Double System of Tense Forms Referring Future Time in English

Journal cfsmantiu I 2: 269-3 1 0 @Oxford University Press 1995
he Double System of Tense Forms Referring to Future

Time in English
RENAAT DECLERCK a n d ILSE DEPRAETERE
University ofLeuven
Downloaded from http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on April 8, 2016
Abstract
As is well known, some types of subclause in English differ from independent clauses in that
they require a different tense form when the reference is to the future. We say Iwill be happy if
the weather is nice tomorrow, but not * l a m happy ifthe weather is nice tomorrow or *Iwill be happy ifthe
weather will be nice tomorrow. As is clear from these examples, the two ways of referring to the
future are subject to different conditions, and each has a distribution of its own. This article
investigates the two systems in detail. It shows how they fit into a more general theory of tense,
offers an explanation for their different distributions and examines the subtle semantic
differences between their uses in clauses that allow both (e.g. resmcdve relative clauses).
I INTRODUCTION
It is clear from examples like Ifthe weather isfine, we'll have apicnic tomorrow that
the English tense system provides two different means of referring to the future.
The ungrammaticality of *@he weather will befine and *we have apicnic tomorrow
shows that these two devices are subject to different conditions and that each
has a distribution of its own. Although the descriptive facts are well known, this
double system raises a number of theoretical questions. The most interesting
are whether there is an explanation for the different distributions of the two
systems, and which factors induce a speaker to use the one or other system in
clauses that allow either (as in restrictive clauses).
Though it is in principle possible to tackle these questions in isolation, we
believe it can be done more fruitfiully w i h n the framework of a general theory
of tense. The framework we will make use of is that proposed by Declerck
(1991).We will begin by sketching the general outlines of this theory, limiting
ourselves to those principles that will prove to be directly relevant to the subject
under investigation
The stamng point of the theory is that the use of a tense form in English
implies that the speaker views the situation referred to as either past or non-past
with respect to the time functioning as 'temporal zero-point' (which is usually
the moment of speech). That is, any tense form locates its situation either in the
'past time-sphere' or in the 'present time-sphere'. These time-spheres are no
270 Tense Forms Referring to Future Time in English
objective physical entities but represent the ways in which an English language
user conceptualizes time. The past time-sphere is conceived as a time-span of
indefinite length which lies wholly before (and hence does not include) the
temporal zero-point .),t( TOlocate a situation in this time-sphere the speaker
uses the preterite (simple past). The present time-sphere is conceived as a time-
span of indefinite length which includes t,, and is divided by it into three
'sectors': the portion of the present time-sphere that precedes ,t is the 'pre-pres-
ent sector'; the portion that is centred on t,, is the 'present sector'; and the por-
tion that follows 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. (These time spans are called
'absolute' because they are defined in direct relation to q,.) The four tenses that
are used to locate situations in one of these four sectors can therefore be called
'absolute tenses'. It is typical of absolute tenses that they relate their situation
directly to t,, (by locating it in one of the absolute sectors) and not to the time of
another situation or to another reference time.
When the two situations are located within the same sector, there are in
principle two possibilities: either both of them are represented as related to t,,,
or one situation is related to t,,while the second is related to the first. T o capture
these possibilities we need the notion of 'temporal domain'. A (temporal)
domain is a set of times which either consists of the time of a single situation or
comprises the times of several situations that are temporally related to each
other by tense forms. For example, the four situations referred to in ( I ) are
located within a single temporal domain:
(I) 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 absolure tense form (said) which locates the time of
the situation of saying in the past sector and by doing so creates a past time-
sphere domain (or 'past domain' for short).The time of the situation in question
-
is called the 'central TO' (TO time of orientation)' of the domain. The times
of the situations referred to in the other clauses are temporally related to thls. T o
introduce a further couple of terms, we will say that these times are 'temporally
subordinated' to the central TO, or that they are 'bound' by the latter. The
central TO is thus the 'binding' TO. When the time of a situation is bound, the
tense form used is a 'relative' tense form? For example, the past perfect form
Itad worked in the first that-clause of ( I ) is a relative tense form representing the
time of its situation as anterior to the central TO. The preterite form was is also
a relative tense form: unlike said, which establishes the domain (and is therefore
an absolute tense form), was expresses a relation in the past domain, namely the
Renaar Declerck and llse Depraerere 271
relation of simultaneity. And similarly, would go is a relative tense form,

representing the rime of its situation as posterior to the central TO.
Since the time of a situation can always serve as the binding T O for the time
of another situation, and is therefore always an actual or potential T O (cf. note
2), we will replace the cumbersome term 'time of the situation' by 'situation-
TO' and abbreviate this to 'STO'.4 It follows that we can refine the definition of
temporal domain by saying that it is a set of (one or more) TOs. Since a domain
can only be established by a tense form, it necessarily contains at least one STO.
If an absolute tense form is used, the S T 0 is the central T O of the domain (and
possibly the only T O in it). If a relative tense form is used, the S T 0 is
temporally subordinated to another TO, which may be either the central T O or
any other T O in the domain (see below). It should also be noted that a T O is not
necessarily an STO: it may also be an 'implicit' TO. For example, in John had
woken up early that day the S T 0 (the time ofJohn's waking up) is represented as
anterior to the central T O of a past domain, but the latter T O is 'implicit' in
that it is not identified as being an S T 0 (the time of a situation).
Another point worth making is that by 'time of the situation' (STO) we mean
the time interval taken up by that part of the situation that is being referred to
(and located in time) by the clause involving the relevant tense form. That is, we
must distinguish between the S T 0 and the time of the full (complete) situation
as it actually takes place. In T w o minutes agoJohn was in the library, the S T 0 is the
time of that part of the situation that concides with the time indicated by two
minutes ago. The time of the full situation may be much longer-John may have
been in the library for hours and may still be there at 6-but this is not what the
sentence makes a statement about. All that is claimed in the sentence is that two
minutes ago it was the case that John was in the library at that time. It is
therefore necessary to distinguish carefully between the S T 0 and the 'full
situation'.' (This is not to say that the two cannot coincide. They do when the
sentence refers to the complete situation, i.e. if the sentence receives a 'bounded'
interpretation.)
It should be clear from the above comment on ( I ) that the preterite 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 the conditional tense, on the other hand, can only be used as
relative tenses.
When a relative tense form is used, the S T 0 need not always be related to
the central T O of the domain into which it is incorporated. The binding T O
may also be another T O in the domain. For example, in (2) the working is
represented as simultaneous with the feeling tired, which is itself represented as
anterior to the saying:
(2) John said he had felt very tired when he was working.
It should be noticed that in ( I ) and (2) the relative tense form used to express
simultaneity is each time the preterite, irrespective of whether the binding T O
is or is not the cental T O of the domain. This means that there is a single system
of relative tenses to express relations in a past domain: we always use the
preterite for simultaneity, the past perfect for anteriority, and a form with would
or weregoing to for posteriority, irrespective of whether the binding T O is the
central T O or a bound TO.
Apart from the notion of a temporal domain, we also need the notion of
'shift of temporal perspective'.b By this we mean the phenomenon that when we
expand a domain the domain in question is sometimes treated as if it belonged
to another absolute sector. A well-known example is the so-called historical
present: a situation that lies in the past oft,, is treated as if it were a present
situation. Another example, which is directly relevant to the subject under
discussion, is the use of tense forms to develop a post-present domain. Once a
post-present domain has been established and we want to incorporate an S T 0
into it, we treat the central T O of the post-present domain as if it were a present
T O (i.e. as if it included t,, or coincided with t,,). This means that in order to
relate the time of a situation to this post-present T O we use one of the same
tenses as we use to relate an ST0 to t,,. In other words, the set of relative tenses
used to relate an S T 0 to the central TO of a post-present domain is the same as
the set of absolute tenses. This is clear from examples like the following:
(3) (a) (If we dump his body in Soho after we have killed him) the police will
think that he was killed there.
(b) Next Friday hls excuse for being late will probably be that he has been
caught in a trafficjam caused by the Pope's visit.
(c) (When you arrive in Tokyo) you will see that it is already dark.
(d) (If I make up my mind to resign) you will be the first to hear when
exactly I will do so.
In each of these examples the head clause establishes a post-present domain and
the S T 0 of the that-clause is incorporated into it. Since the speaker treats the
central T O as if it were t,,, he uses a 'pseudo-absolute' tense form in the noun
clause. That is, the tenses used to relate an S T 0 to the central T O of a post-
present domain are the preterite or present perfect for anteriority, the present
tense for simultaneity and the future tense for posteriority. In Declerck (1991)
this system of tenses used to express a relation in a post-present domain is
labelled the 'Present Perspective System' (PPS). (This label captures the fact that
h s system is based on a shift of perspective to the present: the post-present
binding T O is treated as if it were 6.)
Next to the PPS there is also a 'Future Perspective System' (FPS). This system
consists of tense forms that create a post-present domain It comprises the
future tense in its absolute use as well as absolute-relative tense forms such as
Renaat Declerck and Ilse Depraetere 273
the future perfect. The former represents its S T 0 as the central T O of a post-
present domain. The absolute-relative tense forms also establish a post-present
domain but represent their S T 0 as either anterior or posterior to the central
TO. Examples of such tense forms are will have left and will begoing to leave, in
which will establishes a post-present domain and have . . . -en or begoing to
relate the S T 0 to the (implicit) central T O of this domain.
The above principles represent only a fragment of the theory of tense offered
in Declerck ( I 991), but they suffice for our present purpose. What is especially
relevant is the distinction between the PPS and the FPS. W e will argue that the
present tense form in the $-clause of Ifthe weather isfine tomorrow, we'll have a
picnic is a PPS-form, whereas the future tense form in the head clause is an FPS-
form.
PPS-forms should be distinguished carefully from another use of the present
tense with future time reference, namely that illustrated by sentences like the
following:
(4) (a) I'm leaving tomorrow.

(b) Next year Christmas falls on a Wednesday.
This use of the present tense is also the result of a shift of perspective to the
present: a post-present situation is treated as if it were a present one. However,
this use is clearly different from the use of the present tense in the PPS. For one
thing, the shift of perspective to the present which occurs in (4a-b) has a
semantic effect which is absent if the present tense is a PPS-form: in (4a-b) the
post-present situation is represented as 'pre-determined', i.e. as depending on a
present arrangement, programme, plan, etc. For another, this use of the present
tense is mainly found in clauses that are syntactically independent, whereas the
PPS cannot be used in that type of clause at all (see below). Moreover, the use of
the present tense can be found in head clauses supporting a subordinate clause
using the PPS:
( 5 ) We're having a picnic tomorrow, if it does not rain.
This means that the present tense in its 'arranged future' use resembles the
future tense of the FPS in that it creates a post-present domain. By contrast, a
PPS-form is unable to establish a domain. It consists of forms that can only be
used to express a relation w i h n a domain already established by a super-
ordinate clause.
In what follows, the 'arranged future' use of the present tense will be dis-
regarded, because it is not directly relevant to the discussion of the distinction
between the FPS and the PPS.
W e will conclude these introductory remarks with a brief note on the
different distributions of the two systems. As noted above, one of the basic
dismbutional differences between the FPS and the PPS is that only the former
can be used in syntactically independent clauses. Compare:
(6) (a) (Whatever happens, it will be no use asking him for details.) He will say
that he has not seen anything, has not heard anything, and that he does
not know anything at all.
(b) (Whatever happens, it will be no use asking him for details.) He will not
haveseen anything, he will not have heard anything, and he will not know
anything at all.
(c) !(Whatever happens, it will be no use asking him for details.) He has not
seen anything, has not heard anything, and he does not know anything at
all.
In (6a) we have an instance of indirect speech, with PPS-forms in the that-
clauses. In (6b-c) the reporting clause he will say has been dropped, so that we
have 'free indirect speech', i.e. the reported clauses are syntactically indepen-
dent. Example (6b) shows that the result is impeccable if we use FPS-forms,
whereas (6c) shows that the result is bad (since we get an incoherent piece of
discourse) if we try using PPS-forms: the present perfect forms in (6c) are not
interpreted as PPS-forms at all, but rather as absolute tense forms (representing
their situations as anterior to 6).
As regards the choice between the PPS and the FPS, subordinate clauses fall
apart into three groups. In some of them (e.g. nonrestrictive relative clauses) the
FPS is obligatory; others (e.g. adverbial time clauses) require the PPS, whereas
still others (e.g. restrictive relative clauses) allow either system. For example:
(7) (a) The meeting will be declared open by John, who will also introduce the
main speaker. (*introduces)
(b) The meeting will no doubt come to an end before it is I I p. m. (*will be)
(c) At the airport you will be met by a man who is wearing/will be wearing a
red jacket.
2 THE ANALYSIS
I . According to Declerck (I991) the basic function of a tense is to express a

temporal structure which has the form ofa chain of relations. This chain, which
may consist of one or more links, relates the S T 0 (i.e. the time of the situation)
to a 'basic TO', either directly or via one or more intermediate TOs. The basic
TO (represented as 'TO,') is that T O in the structure of the tense from which
the temporal relations expressed by the tense begins to be computed. In most
cases TO, is (speech time), but there are cases in which it is a post-present
binding TO. Compare:
Uenaat Declerck and llse Depraerere 275
(8) (a) He has done it.

(b) (If he does it) he will have to admit to his wife that he has done it.
In both (8a) and (8b) the present perfect form has done locates the S T 0 before
the basic TO. In (8a) this TO, is t,,; in (8b) it is a post-present S T 0 (the time of
admitting) which is treated as if it were t,,. This means that the two present
perfect forms realize the same temporal structure (viz. 'ST0 anterior to TO,'),
but that the TO, is ,t (speech time) in (Xa) and a post-present 'pseudo-t,,' in (Xb).
(Note that in (8b) the T O , is interpreted as posterior to t,,, but that this relation
is not signalled by the tense form lrasdone itself:it is inferred from the use of the
future tense in the head clause.)
The following sentences involving a future tense form are similar to (Xa-b):
(9) (a) He will do it.

(b) (If he decides to do it) he will have to admit to his wife that he will do it.
Needless to say, will do is used as an FPS-form in (ga) and as a PPS-form in (gb).

The essential difference between the two systems is therefore the different
nature of the basic TO: in the FPS it is t,,, in the PPS it is a post-present T O
referred to in the content. (Since the post-present T O is treated as if it were ,,t
the set of tense forms used in the PPS is exactly the same as the set of absolute
tense forms. There is no formal difference between them.)
2. One consequence of the different nature of the TO, is that an FPS-form is
an absolute tense form, which creates a domain in the post-present sector,
whereas a PPS-form is a relative tense form, which is used to locate an S T 0 in
an already established post-present domain.
3. It follows that the temporal specification effected by an FPS-form is
context-independent, whereas that affected by a PPS-form is not? A PPS-form
requires a context providing a post-present T O serving as TO, for the PPS-
form. This means that the interpretation of a PPS-form happens partly on the
basis of the temporal structure expressed by the tense form itself and partly on
the basis of this context. More specifically, the understanding that the PPS-form
refers to the future is derived from the context: it is the head clause that
represents the T O which functions as TO, for the PPS-form as posterior to t,,.
Since the identification of the post-present TO, is essential to the interpretation
of a PPS-form, forms that could in principle be PPS-forms cannot be
interpreted as such when they occur out of context.
This observation explains why the PPS cannot be used in syntactically
independent clauses. Independent clauses must be fully interpretable in
isolation. And even if such a clause is used in a context which helps to deter-
mine its pragmatic interpretation, the lack of formal difference between PPS-
forms and absolute tense forms renders it impossible to use the PPS for future
time reference. Because any independent clause can in principle be interpreted
276 Tense Forms Referring to Furure Time in English
in isolation, reference to the post-present in such a clause must be both unam-

biguous and independent.
For an SC (subordinate clause) to use the PPS, it is necessary that the H C
(head clause) establishes a post-present domain, but it should be noted that this
need not be done in an explicit way, i.e. by the use of an FPS-form. A post-
present domain can also be established implicitly by the use of an imperative,
infinitive, o r another form implying post-present actualization:'
(lo) (a) Do it when the others (*will) have left.
(b) I hope to d o it when the others (*will) have left.
What is necessary for the use of a PPS-form is that there is a post-present time
available to function as TO,. This time must be an S T 0 (the time ofa situation),
but it need not be indicated by a tensed form.
4. In a complex sentence with an FPS-form in the HC, an SC may (under
certain conditions) use either the FPS or the PPS. When it uses the FPS (as in I
willjoin you, wlirreas Tom willstay at Iionw), the temporal relation between the
S T 0 of the H C and that of the SC is not expressed by the tense forms:
independcntly of one another, each of the two FPS-forms relates its S T 0 to t,
and in doing so establishes a post-present domain. (These two domains may be
pragmatically interpreted as simultaneous with each other, but this relation is
not expressed by the tense forms.) By contrast, if the SC uses the PPS (as in I will
ask him tomorrow wliat date it is), the tense form of the SC locates the SC-ST0
( S T 0 of the SC) in the temporal domain created by the H C and in so doing
relates it to the HC-STO.
5 . It follows that when the FPS is used in both clauses, the speaker makes
two independent predictions: there are, as it were, two speech acts. When the
PPS is used in the SC, the spcaker makes a single (but complex) prediction: he
presents the contents of the two clauses as forming a unit. T h c use of the PI'S,
which implies that thc HC-ST0 and the SC-ST0 are located in the same
domain, is therefore a sign that the two situations must be interpreted as related
to each other. This relation may be purely temporal, but in most cases it is also a
logical one: if there is no logical relation between two situations, there is as a
rule no reason to relate them temporally to each other. As we will see, the use of
PPS-forms in conditional clauses is conventionalized as a means of expressing a
logical relationship rather than a purely temporal one: the logical relation is
expressed as if it were a temporal one. (Though the basic meaning of any tense is
to express a temporal relation, there are many uses of tense forms that are
metaphorical extensions of this. For example, the preterite, whose basic
meaning is 'remoteness in time' (i.e. location in the past time-sphere), is con-
ventionally used to express other forms of remoteness, e.g. remoteness from
realicy (counterfactuality), as in I wisli I krlew tlzear~swer.)
6. Because the PPS is a way of expressing the temporal and logical relation
Kenaar Declerck and llse Depraerere 277
between the SC-situation and the HC-situation, it implies that the SC is

necessary for a correct interpretation of the HC. T h e fact that the H C and the
SC are presented as one interpretive unit means that it is not only the case that
the SC is dependent for its interpretation on the H C (which is obvious, since the
SC is both syntactically and temporally subordinated to the HC), but that it is
also the case that the H C depends for (at least part o f ) its interpretation on the
SC. It is no coincidence that the types of SC in which the PPS must or may be
used show this close interpretive relationship between the two clauses. The
following are the most typical examples:
a. Conditional clauses expressing an open condition require the use of the PPS.
In this type of if. . . tlwn . . . sentence the logical dependence of the H C on
the SC is obvious.
b. Adverbial time clauses also require the use of the PPS rather than the FPS. In
this case the interpretation of the H C depends on the SC in that the latter
specifies the time of the HC-situation. (The very fact that the speaker
decides to use a time clause means that he deems this specification
necessary.)
c. Restrictive relative clauses tend to use the PPS if the form in question cannot
be mistaken for an FPS-form (e.g. I'll report t l k to tlref;:rstpolicen~anIsee). This
kind of SC is essential to the interpretation of the H C in that the identifica-
tion of the referent of the antecedent NP depends on it.
d. Noun clauses (i.e. dependent questions and statements) often use the PPS
(e.g. Nest rinw you slrould tell me what you tlrink). This type of clause helps to
determine the interpretation of the H C because it functions as one of the
essential arguments of the predicate.
It is clear, then, that the use of the PPS is a sign that the SC is fully integrated in
the HC, both syntactically and semantically. (However, full integration is not a
sufficient condition. In all types of SC that allow the use of the FPS a
cooperative speaker will have to use the latter system if the corresponding PYS-
form would be mistaken for an absolute tense form. For example, in Jolrn won't
come because Ire is ill, the present tense is naturally understood as referring to the
present (and not as a PPS-form). Future time reference therefore requires the
use of an FPS-form (will be).)
7. It has often been noted in the linguistic literature that the types ofSC that'
do not allow the use of the future tense d o not allow the use of epistemic
modals such as may or must either:
(I I) (a) *John will d o it w h e d i f he will have time.

(b) 70hn will d o it w h e d i f he may have time.
(c) 70hn will d o it w h e d i f he must have time.
278 Tense Forins Referring to Future T h e in English
O n the basis of this observation it is often claimed that will too is a modal
auxiliary and that there is no future tense in English (see e.g. Huddleston I 984:
I 73; Quirk et a l . I 985: 2 I 3). However, the only conclusion that can be drawn
from examples like ( I la-c) is that the auxiliaries will, may, and must have
something in common which rules out their use in open conditionals and
adverbial time clauses. In our opinion, the fact that will cannot be used is an
indication that future time refeience in these SCs requires the use of the PPS.
(Why this should be the case is a question we will go into below.) The fact that
the FPS cannot be used means that the SC-ST0 must be related to a post-
present T O , rather than to t,,. Once this constraint is seen, the impossibility of
using epistemic modals in these SCs becomes predictable, since epistenlic
modals express an evaluation which is temporally located at to. In the same way
as He will come means 'I [now] predict his [future] coming', He may come means
' I [now] assert the possibility of his [future] coming'. (In other words, may is
equivalent to 'It is possible that . . . will . . .'.) What will and may have in
co~nmonis that they use ,t as basic T O (evaluation time). This property
excludes them from clauses that are subject to the constraint that the S T 0 has
to be temporally subordinated to a post-present T O , rather than to t,,.
8. Contrary to the widespread view that 'the future is not a tense at all, but a
mode' (Cygan 1972: 9), we believe that there is a future tense in English. In Jolrn
will come tomorrow .the form will come serves to locate a situation in time and
therefore satisfies the definition of a tense form. (We subscribe to Lyons' ( I 977:
68) definition of tense, which says that tense 'grammaticalizes the relationship
which holds between the time of the situation that is being- described and the
temporal zero-point of the deictic context'.) This is not to say that we do not
recognize the fact that the future tense has modal connotations (since an
utterance about a situation that has not yet held is of necessity 'a subjectively
modalized utterance: a prediction rather than a statement' (Lyons I 977: X I 5)).
The point is that the element of modality does not alter the fact that the
primary aspect of meaning of will come, and the basic reason for its use is that it
locates the situation in the post-present sector.
The modal element is important, though, in that it entails that a temporal
domain created by an FPS-form is a kind of intensional domain? As noted by
Givon (1973: I O I ) 'the, future modality by itself produces opacity in its scope',
cf. also Vet (1981: I I 3). An SC that is incorporated in a post-present domain by
means of a PPS-form is therefxe interpreted opaquely, whereas an SC that uses
the FPS is interpreted transparently. This means that an SC with a PPS-form is
interpreted as part of the prediction made in the HC, whereas an SC with an
FPS-form is interpreted as an independent prediction made at t,, (cf. Wekker
1977: 71). In many cases this distinction is a subtle one and there is hardly any
difference between the two interpretations. For example, though it seems
intuitively clear that (12a-b) are interpreted as (12a'-b'), respectively (cf.
Kenaat Declerck and llse Depraetere 279
Sampson 1971: 588), it seems difficult to gauge what is the difference in

communicative effect between them or to imagine contexts in which only one
of them could be used. (The reason is that because in any case relates the two
situations in terms of cause and effect, irrespective of whether the STOs are
located in the same domain or in different ones.)1°
( I 2) (a) John will be elected because he gets more votes than Tom.
(b) John will be elected because he will get more votes than Tom.
(1 2 ) (a') I predict. 'John will be elected because he gets more votes than Tom'.
(b') I predict that John will get more votes than Tom and [I predict] that
John will be elected because of that.
However, there are cases in which the distinction becomes very important,
i.e. when there is some compelling reason for the SC and the HC to be
interpreted in terms of the same intensional domain. If there is such a
requirement, the FPS is predictably ruled out from the SC. There are at least
two types of SC in which this is the case.
The first type consists of noun clauses depending on a verb of propositional
attitude (intensional verb) such a verb of saying or thinlung. If the noun clause is
to be interpreted opaquely, the contents of these clauses must be interpreted as
belonging to the intensional domain created by the intensional v ~ r in b the HC.
Since an intensional domain functions as a temporal domain, it follows that
these noun clauses must use the PPS if the HC uses the FPS. (The same is true of
their subclauses if these are also to be interpreted opaquely.) For example:
(I 3) (a) (I can't give you my umbre!la.) My wife will wonder what I have done
with it. (*will have done)
(b) (If I give you my ring) I will have to explain to my wife why I am not
wearing it any more. (*will be wearing)
In these examples will creates an intensional domain (a future 'possible world')
of which the intensional domain created by wonder or explain is a subdomain.
Since the dependent question must belong to this subdomain, it must be
represented as belonging to the domain created by will (cf. Abusch I 991).This
necessitates using the PPS. (Here and below an asterisk is used to indicate that
an FPS-form is no valid alternative to a PPS-form, or vice versa. This does not
necessarily imply that the form in question is ungrammatical.)
The second type of SC requiring the use of the PPS for this reason is the
conditional clause of an open conditional. Open conditionals refer to a future
possible world in which the actualization of the if-clause situation entails the
actualization of the HC situation. This possible world is an intensional domain,
and hence a temporal domain, and both STOs (situation-TOs) must belong to
it. This explains why the PPS is the rule in the SC:
( I 4) If it doesn't rain tomorrow, we will have a picnic. (*won't rain)
9. Because of the difference of basic TO, the contents of an FPS-clause are

represented as either asserted or presupposed at t,,, whereas those of a PPS-
clause are represented as asserted or presupposed at the post-present T O to
which the S T 0 is temporally subordinated."
The prediction made in an FPS-clause is a proposition which is presented as
true at.,,t This means that the FPS-proposition is either asserted or presupposed
at 6.When used in isolation, the clause Jolin will come asserts that the tensed
proposition 'John will come' is true at t,,. In a suitable context, the same clause
may constitute a presupposition, as when John will come because I liave asked him
to is interpreted as 'It is because I have asked him to that John will come'. In
some types of SC (such as nonrestrictive relative clauses) the proposition is
always asserted, whereas in others (such as restrictive relative clauses) it is
automatically presupposed. (For example, in Tlie man who will be here tomorrow
willFx it the tensed proposition 'a man will be here tomorrow' is presupposed
to be true at t,,.)
When the PPS is used, the proposition is not presented (asserted or
presupposed) as true at q, but as true at the post-present TO,. If the proposition
is expressed in a noun clause depending on a verb of propositional attitude, it is
asserted as true at TO,. Thus, in Next timeshe will say that tlie boy isfeeling sick the
proposition 'The boy is feeling sick' is interpreted as asserted at the post-present
TO,. ('Asserted' obviously does not mean here 'asserted by the present speaker',
since the assertion is not presented as made at .,t The proposition in question
must be interpreted opaquely, i.e. as true in the post-present intensional
domain.) In other types of SC using the PPS, the proposition is not asserted but
supposed or presupposed in the post-present domain. This is the case, for
example, in conditional clauses (Ifiolzn comes, I will tell her), adverbial time
clauses (I will tell him when Irecomes), restrictive relative clauses (Tlrepupils who are
late tomorrow will bepunislzed), etc. (As noted by Ducrot I 972, when -clauses and
restrictive relative clauses are presupposed, but if-clauses represent supposi-
tions rather than presuppositions.)
At first sight there would seem to be little pragmatic difference between
presenting an FPS-proposition as true at ,t and presenting a PPS-proposition as
true at a post-present TO,. In clefts, for example, the that-clause may be
represented as presupposed at t, or as presupposed at the post-present TO,,
without this leading to a clear difference of interpretation:
(I 5 ) (a) (Next year we shall see another America's Cup contest.) This time it
will be Australia who will be making her first challenge. (LOB)12
(b) Next year it will be Australia who is making her first challenge.
However, there are also contexts in which only one of the two systems is
suitable. Consider:
Kenaac Declerck and Ilse Depraetere 28 I
(16) (a) The man who will solve this problem will . .
(b) The man who solves this problem will . . .
Whereas ( I6a) presupposes that the proposition 'A man will solve this problem'
is true at t,,, (16b) presupposes that the proposition 'A man solves this problem'
is true in the future possible world in which the HC-situation is true. The
former will be strongly preferred if there is no logical link between the two
situations, as in ( I 7a), whereas the latter is the rule if the relative clause has the
connotation of an open condition, as in (I7b):
( I 7) (a) The man who will solve/?solves this problem will be 47 years old.
(b) The man who solves this problem will get a reward.
In (17a),the two situations are not logically connected to each other, so that
there is no reason for the speaker to relate the SC-ST0 to the HC-ST0 rather
than to.,t In ( 1 7b) there is a logical link, in that the SC-situation is interpreted as
a condition for the HC-situation. The PPS-form solves is used to represent this
condition as an open one, i.e. as one that may or may not be fulfilled in the
future. The PPS-form incorporates the SC in the temporal domain created by
the HC, thus representing it as presupposed in the intensional domain (possible
world) corresponding with the open condition.
Apart from ( I 7b), the speaker can also use ( I 7c):
(I 7) (c) The man who will solve this problem. will get a reward.
The use of the FPS-form will solve makes clear that the proposition
presupposed by the restrictive relative clause is now 'A man will solve this
problem', which is presupposed at .,t This means that the implied condition is
now a closed condition rather than an open one: the speaker assumes the
condition to be fulfilled at ,t i.e. he treats the proposition 'A man will solve this
problem' as one that is not 'subject to debate' at t,,.
The above illustration makes clear that the difference between the idea 'FPS-
proposition presupposed at ',,t and 'PPS-proposition (pre)supposed at post-
present TO,' may have a clear effect on the interpretation of the sentence. In
clauses with a conditional interpretation it corresponds to the distinction
between an open condition and a closed one. (We will return to this below.)
Another possible effect of the PPS is that it may be used to suggest that the
contents of the clause in question represent how the situation will be evaluated
at the future T O l rather than how it is evaluated by the speaker at t,,. Consider:
(I 8) (a) You will all be arrested because John will do something stupid.
(b) You will all be arrested because John does something stupid.
Out of context, both are equally appropriate, but only the version with the PPS-
form can be used to create the impression that the situation is represented as it
will be experienced and evaluated by somebody other than the speaker at TOl:
(I9) The scheme is no good because you cannot rely on John. I am sure he will
bungle it. You will see: you will all be arrested because he does something
stupid.
As pointed out in Declerck (1991:80-9) the speaker sometimes uses the future
tense to put the 'temporal focus' on a post-present T O and in doing so
represents the situation as it will be evaluated in the future. For example:
(20) (a) That thing rustling in the bushes over there will no doubt be a
chipmunk let's wait till it comes out. (Lakoff 1970:839)
(b) President Bush will not have been the only President to defend this
policy.
The use of will be in (zoa) (where is would also be possible) means that the
speaker puts the temporal focus on the future moment when he himself and the
hearer will see the animal come out and will observe that it is a chipmunk.
Similarly, the use of will have been rather than has been in (aob) creates the idea
of a future time of evaluation: 'as history will show'. This special interpretation,
which is triggered by the use of the FPS in HCs, can be achieved by the use of
the PPS in SCs. In SCs that in principle allow either the FPS or the PPS, the PPS
may be used to suggest that the HC-ST0 is the time of evaluation. In ( I 9) the
situation ofJohn doing something stupid is represented as it will be experienced
at the post-present TO,. That the PPS can have this effect follows from the fact
that it derives its future time reference from the FPS-form in the HC.
I o. Summarizing section 2, we can say that the basic difference between the
FPS and the PPS is the different choice of basic T O (TO,):,t versus a post-
present TO. This difference in its turn entails the following:
An FPS-form creates a post-present temporal domain, which functions as
an intensional domain. The PPS expresses a relation in an already existing
domain.
The temporal specification effected by an FPS-form is context-independent,
whereas that effected by a PPS-form is not. A PPS-form requires a context
providing a post-present TO serving as TO, for the PPS-form.
The use of the PPS is a sign that the situations of the SC and the H C are
closely related to each other, not only temporally but also logically. The SC
is fully integrated within the H C and the two situations are presented as
forming an interpretive unit.
Kenaat Declerck and Ilse Depraetere 283
3 FACTORS DETERMINING T H E C H O I C E
B E T W E E N FPS A N D PPS
In this section we will explore the reasons which may induce the speaker to
relate an SC-ST0 to a future TO, rather than to .,t In doing so we will make a
distinction between SCs that in principle allow either system, SCs that require
the PPS and SCs in which the PPS cannot be used.
3.1 SCs that allow both the PPS and the FPS
Typical examples of SCs that in principle allow either system are restrictive
relative clauses, because-clauses, SCs of reason introduced by as or since, SCs of
comparison, the wli -clauses of clefts, result clauses, dependent questions, and
dependent statements. The following sentences illustrate the two possibilities
for each of these types of SC. (The (a) example each time uses the FPS, the (b)
example the PPS.)
(21) (a) He got a good fatjob and we congratulate him on his good luck. We
hope that he will execute it in a manner that will entitle him to credit.
(BR)
(b) There is still one glittering prize to be grasped. The man who captures
it will go down in history as one of the greatest of mortals. (LOB)
(22) (a) Then it will make us think about unity because we will be using church
in disunity. (SEU)
(b) If we hide his shoes he will panic because he cannotfind them.
(23) (a) A man who has discovered himself won't want to squander his talents
or his money as he will have more interesting things to do. (SEU)
(b) At this point you will have to save the document to disc as you have
used all the available memory. (SEU)
(24) (a) Ifyou take the train and I take the bus, I will probably travel faster than
you will.
(b) If you take the train and I take the bus, 1 will probably travel faster than
you do.
(25) (a) If love, loyalty and courage count for anything, it won't be Violet's
mamage that will break up. (LOB)
(b) Surely, it won't be John who comes in first.
(26) (a) He will be so drunk that he will be unable to do any work
(b) The new rules will be so devised that they do not allow any exceptions.
(27) (a) What the next move will be only time, of course, will tell. (BR)
(b) We can charge what we like. The ~ u b l i cwill decide whether or not it
pays. (LOB)
(28) (a) The man who enjoys his work and approaches it creatively will find
that the techniques, the competency and the professional polish will
come to him automatically. (LOB)
(b) The negro is Mr Robert Weaver of New York. One of his tasks will be
to see there is no racial discrimination in Government and State
housing projects. (LOB)
In SCs of this type the choice between the FPS and the PPS is not entirely free.
The following are some reasons why the speaker may decide against using one
of them:
3.1.1 Because a PPS-form depends for its future time interpretation on the HC,
the FPS must be used if the HC does not establish a post-present domain (either
explicitly or implicitly):13
(29) He is worred because he will be asked /*is asked for an explanation tonight.
3.1.2 A co-operative speaker will not use the PPS whenever the relevant PPS-
form would not be interpreted as a PPS-form but rather as an absolute tense
form (cf. Depraetere I 993: r 9j-6).Compare:
(30) (a) The boy will be no doubt be caught because he steals/will steal some
money.
(b) The boy will no doubt be caught because he is using/will be using the
wrong ink.
In (30a), steals is clearly a PPS-form, because we use isstealing rather than steals
to locate a (nonhabitual) situation in the present. However, the present tense
form is using in (30b) is naturally interpreted as referring to the present.
(Generally speaking, a present tense form will naturally invite this inter-
pretation if it is a stative, progressive, or passive form.) A co-operative speaker
will therefore avoid using is using as PPS-form in (30b). If future time reference
is intended, he will use the FPS-form will be using instead.
As is clear from the examples, it is the fact that there is no formal differentia-
tion between the absolute use of the present tense and its use as a PPS-form that
requires the speaker to use the FPS whenever the PPS might cause confusion. (It
can be traced to the same factor that the PPS and the FPS have a fairly rigid
distribution, with many types of clause allowing only either of them.)
The principle that PPS-forms should not be used if they could be misunder-
stood is a strong pragmatic principle (based on the Gricean Maxims) which
overrules any other considerations in SCs where the speaker can in principle
choose between the FPS and the PPS.
3.1.3 The speaker also has to use the FPS in SCs where the logical relation
expressed by the conjunction does not hold between the two situations but
Kenaar Declerck and Ilse Depraetere 28 5
rather between the two speech acts (predictions) that are made. This is the case,
e.g. in SCs of reason explaining why the speaker predicts the HC-situation:
(31) (a) Our deficit thls year is ~1,200,ooo.Next year the results will be
somewhat better, because the economic climate will have improved.
(b) John will be caught, because he will set of the alarm.
As noted by Sampson ( I97 I : 5 88), we cannot replace will set of with sets of in
(3 I b) if the because-clause is to give the reason why the speaker states that John
will be caught. The reason is that the speaker is not concerned with the
temporal link between the two situations but rather with the reason for making
the utterance at t,,. It is therefore natural for him to relate the because-clause
situation to t,,, which ensures a transparent interpretation.
3.1.4 If the PPS is a possible option, it may be selected because the speaker
wants to make clear through the choice of his tense form that the SC must be
interpreted opaquely rather than transparently. Our above example (I9) was an
illustration of this. The following is a similar example in which the PPS
represents the situation as it will be experienced by a participant in the situation
at the future TO,:
(32) But you'll also find that this plan out-strips other insurance plans because
most of your savings are invested, rather than going to provide an amount
of life insurance which you may not need or even want. (SEU)
3.1.5 SCs that allow the PPS will as a rule use it if they are to be interpreted as
belonging to the same intensional domain as the HC. As we have seen, this is the
case in SCs that spell out the propositional contents of a verb of saying or
thinking:
(33) (If you do that)John will allege/think tomorrow that it is Friday, although
it will only be Thursday.
The FPS-form will be cannot be used in the that- clause because this clause must
be interpreted opaquely. (It is, however, used in the althouglr -clause, which is
interpreted transparently.)
This use of the PPS is, however, subject to the general constraint that its use
must not give rise to confusion. The PPS will not be used if the relevant tense
form would not be recognized as a PPS-form:
(34) It will be painful, but interesting, to see what kind of god these people will
create or what strong convictions they will develop. (BR)
It should be noted in this connection that there are 'strong' and 'weak'
intensional verbs. Strong intensional verbs are verbs like imagine, wonder, etc.
whose object clauses virtually have to be interpreted opaquely (i.e. as belonging
-- -
to the intensional domain (possible world) that they create.) Weak intensional
verbs (eg. see, say) more easily allow a transparent interpretation of their object
clauses. It is in clauses depending on the latter type of intensional verb that the
FPS may be required for reasons of clarity. (The same type of clauses will also
more easily allow violation of the 'sequence of tenses' rule in indirect speech. In
that case too the result is a transparent interpretation.)
3.1.6 In SCs in which the PPS is the unmarked system, the speaker will more
easily use the FPS when the SC in question recedes the HC, especially if the
verb of the HC is some distance away (cf. Depraetere I 993: 2 19-29). Compare:
(35) (a) Others have left school to make their way in a highly competitive
technical and scientific world. How well theyfare will depend on how
much they have assimilated in the years before and after the I I-plus.
(LO*)
(b) Europe is now going through this phase of development. Whether we
(will) remain in it long will depend on many different factors.
(c) What their move will bePis, only time, of course, will tell.
(d) Whether it will strikePstrikes home for you or not will be for you to
determine. (BR)
The cases in which the FPS-form is most suitable are those in which the SC in
the corresponding PPS-form could be misinterpreted. A PPS-form depends for
its future time reference on the HC. If the SC precedes the HC and its lexical
material does not suggest future time, the PPS-form risks being misunderstood
at first. O n hearing the HC the hearer then has to adapt his initial
interpretation. Since this requires considerable processing effort, a cooperative
speaker will try to avoid this by using an unequivocal verb form in the SC. (Self-
evidently, this tendency will be stronger as the distance between the SC and the
verb of the HC increases. In (35a) the use of the PPS-form fare in the SC
presents no problem of interpretation as it is immediately followed by the verb
of the HC.)
3.1.7 SCs that allow the PPS will preferably use it if they are syntactically
subordinated to a SC whose verb is a PPS-form. Compare:
(36) (a) John will be punished because he is/will be late.
(b) If John is punished because he is/?will be late, his parents will not
protest.
(c) John d be surprised if he gets punished because he is/?will be late.
(37) (a) Their future will depend on how good their training here has been /will
have been.
(b) If their future turns out to depend on how good their training here h a
been /?will have been, their attitude towards us d l change.
Renaar Declerck and Ilse Depraetere 287
(38) (a) The religious group will forswear all proselytizing on the project it
proposes / will propose.
(b) No religious group, he declared in an interview, will receive Peace
Corps funds unless it forswears all proselytizing on the project it
proposes /? will propose. (BR)
One reason for this persistent use of PPS-forms is the complex syntactic
structure: one SC is embedded into another. Because of this, the temporal
interpretation (i.e. the mental reconstruction of the temporal relations) would
get difficult if the temporal relations did not run parallel with the syntactic
relations. (The use of the FPS in an SC means that the SC is syntactically
subordinated but not temporally subordinated.) A second element of explana-
tion is that in the (b)-(c) sentences of (36)-(38) the relevant SC is embedded into
an $-clause expressing an open condition. This kind of $-clause must use the
PPS because its situation is supposed in the intensional domain established by
the HC (cf. above). Any clause that is a SC of the if-clause (and is fully inte-
grated into it) belongs to the supposition and will therefore also tend to use the
PPS. (A switch to the FPS would mean that the SC in question is represented as
(pre)supposed at t, rather than as (pre)supposed in the post-present intensional
domain. In the above (b)-(c) examples there is no reason whatever for choosing
this representation.)
3.1.8 In SCs that allow the use of the PPS, the speaker will as a rule use this
system if he wants the SC to have the connotation of an open condition. This
use of the PPS is especially common in restrictive relative clause^:'^
(39) (a) This Sunday's sessions-including the free dinner-will be open to
anyone who makes reservations. (BR)
(b) There is still one glittering prize to be grasped. The man who captures
it will go down in history as one of the greatest of mortals. (LOB)
The use of the FPS in SCs like these would suggest that the speaker is treating
the condition as closed at t,,, i.e. that he takes the future actualization of the SC-
situation for granted. Compare:
(40) (a) The people that protest will be arrested.
(b) The people that willprotest will be arrested.
The first sentence implies that the speaker reckons with the possibility of
people protesting and being arrested because of this. The second implies that
the speaker assumes there will be protesters. In other words, the conditional
connotation is that of an open condition in (40a) and of a closed one in (40b).
Resmctive relative clauses with a conditional connotation also use the FPS if
they themselves contain or imply another if-clause:
(41) The Jackson report will provide some of the political support Mr Rusk will
need if he is to get rid of department personnel engaged. (BR)
This constraint fits in with the rule that we use the FPS rather than the PPS in
if-clauses functioning as HC for another if-clause (whether overtly present or
implied): We won't do it ifit will upset him (ifwe do it); see section 3.3 below.)
3.1.9 Restrictive relative clauses depending on a temporal noun may in

principle use either the FPS or the PPS, but require the PPS when the
antecedent forms part of a phrase functioning as temporal adverbial:
(42) (a) But the day will come when you'll remember what I tell you now.
(LOB)
(b) The day will come, in midsummer, when you Jind your plants
becoming 'leggy'. (BR)
(43) (a) By the time the police (*will)arrive it will be too late.
. , And remember, the clutch is not a gradual affair like the one on a car.
(b) -
The instant you (*will) engage it the machine will rush away, with or
without you. (LOB)
The SCs of examples like (43a-b) have the same function as adverbial time
clauses, which require the use of the PPS (cf. below).
3.1.ro Apart from the principles pointed out above, there are a number of
factors which promote the use of the PPS in restrictive relative clauses because
they make for a hlgh degree of integration of the relative clause into the HC.
For example, the PPS is preferred (a) in nominal (headless) relative clause^,'^ (b)
if the antecedent is a cataphoric demonstrative or a 'light' NP which depends
for its reference on the relative clause, (c) if the antecedent is or contains an
indefinite pronouddeterminer or a superlative, and (d) if the HC is an
existential construction. The following sentences illustrate these tendencies:
(44) (a) He will always g v e you what you need.
(b) I will always go where you go.
(45) (a) The best places will be snapped up by those who come early.
(b) I will ask the people I meet for some food.
(46) (a) Tomorrow Jane will be here, and she will get you anything you want.
(b) Miss Bantin will be there in person ready to give her friendly advice to
all who care to take advantage of her visit to the Capitol. (LOB)
(47) When the measures are made public, there will be a lot of people that don't
like them.
O n the other hand, restrictive relative clauses invariably use the FPS when their
antecedent is in nonrestrictive apposition or belongs to another type of
constituent that is not £dly integrated into the HC:
Kenaar Declerck and llse Depraetere 289
(48) (a) These findings, and others which will in time be developed, will affect
the method of glottochronological inquiry. (BR)
(b) If they are adopted, these measures will benefit the students, at least
those that will not receive a scholarship.
3.2 SCSfDrbidding the use ofthe FPS
There are various types of SC in which future time reference strictly requires
the use of the PPS: conditional clauses expressing an open condition, adverbial
time clauses, concessive wh -clauses, that-clauses depending on statements of
frequency of the type It will be theflrst time that. . . ,SCs of ~roportion,and SCs of
manner that are fully integrated into the HC.
3.2.1 The PPS must be used in $-clauses expressing an open condition (i.e. a
condition that may or may not be fulfilled in the future), because the SC and
the HC then form a single intensional domain (possible world).16 They do so
because the HC-situation is dependent on the SC-situation, which means that
the HC must be interpreted within the possible world created by the $-clause.
(The two clauses form part of the same 'scenario', which is treated as a possible
world.)
The use of the PPS in open conditionals is not so much a logical requirement
as something that has come to be conventionalized in English. In many
European languages both the FPS and the PPS can be used in open conditionals.
For example, in Dutch it is possible to utter (49b) as a (less usual) alternative to
(494:
(49) (a) tils we te laat komen , zullen we gesnaft worden.
'If we are late, we will be punished'
(b) Als we te laat zullen komen, zullen we gesnaft worden.
'If we will be late, we will be punished'
In (49b) the two STOs are located in different temporal domains, which are
interpreted as simultaneous or following each other closely in time. This way of
locating the situation in time fails to represent the close logical relationship
between them. (This is possible because the logical relation is in any case
expressed by $. . . (then).) In English, however, it has become conventional to
signal the logical link by locating the two situations in the same temporal (and
intensional) domain. In ths way English is able to distinguish carefully between
open and closed conditionals (cf. above).
The reason behind the conventionalization may well be that the contents of
an $-clause expressing an open condition are not asserted at ,t but supposed
within the future possible world. In English, the FPS is used exclusively for
predictions, i.e. to represent a future tense proposition as true at t,,. A
proposition expressing an open condition is true only in the possible world
created by Ji The use of the FPS would wrongly represent it as a prediction, i.e.
as a proposition which is presented as true at t,,. (That the FPS can be used in
Dutch is a sign that Dutch does not use the FPS for predictions only. It can also
use it to create the intensional domain of an open condition, and this domain
can then be interpreted as coinciding with the domain that is independently
established by the HC.)
The result of the conventionalization in English is that the obligatory use of
the PPS in open conditionals is primarily the expression of the logical 'if p, then
q' relationship. This means that the speaker is less concerned with the temporal
relation than with the conditional one, and this explains why most open
conditionals use the present tense in the SC, even if the SC-situation precedes
the HC-situation (e.g. Ifyou do that, you will bepunished). The present tense is
selected simply because it is the unmarked PPS-form: it is the form basically
expressing simultaneity. (Of the three temporal relations that can be expressed
by tense forms, simultaneity is the unmarked one.) When used this way, the
present tense is an instance of what Declerck (1991)calls 'sloppy simultaneity'.
This term refers to the phenomenon that a tense form which is normally used
to express simultaneity may be used in cases where the relevant situations are
not (and are not conceived as) simultaneous.
The clearest example of this metaphorical use of the present tense is when
the two clauses contain distinct temporal adverbials, as in Ifhe does not do it
tomorrow, I will do it myselfnext week ." Here the sole reason for using the present
tense in the if-clause is that the two clauses are conceived as belonging to one
and the same intensional domain, namely the possible world corresponding to
the open condition. Because the speaker is concerned with the logical relation
'if p, then q' rather than with the exact temporal relation between the two
situations, he typically uses the unmarked PPS-form (i.e. the one expressing
simultaneity), except in the rare cases where a more precise indication of the
temporal relation is required (as in Ifyou haven't left by tomorrow. . .). That this
convention persists when distinct time expressions are associated with the two
situations should not come as a surprise, for it is precisely in the cases where the
temporal relation between the situations is signalled by time adverbials that it is
least necessary for this relation to be expressed by the tense forms.
3.2.2 The FPS cannot normally be used in adverbial time clauses:'*
(so) (a) I will leave before John is/*will be back

(b) I will leave when John has arrived/* will have arrived.
(c) I will stay here until John arrives/*will arrive.
Renaat Declerck and llse Depraetere 291
It is argued in Declerck (1991) that the S T 0 of an adverbial time clause is

temporally subordinated, not to the HC-ST0 but to an 'implicit TO' in the
semantic structure of the temporal conjunction. We interpret before, when,
until, etc. as 'before the time that', 'at the time that', 'until the time that', etc.
(Diachronically speaking, most temporal conjunctions have actually developed
from such a prepositional phrase.) The word time in these paraphrases refers to
the implicit T O to which the SC-ST0 is temporally subordinated. Thus, in
(~oa),the SC-ST0 must not be related to t,, (by the use of will be as an FPS-
form), nor to the HC-ST0 (by the use of will be as a PPS-form), but must be
temporally subordinated to the T O that is implicit in before. (The T O in
question is posterior to the HC-STO, but this relation is expressed by the
conjunction only, not by the tense form.) In ( ~ o athe
) SC-ST0 is represented as
simultaneous with the implicit TO: beforeJohn is back is interpreted as 'before
the time thadwhen John is back'.
The obligatory use of the PPS in adverbial time clauses is again a convention
typical of English and not shared by many other European languages. For
example, the Dutch counterpart of (5ob) may use either the PPS or the FPS
(with a preference for the former):
(5 I ) Ik zal vertrekken wanneer Jan aangekomen is/zal aangekomen zijn
'I will leave when John has arrived / will have arrived '
If the FPS is used, the temporal relation between the SC-ST0 and the HC-ST0
is expressed only by the conjunction, not by the tense forms (both of which
relate their S T 0 to .),t
In English there is only one type of adverbial time clause in whlch the FPS
can be used:
(52) (a) In his preliminary report. . . Sir Hugh Cairns stressed that several years
must elapse before he will know whether the improvements . . . are
permanent. (Edgren I 97 I : 109)
(b) It is just a matter of time before the trainee schools will disappear
altogether from the scene. (LOB)
(c) It is still some time before the others will be here.
In t h ~ stype of sentence the H C does not describe a situation whose time is
specified by the time clause but indicates the distance between t,, and a post-
present T O identified by the SC. The possibility of using will in the SC can be
traced back to the fact that the HC does not explicitly establish a post-present
domain. On the other hand, the HC can be interpreted as doing so implicitly,
and this entails that the PPS can also be used (and is in fact often the more
natural choice):
(53) It is still some time before the shops close.

If the HC explicitly establishes a post-present domain, the before-clause

normally uses the PPS, but occasionally examples using the FPS can be found:
(54) (a) It will still be some time before the others ('will) arrive.
(b) We, in the trade, feel that many people think that this is a new version
of the whole Bible. It is, of course, only the New Testament: it will be
many years before the Old Testament, and the Apocrypha are
available. (LOB)
(c) Tobacco, it is said, is gadually being ousted by sweets. We fancy,
however, that it will be some time before it will be a common sight to
see men about town walking down Pall Mall with a sugar stick in the
mouth instead of a cigarette. (Kruisinga I 93 I: 494)
The fact that adverbial time clauses generally require the PPS in modern
English (if the HC establishes a post-present domain) is the result of a
conventionalization which is probably due to two factors. One of them is that it
is precisely in this type of sentence that we find the closest possible temporal
link between the SC-ST0 and the HC-STO: the time clause gives a value to the
time variable in the open proposition corresponding to the HC. It is therefore
understandable that the SC-ST0 is located in the same temporal and
intensional domain as the HC-STO. The second factor is the parallelism with
conditional clauses. It is well known that there is a great deal of similarity
between conditional clauses and time clauses in most languages. As pointed out
by Hirtle ( I 98 I : 220), an adverbial time clause expresses a kind of sufficient (but
not necessary) condition for the HC: in Weslrall light the lamp when itgets dark,
'the eventual getting dark is seen as prompting, as conditioning . . . the
lighting'.I9 It is therefore not surprising that the use of the PPS in time clauses
has become conventional at the same time as its use in conditional clauses (i.e. in
the modern English period).
A final note to be made in connection with adverbial time clauses is that
(apart from the above exceptions)they do not allow the use of will at all, i.e. will
is ungrammatical not only as an FPS-form but also as a PPS-form. The PPS-
form expressing posteriority must be formed with the help of begoing to (or a
phrase like be likely to):
( 5 5) (a) He will put on his goggles when pieces of metal aregoing tofly about /are
likely to beflying about.
(b) She will go back to her mother's when she isgoing to /rave a baby.
The reason why will cannot be used must have to do with the fact that
posteriority in adverbial time clauses is always equivalent to the 'prospective'
meaning (i.e. futurity with present orientation) which in English is typically
expressed by begoing to.
3.2.3 SCs introduced by a question word in -ever normally use the PPS for
future time reference:"
(56) (a) Playing staff is to be reduced from 26 to about I 8, because whatever
the Football Combination decide/?will decide Millwall will not field
reserve teams on Saturdays next season. (LOB)
(b) However the money is shared/?will be shared, some people will be
dissatisfied.
(c) Whoeverf;:nds/?willf;:nd the ring will get a reward.
The tendency to use the PPS in such SCs can probably be traced back to their
conditional connotation (cf. Hirtle I 98 I: 226). A sentence like H e willgo wherever
Igo can be paraphrased as 'If I go somewhere, he will go there too'. Similarly,
whatever the F.C. decide means 'if decision A is made and if decision B is made,
and also if decision C is made, etc.'. This explanation is supported by the fact
that we can find examples of SCs of this type using should or the present
subjunctive, which are forms that one would rather expect to find in open
conditionals:
(57) (a) I have promised to stand in for him whenever his state of health should
make it impossible for him to attend the monthly meeting of the
Board.
(b) If you read the Sub-section as widely as that, any payment made by a
company, whether it be an income or a capital payment, and whether
there is consideration for it or not, will be a distribution. (LOB)
Other types of concessive clauses with a conditional connotation also normally
use the PPS:
(58) However, the displacement of the cylinder can be converted to cubic
centimetres. The compression ratio arrived at with the formula will be the
same regardless of whether cubic inches or cubic centimetres are used. (BR)
3.2.4 That-clauses depending on the noun time in statements of frequency

normally use the PPS if the HC uses the FPS.21The following illustrate the two
typical patterns:
(59) In future the company will have to pay $ro,ooo each time it dumps/?*will
dump toxic waste into the river.
(60) (a) He is coming here next week It will only be the second time he has
come/?*will have come here since I 980.
(b) I will have to stand in for him a couple of times. Today will be the first
time I have to do so.
In (59) it is presumably the conditional connotation that underlies the use of the
PPS in the SC. In (boa-b) there is a similarity with adverbial time clauses: in the
294 Tense Forms Referring ro Future Time in English
same way as the SC-ST0 is related to an implicit T O in the latter, the PPS-
forms of (6oa-b) relate the SC-ST0 to the T O identified by the word time. (The
difference between the present perfect in (60a) and the present tense in (60b) is
that the former locates the situation in a period leading up to the future T O
(and including it) whereas the latter locates it in a period which stretches from
the future TO onwards into the future. In other words, the present perfect
emphasizes the anterior part of the series of situations referred to, whereas the
present tense stresses the posterior part.)
Note, however, that in the pattern illustrated by (6oa-b) the SC will use the
FPS if the HC does not do so:
(61) (a) He is coming here next week. It is only the second time he will have
come/*has come here since I 980.
(b) I will have to stand in for him a couple of times. Today is the first time
I will do /*do so.
3.2.5 The PPS is also the rule in SCs of proportion:

(62) (a) The sooner the job isjnished /??willbejnished, the better.
(b) The more people we tell/??willtell about it, the more difficult it will be
to keep it secret.
Here again the conditional connotation appears to be the reason for the choice
of the PPS. As noted by Hirtle (1981: 227), 'what is presented as yet to be
determined is the degree to which some aspect of the [HC-]event is realized,
along with the condition for determining it. That is to say, the actualization of a
given degree of the conditioning event constitutes the condition which will
trigger the realization of the corresponding degree in the conditioned event'.
3.2.6 SCs of manner that are fully integrated into the HC also use the PPS:
(63) 1 hope that next time you will do as I say/?willsay.
Here again there is a conditional connotation: 'I hope that if I tell you to do
something, you will do it'.
3.3 SCsforbidding the use ofthe PPS

The PPS is not used at all in SCs such as adversative clauses, comment clauses,
nonrestrictive relative clauses, concessive SCs introduced by (a1)tltough ,SCs of
reason introduced byfor, and in some types of conditional SCs. The following
give an example of each. (The asterisks again indicate unsuitability as a PPS-
form rather than ungrammaticality.)
Renaat Declerck and Ilse Depraetere 295
--
(64) (a) I'll be in London tomorrow, whereas/while Bill will be/*is at home.
(b) As you will see/*see, he will not come tomorrow.
(c) I will give it to Tom, who will be/*is glad to get it.
(d) I will accept the invitation, although I will not enjoy/*do not enjoy
being there.
(e) I will not be here next month, for I will be/*am abroad.
(f) If, as you say, this decision will upset/*upsets her, I will consider
changing it.
In (64a-c) there is a very loose syntactic and semantic relation between the two
clauses.22The SC has a large measure of syntactic independence and is not
integrated into the HC semantically, as the latter can be fully interpreted
without reference to the SC. What is expressed in the SC is the speaker's com-
ment on the HC-situation. This comment is made at t,,, not at the post-present
HC-STO, and it is meant to be interpreted transparently. This explains the
obligatory use of the FPS.
In (64d-e), there is a clearer logical link between the two clauses, but the
syntactic link is equally loose, and the SC again expresses the speaker's
comment at t,,. (In (64e), thefor-clause expresses the reason why the speaker
makes the HC assertion.)
The most interesting case is that of the conditionals. Whereas the PPS is a
sign that the $-clause must be interpreted as expressing an open condition, the
FPS is the rule in several other types of conditional. The first type is that in
which the future fulfilment of a condition is assumed to be certain at t,,. The
following are some typical instances of such closed conditionals, in which the
FPS is used because the speaker 'is looking forward from the present moment'
(Wekker I 977: 68). (For a fuller discussion, see Declerck I 99 I: I 92-222.)23
(65) (a) If, as you say, Bill will come here himself next week, I will not need to
send him a letter.
(b) If you will not be in receipt of a scholarship or Award or if the Award
will be inadequate to meet full fees and expenses of your course and
your maintenance, please state how you propose to meet those fees and
expenses. (Haegeman 1983: I 5 3)
The FPS is also the rule in if-clauses that serve as HC for another if-clause
(whether overtly present or implied):
(66) If it'll make you feel any better [if I take it back], I'll take it back (Tregidgo
1974: 105)
In this type of conditional, whose logical structure is 'if [if q, then p], then q', it
has become conventional to use the FPS in the $-clause in order to distinguish
it from the standard open conditionals, whose logical structure is 'if p, then q'.
The FPS can also be used in if-clauses that are not fully integrated into the
HC (semantically and syntactically). Such if-clauses can be interpreted as
having independent temporal reference, so that the speaker may use the FPS if
the reference is to the future. This use becomes virtually obligatory if a present
tense form would be interpreted as referring to b rather than as a PPS-form. For
example:
(67) (a) Well, if you won't think it rude, Harold, I shall toddle in. (Jacobsson
1984: 137).
(b) I'll leave the mule here, if you won't mind. (ibid.)
(c) W e have strong faith that a rally to the defence of the Act will be a
feature of next year's politics, if the Tory Party will have the courage to
come into the open and declare war upon it. (Jacobsson 1984: I 37-8)
In (67a-b) the if-clause is relatively independent and does not really express a
condition for the actualization of the HC-situation: it is merely added for the
sake of politeness. A present tense would therefore not be interpreted as a PPS-
form. The same is true of (67c).
It should be noted that apart from the above three cases, in which will is (part
of) an FPS-form, there are also examples of if-clauses in which will is (part of)
a PPS-form, expressing posteriority in the post-present domain established by
the HC:
(68) In order to see whether the baby will be a boy or a girl, put the pregnant
woman in the middle of a flock ofwrens. The baby will be a boy if they fly
away in terror, because white boys stalk and torture and kill them. Ifit will
be agirl, they will cluster around singing, because girls grind grain and scatter
some for the wrens. (adapted from Jacobsson I 984: I 40)
However, in examples of this type will is less usual than begoing to:
(69) I'll ring you up if I'mgoing to be late for dinner. (Jacobsson r 984: r 32)
4 A L T E R N A T I V E ANALYSES
Though it is common knowledge that (what we call) PPS-forms must be used

, in some types of SC, there are few linguists that have med to explain the reason
for thls use or to provide for the use of PPS-forms in a more general theory of
tense.
According to Leech (197I : 59-60), the use of the present tense in open
conditionals follows from the fact that a situation referred to 'is not a prediction
but a fact that is taken as given':
Renaat Declerck and llse Depraetere 297
A conditional sentence.. . has the structure 'If X is a fact, then I predict Y.' Hence in the if-
clause, it is appropriate to use the Present Tense, with its assumptionof facrual certainty, rather
than the predictive auxiliary will. @. 60)
However, this explanation (which wrongly suggests that the present tense in the
if-clause is an absolute tense) fails because it is simply not true that an open
conditional represents a situation as a fact. (If it did, a sentence like Ifhe comes,
wlziclr is rather daub@, I will ask himfor an explanation would be semantically
anomalous, which it is not.) An open condition represents a supposition, not an
assertion. Besides, in those cases where the speaker does treat the $-clause
situation as a fact (i.e. as a closed condition), it is the future tense that is used, not
the present tense (cf. above).
The view of traditional grammarians (e.g.Jespersen 1932:24.25 I; Kruisinga
193I: 133) was that the use of the present tense in adverbial time clauses and
open conditionals is a question of linguistic economy: 'futurity need not be (and
therefore rarely is) indicated by means of the tense of the verb; generally the
main sentence shows unmistakably that the whole refers to the future'
(Jespersen I 932: 24). However, this view fails to explain why the present tense is
not only possible but actually obligatory in these types of SC. It also wrongly
assumes that the use of the present tense in adverbial time clauses is special, i.e.
that it would be more logical to use the future tense. (This assumption need not
be made once it is seen that in English the S T 0 of the time clause is related to
the implicit T O expressed by the conjunction, not to the HC-STO.)
According to Vet (198 I: I ~ I )the , use of the present tense in open con-
ditionals follows from a neutralization of the distinction between present and
future tense. This neutralization is due to the fact that the speaker is not sure
whether the possible world in which he locates the situation is the real world or
an expected continuation of the real world. It seems difficult to gauge what this
explanation is worth, since the only comment added is: 'Dans les phrases qui se
rkf6rent i ce type de mondes, il y a une neutralisation entre le PR [Present] et le
FUT, en ce sens qu'il n'est pas possible d'indiquer cette diffkrence i l'aide de
formes temporelles distinctes (de li l'impossibilitk de remplacer le PR . . . par un
FUT.'
A quite different approach is taken by those generative linguists who claim
that the present tense (as PPS-form) is the result of'will -deletion' (see e.g. Fodor
1968: I 3; Kittredge I 969: r 5 ; Ross 1970;Lakoff 1971: 339; Sampson 1971:588;
Vasudeva 1971: 167; Wekker 1980: 99). Apart from the fact that it does not
explain why the deletion takes place, this approach is vitiated by the fact that it
lacks a solid empirical basis: there is simply no observational evidence
supporting the claim that the present tense from the surface structure is derived
from an underlying future tense. Moreover, the hypothesis proves deficient in
that it wrongly predicts that John willsay that he hears something is synonymous
with (because derived from)John will say that he will hearsomething. (For further
arguments against the will -deletion hypothesis, see Jenkins ( I 972), Vetter
(I 97 3), Ejerhed Braroe ( I 974.)
According to Nieuwint (1986: 378-9). the reason why we cannot use the
future tense in an adverbial when -clause is that if we did the clause would not
be interpreted as 'at the time when the TC-situation holds' but rather as 'at the
time when it is predicted that the TC-situation will hold'. In his opinion, h s is
illogical:
As the prediction of a future event always precedes the event predicted, the time 'at which
something will happen' precedes the time 'at which something happens'. Seen in this light, it
mak perfectly logical sense for will not to appear after when: saying 'when he will amve the
band will play the National Anthem' would be tantamount to saying that the playing of the
National Anthem will precede HE ARRIVE and would therefore constitute a reversal of the
order of events intended by the speaker. (378-9)
There are two problems with thls analysis. First, it does not explain why the use
of the FPS in when -clauses apparently does not have h s illogical effect, and is
therefore not ungrammatical, in many other languages, e.g. in Dutch. Secondly,
the claim that when he will arrive would mean 'at the time when it is predicted
that the TC-situation will hold' appears to be ill founded. In those languages in
which the sequence is not ungrammatical, it is never interpreted this way.
(Since He will arrive is used to make a prediction at,,t Nieuwint's claim implies
that the time specified by the Dutch equivalent of when he will arrive must be 6.
However, the when -clause cannot be interpreted h s way it specifies a future
time.) Nieuwint crucially assumes that the S T 0 of the when -clause can only be
temporally related to the implicit T O (referred to by the time in the paraphrase
'at the time that*).In actual fact, it is possible (even in English) for the S T 0 of a
when -clause to be bound by another TO:
(70) (a) He remembered that when he had told his friends about it, they had
not believed him.
(c) And later, when she had invited him to the flat, he had seen how well
they were doing. (Ruth Rendell, Talking to Strange Men, Arrow Books,
London: I 987,23)
In these examples the S T 0 of the when-clause is bound by the same
(contextually given) past T O that also binds the S T 0 of its HC: both STOs are
represented as anterior to the past T O in question. (This is what Declerck I 99 I:
63 calls 'indirect binding'.) (In both examples the speaker could also use the past
tense in the when -clause. In that case the S T 0 of the when -clause would be
bound by the implicit TO. This would be 'direct binding'.) If sentences like
*john will do it when he will have time were grammatical, they would be similar to
(7oa-b) in that both STOs would be temporally related to the same TO, namely
to- Because the S T 0 of the time clause would thus be located in the post-
present, the time specified by the when -clause would not be to, as is claimed by
Kenaat Declerck and IIse Depraetere 299
Nieuwint, but a post-present time (which, because of when, would be

interpreted as simultaneous with the HC-STO). This is the way when -clauses
in the future tense are interpreted in languages where they are not ungram-
matical.
In the theory of Reichenbach (1947), the use of tenses in subclauses is
explained in terms of the principle of 'the permanence of the reference point'.
This principle, which is introduced to account for sequence of tense
phenomena, is 'the principle that, although the events referred to in the clause
may occupy different time points, the reference point should be the same for all
clauses' (293). For example, in I had mailed the letter when John came the tense
structure of the first clause is 'El-Rl-S', that of the second clause 'R,, E,S, and
the two reference points coincide.24A sentence like *Ihad mailed the letter when
]ohn has come is unacceptable because the tense structures of the two clauses
(viz. 'El-R,-S' and 'E,R,, S,') are such that reference points cannot coincide
(since Rl precedes S whereas R, coincides with it), whereas when requires them
to coincide: 'the time points stated as identical by the word "whenn are the
reference points of the . . . clauses.' However, t h s theory proves inadequate
where PPS-forms are concerned: it wrongly predicts that I willgive it to him when
he is back should be unacceptable, since the tense structures of the two clauses
('S-Rl, El' and 'S, R,, Ei) do not allow R, to coincide with Rl. Reichenbach him-
self was aware of this problem:
Further deviations occur in tense sequences. Consider the sentence 'I shall take your
photograph when you come'. The form 'When you will come' would be more correct; but we
prefer to use here the present tense instead of the future. This usage may be interpreted as
follows. First, the future tense is used in the first clause in the meaning S-R, E; second, in the
second clause the point ofspeech is neglected. The neglect is possible because the word 'when'
refers the reference point of the second clause clearly to a future event. A similar anomaly is
found in the sentence, 'We shall hear the record when we have dined', where the present
perfect is used instead of the future perfect 'when we shall have dined'. (296)
This explanation raises a lot of questions. It does not seem correct that when is
automatically interpreted as referring to the future. Besides, the present tense
also occurs after after, before, and other temporal conjunctions, as well as in
conditional clauses and various other types of SC. It is also significant that
Reichenbach treats the use of a PPS-form in when -clauses as a 'deviation' and
'anomaly', adding that the use of an FPS-form 'would be more correct'. T h
view fails to explain why PPS-forms are not only possible but also obligatory in
most of these clauses. Another problem is that Reichenbach does not make
explicit what exactly he means by saying that the present or present perfect in
when -clauses results from the fact that 'the point of speech is neglected'. How
are we to understand the claim that neglecting the point of speech leads the
speaker to use precisely the present tense (which is used to locate situations (as
if) at the time of speech)?
Recently, Hornstein (1990)has offered an adapted version of Reichenbach's

analysis in which a new principle accounts for the use of sequence of tense
forms and PPS-forms. According to Hornstein, we must distinguish between
'basic tenses' and 'derived tenses'. Basic tenses are syntactic constructs, more
specifically configurations of S R E points ordered by two relations: linearity
and associativity. Associated points (which are separated by a comma in the
Reichenbachian notation, e.g. 'R, E') are interpreted as contemporaneous.
Linearity means not only that a point ordered to the left of another point (e.g.
('E-S') is interpreted as temporally earlier but also that the order of associated
points is relevant: 'E, R-S' is a different tense from 'R, E-S', even though the two
are interpreted as temporally identical. Every basic tense is an ordered triple,
consisting of a relation between S and R, a relation between E and R, and a
compositionality operator ( O ) (which can be read as 'and'). For example:
(S, R) O (E, R) present

(R-S) O (E, R) past
(S-R) O (R-E) future
Formulas like these are then simplified as follows:
The only basic tense whose representation cannot be simplified this way is the
future perfect (whose meaning is '(S-R) O (E-R)').
From the 'basic tense structures' (BTSs) 'complex tense structures' (CTSs)
may be derived. One way in which CTSs arise is through modification by
temporal adverbs. CTSs are subject to a general constraint on derived tense
structures (DTSs) ( I 5):
CDTS (Constraint on Derived Tense Structures): DTS must preserve BTS
BTS are preserved iff
a. No points are associated in DTS that are not associated in BTS. (In other
words, a comma can become a line, but not vice versa.)
b. The linear order of points in DTS is the same as that in BTS.
In order to account for adverbial time clauses, Hornstein proposes a 'Rule for
Temporal Connectives' (RTC), which 'combines tenses into multi-tense
complexes' (43). The rule, given in (72) applies to syntactic configurations such
as (71):
Is
(71) [, . - - TNS, - - - [adjoact TC . . . .. -I]]
where T C is a temporal connective, e.g. when. (TNS - tense structure)
Renaat Declerck and llse Depraetere 3 0 1
(72) RTC (rule for temporal connectives): In (71), write the BTS ofTNS, under
the BTS of TNS,. Associate the S points. Associate the R points by moving
R, to R,, placing E, accordingly.
This RTC is subject to the CDTS 'the movement of R, to a position associated
with R, must obey the CDTS' (43). The tense structures that are acceptable in
temporal clauses are those that result from the application of the RTC within
the resmctions imposed by the CDTS. For example, the sentence John came as
Harry arrived is grammatical because the RTC applies to the tense structures of
the two clauses without violating the CDTS:
However, Y o h n came as Harry arrives is unacceptable because 'moving the point

R, to R, leads to a violation of linearity' (46):
Hornstein (48) also points out that his rules predict the grammaticality of the
present tense (as PPS-form) in John will sing as we leave the hotel:
Hornstein then applies the same analysis to open conditionals. According to

him, 'these sorts of conditionals place rather smct resmctions on the tenses of
the two clauses. These restrictions conform to the principles outlined above'
(75). Thus, Grannie will walk home ifshe misses the last bus tonight is well formed
because the application of the RTC obeys the CDTS. The BTSs and DTSs are
again as shown in (75).
As pointed out by Salkie (1994) Hornstein's theory raises a lot of problems.
We will not go into all of these here but resmct ourselves to two problems
which are directly relevant to the PPS/FPS distinction The first is that
Hornstein traces back the (un)acceptability of PPS/FPS-forms to a well-
formedness condition on syntactic tense structures: 'The CDTS is a resmction
on the syntactic manipulation of tenses, not their temporal interpretations.' ( 5 3).
This renders it impossible to explain why it is precisely in SCs with a
conditional meaning or connotation that the PPS must be used. It also
disregards syntactic &ormation that is not encoded within the syntactic tense
structures: it does not account for the fact that the PPS is never possible in HCs
or in clauses that are syntacticallyrelatively independent (such as nonresmctive
relative clauses).
The main problem for Hornstein's analysis, however, is that it is not even
descriptionallyadequate. While pointing out that his rules correctly predict the
acceptability of the present tense in time clauses and conditional clauses
refemng to the future, Hornstein disregards the obvious fact that the same rules
wrongly predict the acceptability of the future tense in the same types of SC.
Thus, the sentences "John will sing as we will leave the hotel and *Grannie will walk
home ij'she will miss the last bus tonight should be grammatical in his theory, since
the RTC obeys the CDTS. (The CDTS is never violated when the two input
tenses are the same.) Thus:
The CDTS similarly fails to filter out the ungrammatical use of the future
perfect in when- clauses (e.g. Y o h n will leave after we will have arrived):
Hornstein's theory also makes the wrong predictions for certain tense forms
that are not ungrammatical as a means of locating an S T 0 within a pre-present
domain. Consider:
(78) (a) (said before the death of Bill's wife:) At that time Bill d l be looking
for a new parmer, for he will have been lonely since his wife died.
(b) (said before the death of Bill's wife:) According to the scheme, Bill will
no longer be there at 6. He will have left when John arrived (at 5).
In (78a), died locates its S T 0 in the past of the 'pseudo-6' functioning as a

central T O of the post-present domain. In (78b), arrived is a relative past tense
expressing simultaneity with an S T 0 (the time ofJohn's leaving) which (by the
use of will have left) is located in the past of the pseudo-t,,. In both sentences, the
relevant past tense forms are perfectly grammatical, yet Hornstein's theory
predicts that they are not:
This derivation violates the requirement of the CDTS because we cannot

associate R2with R, without altering the linear order of the times in (R2-S,).
In sum, Hornstein's theory is particularly ill equipped to deal with PPS-
forms: it wrongly predicts the grammaticality of FPS-forms in temporal and
conditional clauses and cannot handle the grammaticality of past tenses
functioning as PPS-forms.
Another analysis we find in the recent literature is that of Comrie (1985).
Comrie argues that the PPS-use of the present tense is the result of the
application of a 'syntactic rule', 'according to which in certain subordinate
clauses, in particular conditional and temporal clauses, the future tense is
replaced by the present tense. This rule overrides the meanings of the forms, so
that even though yougo out in the rain cannot be assigned future time reference
(in the absence of scheduling), this time reference is possible for the present
tense in the appropriate subordinate clause' ( I I 8). According to Comrie, this
rule resembles the sequence of tenses rule in that it is a 'syntactic rule', i.e. a rule
which 'is completely independent of the meaning of the tense forms involved
. . . a purely formal operation' (Comrie I 986: 289-90).
The claim that sequence of tenses is a purely syntactic rule is refuted in
Declerck ( I 990, I 99 I : I 57-92). Some of the arguments adduced there plead
against the existence of syntactic rules replacing tense forms by other tense
forms. There does not appear to be any evidence supporting the view that some
systematic uses of tense forms have no semantic motivation. An analysis in
terms of a purely syntactic rule in any case fails to explain why PPS-forms must
be used in a number of (semantically related) SCs, but cannot be used in others.
Neither does it account for the use of will in some semantic subtypes of
conditionals, such as closed conditionals. An adequate account of these must
necessarily take meaning into account. Comrie's rule is also suspect in that it is a
variant of the will -deletion rule: the effect of the rule is that 'the future tense is
replaced by the present tense' ( I I 8). The arguments raised against the will-
deletion rule therefore also apply to Comrie's rule. Furthermore, it is a major
weakness of Comrie's analysis, and in fact of all the analyses reviewed in this
section, that it does not recognize that the use of the present tense forms part of
a wider system. The present tense is just one of the many tenses that belong to
the PPS. An adequate account of the use of the present tense as PPS-form must
also account for the PPS-use of these other tenses (cf. section j below).
j CONCLUSION
I . The basic difference between the FPS and the PPS is that tenses from the
former relate the S T 0 to ,,t whereas tenses from the latter relate it to a post-
presentT0,. From this it follows that an FPS-form creates a post-present domain
304 Tense Forms Referring ro Future Time in English
(which is at the same time a temporal domain and an intensional one), whereas
the PPS expresses a relation in an already existing domain. This means that the
temporal specification effected by an FPS-form is context-independent, whereas
that effected by a PPS-form is not. A PPS-form requires a context providing the
necessary post-present TO,. The use of the PPS is then a sign that the situations of
the SC and the HC are closely related to each other, not only temporally but also
logically: the SC is fully integrated into the HC, and the two situations are
presented as forming an interpretive unit.
2. W e have discussed the typical cases of SCs requiring either of the two
systems as well as those that are compatible with both. As regards the latter, we
have pointed out some principles that may induce the speaker to use the one
system rather than the other in particular contexts.
Generally spealung, the SCs that allow or require using the PPS belong to
one of the following types: (a) SCs functioning as adverbials that are fully
integrated in the HC (i.e. functioning as 'adjuncts' rather than 'disjuncts'; see
Quirk et a l . 1985: 1071),2~(b) SCS functioning as an internal argument (subject
or object) of the predicate of the HC, and (c) SCs that are restrictive modifiers.
The six categories of SC in which the PPS has to be used either express some
kind of condition for the HC-situation or give a value to the time variable in
the open proposition corresponding to the HC. Since it may be argued that not
only in the former case but also in the latter the HC-situation is contingent on
the SC-situation (cf. above), the unifying principle may well be that in modern
English the obligatory use of the PPS is conventionalized in SCs expressing or
connoting an open condition (cf. Hirtle 198 I).
3. A remark that can be added to the above conclusions is that the distinc-
tion between the FPS and the PPS for reference to the post-present runs
perfectly parallel to the distinction between the so-called 'conditional tense'
(e.g. would leave or wasgoing to leave) and the preterite for reference to a time
that is posterior to a past TO. Compare:
(80) (a) 1 will punish him if he is/*will be late.

(b) I told him I would punish him if he was/*would be late.
(8 I ) (a) John will be /* is happy to hear that, whereas his wife will be /* is upset.
(b) I expected that John would be/*was happy to hear that, whereas his
wife would be /*was upset.
This parallelism between the distribution of the FPS vs. the PPS and that of the
conditional tense vs. the preterite extends to conditionals that have a hypo-
thetical or counterfactual meaning. (In this type, past time-sphere tenses are
used to express remoteness from reality rather than reference to past time.) We
have seen that we cannot use will in open conditionals, unless the $-clause
itself functions as HC for another (overt or implicit) $-clause. In the same way
Renaat Declerck and llse Depraecere 305
we cannot use would in hypothetical and counterfactual f-clauses, unless the

clause in question itself supports an f-clause:
(82) (a) It would upset her if that Iiappened/*would happen.

(b) If, as you say, that man would be/*was able to open our safe (if he had
the right instruments), we should consider buying another, more
sophisticated one.
The reason for t h s perfect correlation between the expression of future time in
the present and past time-spheres is probably that it is both simpler and more
economical to use parallel systems in the two time-spheres than to apply quite
different rules. As it is, statements concerning che post-present can be reported
in the past tense with tense forms that seem to be the result of a mechanical
'backshift' (sequence of tenses). This would not be possible (and hence
cumbersome adaptations would have to be made to the tense forms) if the
systems did not run parallel. (There may be a task here for psycholinguistic
research, which could confirm whether this explanation in terms of economy
and simplicity is correct.)
4. In this article we have been mainly concerned with the use of the present
tense vs. that of the future tense in SCs referring to the post-present. However,
this distinction is just one instance of the more general distinction between the
PPS and the FPS, and we could have referred to other tenses to illustrate the
different distributions of these systems. Consider, for example, the following:
(83) (a) If we dump his body in Soho, the police will think that he was killed
there after he had been unable to pay his gambling debts.
(b) If we organize this festival, it will introduce jazz to people that had
never listened to jazz before.
In (83a) the FPS-form will think indicates the central T O of a post-present

domain and was killed is a PPS-form representing its situation as lying in the
past of this central TO. Since the situation of being killed is thus treated as if it
were a past one (i.e. it lies in the past of the central T O which is treated as if it
were q,), the past perfect (had been) is used to represent a situation as anterior to
it. This form too is a PPS-form, as it incorporates its S T 0 in the post-present
domain. As a matter of fact, because the domain is created by a strong
intensional verb (will think), the use of PPS-forms in the SCs is obligatory. The
sentence becomes ungrammatical if we replace the PPS-forms was killed and
had been by the FPS-forms will have been killed and will have been:
(83) (a') *If we dump his body in Soho, the police will think that he will have
been killed there after he will have been unable to pay his gambling
debts.
306 Tense Forms Keferring to Future Time in English
In sentence (83b) the HC (will introduce) similarly creates a post-present

domain. The form had listened is a PPS-form which represents its S T 0 as
anterior to an implicit TO which is past with respect to the central TO. (The
implicit past T O is interpreted as being the initial point of the situation referred
to by will introduce, see Declerck (1994) for a fuller discussion of this type of
sentence.) Since the domain is not established by a strong intensional verb and
since a restrictive relative clause in principle allows either the PPS or the FPS,
the FPS-form will have listened can be used instead of the PPS-form had listened:
(83) (b') If we organize the festival, it will introduce jazz to people that will
never have listened to jazz before.
These illustrations make clear that the use of the present tense vs. the future
tense for future time reference should not be investigated in isolation. It is just
one instance of the more general distinction between the PPS and the FPS.
Address for correspondence:
RENAAT DECLEKCK Keceived: I 7.03.94
UniversityofLeuven (KUL) Kevised version received: 20.06.94
Universitaire Campus
B-8500 Kortrijk
Belgium
NOTES
I While acknowledging that there is an definition coincide, we will ignore this

aspect of modality in the use of any verb distinction here and simply speak of the
form making a prediction, Declerck 'situation-TO' (STO).
(1991) recognizes the existence of a 5 It is not clear whether Keichenbach's
'future tense'. Forms like will do and is (1947) 'Event point' (E) should be inter-
going ro d o , which locate situation in the preted in the sense of our S T 0 or in the
post-present, are considered to be sense of the time of the full situation. The
instances of this. (See also below.) same is true of Comrie's 'time of the
2 Any time that can serve as the origin of a situation' (E), which is now defined as
ten,poral relation expressed by tense 'the time point or interval which is
form is called a 'time of orientation' (TO). occupied by the situation to be located in
3 There are also tense forms (such as the time' (p. 122) and now as 'the time at
future perfect) which b o t h establish a which the simation is located' (p. 245).
domain and indicate a relation in it. 6 In order to avoid any misunderstanding
These are called 'absolute-relative' tense we wish to state explicitly that the way in
forms (see below). which we use the term 'shift of temporal
J In ~ e c l e r c k( 1 ~ 6 1a) distinction is made perspective' is not the same as the way in
between 'the time of the situation' (TS) which the term is used in Kamp & Kohrer
and the time (TO) at which the situation (1983).
is located ('TO,,,'). Since the rwo times by 7 This accords with Allen (1966: 179). who
Kenaat Declerck and Ilse Depraetere 307
applies the terms 'free verb clusters' and may have all kinds o f adverbial connota-
'bound verb clusters' to what we call FPS- tions (reason, cause, concessive . . .), they
forms and PPS-forms. cat1 never be interpreted conditionally.
8 111the same way as we use 'situation' as a This fits in with the observation that they
cover tern1 for anything that can be cannot use the PPS. Compare:
expressed in a sentence (irrespective of (i) A medal will be given to the com-
whether it is an action, event, state, etc.), petitors that reaclr the finish.
we use 'acrualize' as a cover term for the (ii) A medal will be given to the competi-
verbs thar are typically associated with tors, who will reaclr the finish.
these categories (i.e. pelf;,rrrr, Irappetr , There is a clear conditional connotation
Iroltl). in (i), but not in (ii).
9 An intensional domain is 'a donlain of I 5 Those i ~ ~ t r o d u c eby
d a wlr -word in -ever
interpretation which has its own set of even require the PPS (cf. section 3.2.3
presuppositions and truth conditions, in below).
terms of which propositions can be 16 Will can, of course, occur in an open
evaluated and interpreted' (Kigter I 9x2: conditional if it is no FPS-form but a
96; see also Abusch I 99 I). modal auxiliary (with volitional or
to T h e expression of a logical connection habitual meaning): I will appreciate V'you
between two situations does not necessar- will do rlrisfor me.
ily mean that they must be located in the 17 Huddleston (1993) considers this possi-
same temporal donlain. As we will see bility as 'strong evidence against an
below, it is only when the logical relation account in terms of sloppy simultaneity: a
is that between an open condition and its speaker subjectively conceiving of the
consequent that the two STOs must be situation as simultaneous would hardly
located in the same intensional (and include temporal modifications thar
h e w e temporal) dolnain. explicitly state their non-simultaneity'
I I Quirk er a/. (1985: 1008) probably have (3 j 3). T h e flaw in this argument is thar it
the same thing in mind when they write: is based on a faulty interpretation of
'In general, the difference between the Declerck's notion of sloppy simultaneity:
simple present and the modal [will] is that sloppy sitnultaneity does not mean that
the simple present refers to an assumed the two situations are conceived as
future actual situation whereas the modal si~nultaneous, it implies precisely that
refers to the assumed predictability o f a they are not conceived that way.
situation or situations.' I 8 Note that the FPS call be used in wlren -
I 2 Some of the examples we will adduce are clauses that are relative clauses, whether
attested examples from three corpora: the restrictive or ~~onrestricrive:
Survey i$Englis/r Usage (SEU), the Brown (i) I look forward to the day when I will
Corpus (BII) and the hrrcasrer-Oslo-Beyen bc 2 1 .
Corpus (LOB). (ii) During this period, when large
I j As noted by Quirk er 01. ( I98 j: I ooX), the numbers of school-leavers will be
present tense can be used instead o f the looking for jobs, there will be rela-
future tense in noun clauses depending tively few retirements. (LOB)
o n verbs like /rope, ber, duem'r nlarrer, etc. But the PI'S is the rule in wlren-clauses
Declerck ( I99 I : 45) treats this use of the thar are in (restrictive o r nonrestrictive)
present tense as a case of 'sloppy s i ~ n u l - apposition to an adverbial adjunct,
taneity' (i.e. a posterior situation is because these clauses share the adverbial
represented as if it were si~nultaneous) functiot~of their 'antecedent':
rather than as a use o f the PI'S. (iii) W e will visit the town this afternoon
14 Although o on restrictive relative clauses when the museum is open.
(iv) 111 the remote future, when space- they are not nlopped up ill the reference
travel lrns brcon~r as easy as train of pro-forms like do so or ond so/neirlrer.
travel is now . . ., Lunik I ]nay be (For these and similar tests, see Ilurher-
recovered. (Edgren I 97 I : I 06) ford 1970;Quirk rr ol. 198j: 1071.)
1 9 We d o not agree, however, with Hirtle's 23 T h e occasional use of ~uillin $-clauses is
explanation o f the use of the present tense also discussed by Leech (1971: 6 j), Quirk
in time clauses. According to him, a rr 01. (1972: XI), Palmer ( I974: 148-9),
condition necessarily precedes its con- Tregidgo ( 1 974, I 979, I 980). Wekker
sequent, and since the present precedes (1976, I 9x0) Close ( I~ x o )Comrie
, (1982),
the fnture, it is therefore logical that we Haegeman ( I Y X ~ ) , Haegeman and
use the present tense to refer to the Wekker (1984) and Jacobsson (1984).
co~lditionand the future tense to refer to None o f them, however, distinguishes the
the consequent. full array of possibilities.
20 Co~lditional-co~lcessive clauses introdu- 24 'E-It-S' is to be read as 'E(event time)
ced by euen f d o so too, but these can be anterior to K(efere11cetime, which is itself
treated o n a par with open collditiollals. anterior to S(peech time)', whereas 'It. E'
(The co~lcessive elenlent o f leaning is to be read as 'E si~nultaneouswith IC.
comes exclusively from crwl.) 25 However, this is a strong tendency rather
2 I Wekkcr ( I970: 88) gives a corpus example than a strict rule, as some of the SCs that
that forms an exception: pass Quirk rr ol.'s (1985: 1071) tests for
(i) T h e orchestra . . . has operated har- disjuncts are not incompatible with the
~noniouslyfor years, but rhis will be PPS:
the first time that some of its members (i) At this point you will have to save the
luill /rove rrnvellrd under the new union document to disc as you Im~wused all
demands which call for increased basic the available memory.
rates plus travelling fees. . . (ii) whatever Iroppens. we will go on.
22 The fact that the SC is not syntactically (iii) T h e illadequacy o f o u r library system
integrated into the H C appears from a will become critical unless we ncr
n u ~ n b e of
r observations. For exaniple, the vigorously to correct rhis condition.
SCs of (6.p-c) cannot be the focus of (w
negation, questioning or clefring, and
REFERENCES
Abusch Dorit (1991), 'Sequence of tense, erence in the condirional protasis', Arrsrrn/-
intensio~lalityand scope', Procerdir\p (~j'rlrr in11Jourrtnl dLinguisrics, 2, I 43-52.
7111Wesr Consr G~rlferrncron Fornml L i t p i s - Comrie, Bernard (1985), Teme, Cambridge
tics (1988). Stanford University Center for University Press, Cambridge.
the Study o f Language and Information, Comrie, Bernard ( I 986), 'Tense in indirect
Stanford, 1-1 4. speech', Folia Linguislica , 20, 265-96.
Allen, Robert L. (1966). Tlrr Verb Sysrrnl (1/ Cygan, Jan (1972), 'Tense and aspect in
Presrnr-day Anrrricnn En~lislr, Mouton, T h e English and Slavic', Aylica Wratisln~knsin,
Hague.
Close, K. A. ( IgXo), 'Will in if-clauses', in S. Declerck, Renaar ( Igyo), 'Sequence of tenses
Greenbaum er 01. (eds), Srrrdirs in Enqlislt in English', Folio Linp~isricn,24, 5 I 3-44,
Lir?quisricsJhr Kar~do/p/rQuirk , Longnlan, Declerck, Renaat (199 I), Trtlsr itt E~ylislr:Irs
London. Srrrtcrure nnd Use in Discoltrsr. t<outledge,
C o ~ n r i e ,Bernard (1982). 'Future time ref- London.
Remat Declerck and Ilse Depraerere 309
Declerck, Reuaat ( I 994). 'A special use of the Jenkins, Lyle (1972) ' Will-deletion', in P. M.
h perfect', iu K. P. car1011 et a / .
E ~ l ~ l i spast Peranteau, L. N. Levi B G. C. Phares
(eds), Perspectives i n Englis/r: Strdies i n (eds), Papersfront the Eighth Regional Meet-
Honour of' Prclf;.ssc,r E ~ i r r mVorlat , Peeters, ing of the Chicago L i ~ p t i s r i c Society,
Leuvell, l 9 j-204. Chicago Linguistic Sociery, Chicago,
Depraerere, Ilse (1993). The Tense Systeru i n 173-82.
E y / i s h Relative Clarrses, Ph.D. dissertatiou, Jespersen, O t t o (1932), A Modern E~!q/is/r
University of Leuven. Gran~nror 'If' ~ i s t o r i c a lPrinciples, Part I V ,
Ducrot, Oswald ( I 972). D i r e et tie pas D i r e , George Allen & Unwin, London.
Heru~ann,Paris. Kamp, Hans 8. Kohrer, Christian (1983),
Edgreu, Eva (1971). 'Te~nporal clauses in 'Tense in texts', in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze
E ~ l ~ l i s hAlmqvist
', 8: Wiksell, Uppsala. 8: A. von Stechow (eds), M e a n i t ~ ,Use and
Ejerhed Braroe, Eva ( I 974). TIre Syntas arid Interpretation elf' Lnnyrmqe, de Gruyter,
Senmntics clf English Tense Markers, Uni- Berlin, 2 jo-69.
versity of Stockholm, Institute of Linguis- Kirrredge, Richard Irwin ( I 969), 'Tense,
tics, Stockholm. aspects and c o ~ i j u n c t i o ~some
~: inter-
Fodor, Jauet Dean ( I 96X), 'Nonspecific uouu relations for English', Ph.D. dissertation,
phrases in English', in Mat/rrrnntical L i r i p University of Peunsylvania.
tristics ond Arlion~atic Translation, Keporr Kruisinga, E. (193 I), A Hnndbooki~'Pr~~sc~nt-doy
NSF-20, the Co~nputationLaboratory of Englisl~, Part 11, E~i,qlis/r Accir/erice onti
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Syntas, vol. I , Noordl~off,Groniugen.
Givon, Talmy (1973) 'Opacity and refereuce Lakoff, Robin (1970)~'Tense and its relation
in language: an inquiry into the role of e , 838-49.
to participants', L n r ~ u a ~46,
modalities', in J. P. Kimball (ed.), Syntos Lakoff, George ( I97 I), 'Presuppositio~i and
and Senrantics, vol. 2, Seminar Press, New relative well-formedness', in D. Steinberg
York, 9 5-1 22. & L.A. Jakobovits (eds), Seri~aritics,
Haegetnan, Liliane (19x3)~T l w Senrantics (I/' Cambridge University Press, loud or^,
' W i l l ' i n Present-day British Englislr: A Unifed 329-40.
Accorrnt, Brepols, Tumhout. Leech, Geoffrey N. ( 1 9 7 1 ) M y rlri.
~ e a ~ ~ i nand
Haege~nan, Liliaue 8. Wekker, Herman Ericqlislr Verb, Long~nan,London.
(1984)~'The syntax and interpretation of Lyons, J o h ~ i(1977)~Srnro~tics, Cambridge
futurate condirionals in English', Journal(( University Press, Cambridge.
Lirgrtistics, 20, 4 j- j j. Nieuwint, Pieter (1986). 'Present aud future
Hirtle, W. J. (1981). 'Meaning aud form in ill condirio~~al protases', Linguistics, 24,
-when"-clauses', in A. Joly & W. H. Hirrle 371-92.
(eds), Lnngage etpsyrl~onitclra~iiq~ce drc lonixqe: Palmer, Frank 1I (1974). Tire Et~,qlis/r Verb,
lwdes dtdites Er rioclr Voliri, Presses Uni- Lo~~grnan, London.
versitaires de Lille, Lille, 2 I 7-28. Quirk, 1<andolph, Leech, Geffre~, Green-
Hor~isrein,Norbert (~gyo),A s Tinre Goes By: baum, Sidney, & Svartvik, Jan (1972). A
Tense and Universal Grarrrnror, MIT Press, Grornnmr 1If' Conterrrporory Enxlis/r, Long-
Cambridge, MA. nlan, Londo~i.
Huddleston, Hodney (1984), Inmjducrion to rlre Quirk, Randolph, Leech, Geffrey, Green-
Granrnrar ~ ' E n g l i s l rCambridge
, University baum, Sidney, & Svarrvik, Jan (19x5). A
Press, Cambridge. G~niprelrensive Cranrrnar clf' the Enqlish
Huddleston, Rodney ( ~ g g j ) , Review of L n r y r o g e , Lo~igr~lan,
Londou.
Declerck ( I99 I), Lingrm , 9 1 , 349- 54. Keichenbach, Hans (1947). Elen~erits~ { S y r n -
Jacobsson, Bengt (19x4) 'Nores on reuse and bolic Loqic, Free Press, New YorkKollier-
modality in conditiot~al$-clauses', Sttrdia M a c ~ n i l l a London.
~~.
Lin@tica, 38, 129-47. Rigter, Bob (1982). 'Inte~~siorial
domains and
3 10 Tense Forms Referring to Future Time in English
the use o f tense', jourtia/ ojSi,nrontics, I, y 5- Vasudeva, Harender Narh ( I971)-'Tetise and
I4i. aspect in English', Ph.D. disserrarion,
Ross, John K. (1~70).'On declarative sen- Universiry of Michigan.
rences', in K A. Jacobs 8. P. S. Hosenbauln Vet, C o (1971). 'La notion d e 'rnonde
(eds), Readings in En,qlislr Transf;,rnmtiona/ possible" er le s y s t h e rernporel et aspec-
Cronrnmr, G ~ I I I8: I Co., Walrhan~,222-72. rue1 du frangais', in R Martin 81 F. Nef
I<urherford, Williani E. ( I 970). 'Some obser- (eds), 15Temps grammatical (Lungages 6 4 )
various concerning subordinare clauses ill Larousse, Paris, 109-24.
English', Lngrragi,, 46,y7-I I j. Verrer, D. C. (1973) 'Son~eone solves this
Salkie, Raphael (. I994).. 'Some remarks on problem rotnorrow', Linquistic Inquiry, 4,
tense and universal gra~nnlar',MS. 104-8.
Sampson, Geffrey ( 1 y7;), 'Subordinate future Wekker, Hertllan C. (1976), Tlrr E~pressic~n 111'
deleriot1 and hyperclauses', Linguistic Frrrrrrr T i m e in Conten~poraryBritish En~Iis11,

Inqrriry, 2, j87-9. Norrh-Holland, A~nsrerdam.
Trqidgo, P. S. ( I 9 7 4 , 'English tense usage: a Wekker, Herman, C. (1977). 'Furure refer-
bull's eye view', Englislr Lnnguage Tcacliin,q ence in adverbial clauses in English'. Tlre
Jo~rrnnl,28, 97-1 07. Intrr/ong~tageStudies B u / / d n , 2, 04-77.
Tregidgo, P. S. ( I 979), 'Tense subordination', Wekker, Herman, C. ( I980). 'Ten~poralsub-
Englislr h n p n g i , ~eoching]orrrno/,33, 1 y I - ordiliarion in Euglish', in W. Zonneveld 8:
7. F. Weerman (eds), Li~i,qrtisricsin Tlrc Nether-
Tregidgo, P. S. (1980). 'Tense-patrerns in /oritis 1977-1979, Foris, Dordrechr, y6-103.
conditional srnrences', E ~ ~ l i s lLnn,ptagc
i

Double System of Tense Forms Referring Future Time in English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Double System of Tense Forms Referring Future Time in English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal cfsmantiu I 2: 269-3 1 0 @Oxford University Press 1995

he Double System of Tense Forms Referring to Future

relation of simultaneity. And similarly, would go is a relative tense form,

(4) (a) I'm leaving tomorrow.

( 5 ) We're having a picnic tomorrow, if it does not rain.

I . According to Declerck (I991) the basic function of a tense is to express a

(8) (a) He has done it.

(9) (a) He will do it.

Needless to say, will do is used as an FPS-form in (ga) and as a PPS-form in (gb).

in isolation, reference to the post-present in such a clause must be both unam-

between the SC-situation and the HC-situation, it implies that the SC is

(I I) (a) *John will d o it w h e d i f he will have time.

Sampson 1971: 588), it seems difficult to gauge what is the difference in

9. Because of the difference of basic TO, the contents of an FPS-clause are

3.1.9 Restrictive relative clauses depending on a temporal noun may in

3.2 SCSfDrbidding the use ofthe FPS

3.2.2 The FPS cannot normally be used in adverbial time clauses:'*

(so) (a) I will leave before John is/*will be back

It is argued in Declerck (1991) that the S T 0 of an adverbial time clause is

(53) It is still some time before the shops close.

If the HC explicitly establishes a post-present domain, the before-clause

3.2.4 That-clauses depending on the noun time in statements of frequency

3.2.5 The PPS is also the rule in SCs of proportion:

(63) 1 hope that next time you will do as I say/?willsay.

3.3 SCsforbidding the use ofthe PPS

Though it is common knowledge that (what we call) PPS-forms must be used

Nieuwint, but a post-present time (which, because of when, would be

Recently, Hornstein (1990)has offered an adapted version of Reichenbach's

(S, R) O (E, R) present

Formulas like these are then simplified as follows:

However, Y o h n came as Harry arrives is unacceptable because 'moving the point

Hornstein then applies the same analysis to open conditionals. According to

In (78a), died locates its S T 0 in the past of the 'pseudo-6' functioning as a

This derivation violates the requirement of the CDTS because we cannot

(80) (a) 1 will punish him if he is/*will be late.

we cannot use would in hypothetical and counterfactual f-clauses, unless the

(82) (a) It would upset her if that Iiappened/*would happen.

In (83a) the FPS-form will think indicates the central T O of a post-present

In sentence (83b) the HC (will introduce) similarly creates a post-present

I While acknowledging that there is an definition coincide, we will ignore this

deleriot1 and hyperclauses', Linguistic Frrrrrrr T i m e in Conten~poraryBritish En~Iis11,

You might also like