshifting that takes place in indirect
539
speech after a main verb in the past tense is that (apart from the
stipulation concerning continuing applicability) it is completely
independent of the meaning of the tense forms involved, it is a
purely forma! operation. (Comrie 1986:289-290)
However, statements like this raise intriguing theoretical ques-
tions. How can we reconcile this view (that the use of the tenses
in indirect speech bears no relation to the meaning of the tense
forms in question) with Comrie's definition of tense as "the gram-
maticalisation of location in time" (Comrie 1985:1)? The claim
that backshifting is a "purely forrnal" operation, which is "in-
dependent of the meaning of the tense form involved", suggests
that was in John said he was ill has the same meaning as am
in I am ill. If this is not the case, Comrie's SoT rule is not
a purely formal rule, as it has semantic import. But of course
was is semantically different from am. Comrie himself admits as
much when he formulates the 'collocation restriction' which leads
to the reduced acceptability of? On Friday, Oswald wil! say that
he arrived tomorrow as follows:
what is wrong with (86) is the apparent direct conflict between the
past tense, part of whose meaning is past time reference, and a
time adverbia! whose meaning incorporates future time reference.
(Comrie 1986:288)
If past time reference is part of the meaning of arrived in the
above example, then that element of meaning must have been
introduced by the backshifting operation. But if so, we cannot
maintain the fiction that the operation is a purely formal one.
Moreover, once this is clear we must ask the question whether
the element of past meaning results from the fact that the form
of the verb is changed from present tense to preterit or whether it
is the other way round (i.e. the choice of verb form is determined
by the meaning to be expressed). In my opinion, there is little
doubt that the latter hypothesis is the correct one. If this were not
the case, the 'backshifting' rule would be without any motivation
whatsoever.
If one reads the artiele carefully, one easily sees that Com-
rie does not succeed in eliminating semantics from his allegedly
"purely formal" rule. Each of the three additions to the origi-
nal formulation of the rule crucially refers to the meaning of the
540
tense forms. Moreover , even the fi.rst formulation eneroaehes on
semantics, and Comrie himself points this out when he writes:
...the sequence of tenses rule (...) says either (for non-past main
clause verb) that the tense of the original utterance is retained,
or (for past tense main clause verb) that a transposition is to be
applied to the tense of the original utterance. In either case, the
tense of the original utterance is crucial (...) Thus, there is a very
real sense in which relative deixis, relative to the speech situation
of the original utterance, is part of tense in indirect speech in
English. (Comrie 1986:283)
However, if one accepts this, there is absolutely no reason left
to assume the existence of a formal backshifting rule: given that
tenses in indirect speech (at least, the 'backshifted' ones) express
relative deixis, and given the fact that the relative tenses to be
used for this if the binding time belongs to a past domain are
past time-sphere tenses, the use of past time-sphere tenses in in-
direct speech after a head clause in a past tense is automatically
accounted for.
5) One of the questions raised by the formal SoT hypothesis is why
it is completely impossible to backshift the past perfect. Comrie's
(1986:291) answer to this is that there is no verb form *had had
seen. (In fact *had have seen would have been a more likely can-
didate.) However,if backshifting were a rule that was operative in
English, it is rather unlikely that the form *had have seen would
not have existed. After all, this is not a very complex form. It is
no more complex than would have seen or will have seen and even
less complex than has been going to see, was going to have seen,
will have been going to see, etc. This suggests that the nonexis-
tence of *had have seen fails to be explained by the suggestion
that this is too complex a form to be acceptable. Moreover, we
also observe that would see is never backshifted in indirect speech.
Vet, we note the existence of the forms had been going to see and
would have seeti. One of these would surely do if English needed
a backshifted version of would see, The condusion is clear: if the
past perfect and the conditional tense are not backshifted, it is
not for lack of suitable verb forms. It is simply because there is
no such thing as a formal backshifting rule in English. The truth
is that the past perfect and the conditional express a temporal
relation in a past domain and that they do so irrespective of the
location of the binding time in the domain. This means that the
541
reason why the past perfect is not backshifted when we report I
had already left when Mary arrived as Bill said he had already left
when Mary arrived is that in both sentences Bill's leaving is ex-
pressed as anterior to Mary's arrival. And a similar remark can be
made in conneetion with the conditional tense: I thought I would
meet her here is reported as He said he had thought he would meet
her there without there being any need for 'backshifting' would
meet because the temporal relation remains the same.
6) According to Comrie, one of the advantages of the formal SoT
hypothesis is that it offers a unified account of the data and is
therefore more economical than an analysis which is based on two
or more principles:
Sequence of tenses (...) provides a homogeneous solution to the
general problem of tense in indirect speech in English, covering
all examples with a single set of principles. Of course, it would
surely be possible to take absolute deixis in those instances where
it happens to make the same predictions as sequence of tenses,
then take some other principle (perhaps relative deixis) in some of
the cases where absolute deixis makes incorrect predictions, plus
perhaps some other principle where even this combination fails to
make the correct prediction, and come up with a composite ac-
count which would have different principles or sets of principles
operating in different sets of cases. This simply illustrates a com-
monplace of science, namely that given a particular hypothesis
which covers a certain range of data, it is always possible to come
up with some more complex theory that covers the same range of
data. The beauty of the sequence of tenses rule is that it covers
the whole range of data with just a single simple set of principles.
(Comrie 1986:282-283)
At first sight Comrie's formal SoT analysis might seem to be
simpler than our analysis (which holds that indirect speech com-
plement clauses use either relative or absolute tense forms). How-
ever, it soon becomes clear that this is not true. The above
quotation refers to the preliminary version of the SoT rule, i.e.
to the version which covers only the 'backshifted' tense forms.
Our analysis also needs only one principle to account for these,
since the cases in which there is 'backshifting' coincide with the
cases which we analyse in terms of temporal subordination. How-
ever, immediately after the above quotation Comrie has to add a
couple of ad hoc stipulations to his rule in order to accommodate
the various cases in which there is no 'backshifting'. In our the-
ory all these cases are analysed as shifts of domain. This analysis,
542
which works with two principles only, is therefore more econom-
ical than Comrie's, which works with a basic rule and a num-
ber of exceptions. Moreover , our analysis is applicable not only
to indirect speech subclauses but to subclauses generally. Com-
rie, by contrast, treats the 'backshift' of tenses in indirect speech
complement clauses as an isolated phenomenon, unrelated to the
behaviour of tenses in other environments. This not only makes
his analysis less general and hence less economical than ours but
also appears unjustified, since we notice a striking parallelism be-
tween what happens in indirect speech and what happens in other
clauses (both embedded and unembedded). Compare:
(62) (a) The man said he had heard a shot in the street.
(b) The man phoned the poli ce. He had heard a shot in
the street.
(c) The man, who had heard a shot in the street, phoned
the police.
(d) The man phoned the police because he had heard a
shot in the street.
(e) The man reported the fact that he had heard a shot
in the street to the police.
In the theory I have argued, the use of the past perfect receives the
same explanation in each of these examples: the past perfect is
used because the situation referred to is incorporated into the past
time-sphere domain established by the head clause or preceding
context, and because it is represented as anterior to the central
situation of that domain. (The first element of the explanation
accounts for the use of a past tense (the past perfect), the second
for the use of a tense signalling anteriority (the past perfect).)
Om hypothesis therefore makes a much larger generalization than
the formal SoT hypothesis could ever achieve: it accounts for the
8 The following show how tense harmony works in larger discourses:
fact that 'tense harmony' takes place not only in complement
clauses after verbs of saying or thinking (where it is called SoT)
but also in other types of noun clause (e.g. ft was clear that he
was lying, There was a chance that she would die, The idea
that she was perhops dead had not occurred to me), and in fact
in any kind of clause that allows temporal subordination (e.g.
Last week he made a promise which he would not keep, I got
the job because I knew the manager weU, They needed someone
543
who had studied languag .S ).8 Jt als accounts for the fact that
tense harmony may be 'violat d' both in complement claus es and
in other types of clause ( . . Last week he made a promise which
he will never keep): t nso harrnony disappears whenever the
speaker prefers to shift th d main.
7. ONCLUSION
We have investigat d three a priori possible explanations of
the behaviour of tens 's in j ndirect speech, viz. the absolute deixis
hypothesis, the forrnal S T hypothesis, and a hypothesis which
holds that the t ns 's in indirect speech complement clauses are
mostly relati V', but sometimes absolute tenses. We have sub-
scribed to Cornric's (1.986) claim that there are data which can-
not be accou nt-cl f )' by the absolute deixis hypothesis. We also
agree that a '1' ilativ time hypothesis' which holds that the tenses
in indirect: sp eh complement clauses must invariably be rela-
tive tenses is untenable. However, contrary to Comrie (1.986),
we have shown that the formal SoT hypothesis is not adequate
either. S v ral arguments have been adduced to this effect, the
most important of which are the following:
a. There are too many data that are incompatible with the ba-
sic claims of the formal SoT hypothesis, and which can only be
treated as exceptions.
b. The formal SoT hypothesis does not cover cases of backshifting
after a reporting verb in a non-past tense.
c. The formal SoT hypothesis does not cover cases in which there
is no backshifting in spite of the fact that the reporting verb
is in a past tense. (I am referring here to the fact that tense forms
(i) John has a very good memory, which he has always thought of as a
great advantage. He stores up the things his friends say to him and if
he does not understand them, he goes back to them for clarification
after he has turned them over in his mind.
(ii) John had a very good memory, which he had always thought of as a
great advantage. He stored up the things his friends said to him and if
he did not understand them, he went back to them for clarification
after he had turned them over in his mind.
 544

expressing a temporal relation in a past domain are not back-

shifted in indirect speech.)
d. We have mentioned no fewerthan six objections of a theoretical
nature that can be made against the formal SoT hypothesis. One
of the most serious is that it misses an important generalization
because it treats tense in indirect speech complement clauses as
totally unrelated to tense in other environments.
The theory we have argued, according to which complement
clauses may use either relative tenses or absolute tenses (the for-
mer possibility being the unmarked one), is subject to none of
these objections. It accounts naturally for all the possibilities
that manifest themselves, both in indirect speech and in other
contexts.

Address of the author: Renaat Declerck

K.U. Leuven, Campus Kortrijk
Universitaire Campus
B-8500 Kortrijk (Belgium)

REFERENCES

Brecht, R.D. 1974. "Deixis in Embedded Structures." Foundations of Lan-

guage 11, 489-518.
Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. 1986. "Tense in Indirect Speech." Folia Linguistiea 20, 265-296.
Declerck, R. (forthcoming). Tense in English: lts Structure and Use in Dis-
course. London: Routledge.
Dinsmore, J. 1982. "The Semantic Nature of Reiehenbach's Tense System."
Glossa 16, 216-239.
Dowty, D.R. 1982. "Tense, Time Adverbs, and Compositional Semantie The-
ory." Linguisties and Philosophy 5, 23-55.
Ejerhed Braroe, E. 1974. The Syntax and Semantics of English Tense Mark-
ers. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Institute of Linguisties.
Griee, P. 1975. "Logic and Conversation." In: P. Cole &. J.L. Morgan (eds)
Syntax and Semanties 3: Speech Acts. New Vork: Academie Press,
41-58.
Heny, F. 1982. "Tense, Aspect and Time AdverbiaIs: Part 2." Linguisties &.
Philosophy 5: 109-154.
Oakeshott-Taylor, J. 1984. "Factuality and Intonation." Journal of Linguis-
ties 20: 1-21.
Ota, A. 1963. Tense and Aspect of Present-day Ameriean English. Tokyo:
Kenyusha.
Riddle, E.M. 1978. Sequence of tenses in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
View publication stats