ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

viognier — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:16:09 GMT

Hi all

Hi TS. As you said, we don't know how to define present and future. But we can strictly define a grammatical category [tense], in terms of morphology. A grammatical category consists of a paradigmatic opposition of morphological forms. Thus we can define [past tense], [present tense] and [future tense], theoretically.
(I'm not sure if I explain my opinion clear enough or not. If you're interested in it, I'd like to quote more clear definition next time.)

The discussion went around the question: how we should define the semantics of the "simple present form" vs. the "will+infinitive form." That is, the question was whether we can describe the semantics of "will+infinitive form" as [future tense] or not, I guess.

The former and the latter questions are intertwined, but I think we can discuss them from both sides.
-------------------------------------------
Hi MrPedantic
It's interesting.
I'm inclined, however, to distinguish first of all the semantics of the present progressive from that of the simple present tense (of reportive usage). It's not easy, although the difference seems obvious intuitively. So it seems you brought forward another difficult question..!

viognier

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

MrPedantic — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:17:41 GMT

I don't disagree with the analysis of the graphic present, etc. in this thread.

But may we not also say that the fortune-teller uses the present tense not because the future, from her point of view, is 'fixed'; but because she is reporting what she literally sees in her mind or crystal ball?

Cf. the use of the present progressive in the hypnotist's patter:

"You are getting very sleepy...you are falling asleep...you are sinking into a great white pillow...Now, when I click my fingers, you will open your eyes. {click} Now, you are very, very warm...so warm, in fact, that you must take off your clothes..."

MrP

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

TS — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:36:55 GMT

The problem here is, I think, we don't know how to define present and future. Are they definable?

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

Roro — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:06:20 GMT

Thank you milky, I feel rewarded :)

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

milky — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:02:20 GMT

I agree.

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

Roro — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:22:57 GMT

Hi milky,
You mean ... a fortuneteller sees another future worlds along the time axis ?
Yes, then there should not be any modal meaning.

And this is what I wanted to say in the first place. We can talk freely about things which does not exist yet (i.e. in this case we are imagining some distinct world, distinct from present world).

We can imagine also the world of particular future time. We can say freely or something like that. It's, too, of Future tense.

Would you agree, milky?

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

milky — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:47:50 GMT

And I agree with Dahl on everything, but in the world of fortunetelling things are different.

In fortunetelling, the future is fixed, so non-modal. Is is fact - if one believes in fortunetelling that is.

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

Roro — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:05:44 GMT

Hi milky,
You may be right, but I think I'm not wrong, too. I'd like to make some quote from Ã. Dahl's Tense and Aspect Systems (1985:102-106):

Future time reference
Before going into a discussion of the ways in which languages refer to the future, let us note that the future differs epistemologically??from the present and the past, as Aristotle noted. We cannot perceive the future directly or "remember" it??at least, this is what conventional wisdom tells us. (..)

Normally, when we talk about the future, we are either talking about someone's plans, intentions or obligation, or we are making a prediction or extrapolation from the present state of the world. As a direct consequence, a sentence which refers to the future will almost always differ also modally from a sentence with non-future time reference. This is the reasonwhy the distinction between tense and mood becomes blurred when it comes to the future. (..)

Semantics of (grammatical forms of) Future
It seems fairly clear from the data (..) that the most typical uses of Future involve actions that are planned by the agent of the sentence. (..) Notice, on one hand, that "intention" more often than not is no necessary condition on the use of Future: in the majority of cases, Future can also be used for cases where the intentional element is lacking. If we have a sentence expressing intention but with no element of prediction, i.e. where the speaker takes no stand on whether the action will take place or not, it does not generally seem possible to use Future.

We thus see that "Future time reference" is a more constant element of Future??relatively speaking!??than the modal features of this category, which in most cases may or may not be present. "Future time reference" could therefore be regarded as a dominant feature of (the grammatical forms of) Future. (..) The traditional view of the Future as a tense can be thus defended.

It seems, for Dahl, [a prediction or extrapolation from the present state of the world] Ë [Future time reference].

Probably our difference is only in terminology..?

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

Roro — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:34:01 GMT

Hi,
I think I can understand you, in principle at least, because in Japanese the future tense is not morphologically grammaticalised yet (in passing I'm Japanese). We use when in need the form for , with future temporal adverbials.

From a diachronic perspective, however, some verbal forms came to bring the grammaticalized meaning, in considerable numbers of languages. I think so .. or I've been taking such a standpoint for granted (because this view is more convenient, that's all!).

It happened relatively recently, during 17~18cc.?? I'm not sure now, I have to check it out.

Maybe our difference is only in terminology? .. no?

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

milky — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:30:23 GMT

. On the time axis. (I'm still inclined to say ... not psychological, in this case.) >>

By "psychological" I meant that it isn't physically present, but is brought into the mentally present - much the same as in the historic present. The commentary present -"Beckham runs down the wing. He shoots. Yes.---!! It's a goal!" - is physically present at the moment of speaking, but the predictive present is on mentally present.

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

Roro — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:01:16 GMT

Yes, . On the time axis. (I'm still inclined to say ... not psychological, in this case.)
Good day! or Good night!

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

milky — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:17:34 GMT

works as indicator of future tense, I think. >

And a kind of "distancer".

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

Roro — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:24:55 GMT

Proposition:

I say that the speaker has chosen the present simple in the first text because she/he wants to bring the predicted events (psychologically) closer (give them immediacy) and to make them appear more possible/factual. In the second text, the choice of "will" give less immediacy/factuality and the possibility is weaker.

What do you think?

I'm beginning to be inclined to understand at least what you insist. Simple present form has such a effect, indeed (including the historical present / scenarios usages).

But in the second text, works as indicator of future tense, I think.

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

milky — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:05:42 GMT

Could be.

Re: Tense is used for more than just time.

Roro — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:51:41 GMT

!!
Interesting!
If you are right, then there's a close similarity with the usage of , isn't it?