-1

In sentence structure of indirect speech like - (He said +........... , He informed +....... , He claimed + .......... ), I am aware that if the situation is still relevant then back shifting of present perfect tense is optional.

But what if the sentence structure is not an indirect speech but something like - ( He learned + ........... , He noticed +.......... , He found +....... ) here is back shifting of present perfect tense optional if the situation is still relevant ?

F.E.
  • 6,208
iamRR
  • 470
  • Yes. In fact, I would say that back-shifting is unlikely in sentences like "Yesterday, I learned that our company is planning to lay off our entire division". – Peter Shor May 10 '15 at 14:31
  • @Peter Shor -- But earlier you said that the sentence 'It was unclear that she has painted the door." was wrong. And now you say its right. I'm perplexed. – iamRR May 10 '15 at 15:01
  • It depends on context. I didn't mean to say that the use of the present perfect after "it was unclear" is ungrammatical; I meant to say that it was difficult to see how you could justify the use of the present perfect in that particular sentence. You can certainly use the present perfect in other sentences which start the same way, like "it was unclear that she has given up looking for work". – Peter Shor May 10 '15 at 15:11
  • 1
    If people would stop teaching students that there was a "sequence of tenses rule" in English, or if students would stop believing every daft idea their teachers push at them, we'd all be better off. There is no such rule and there never has been. Native speakers use the tenses (present, past), and constructions (perfect, passive, progressive), any way they see fit, to mean what they intend to mean. They do not follow any sequence of tense rule, and any effort spent trying to master such a monstrosity is a waste of time. – John Lawler May 10 '15 at 15:23
  • So am I to believe that the sentences like - I noticed that the clock has stopped , I learned that earthquake has caused havoc all across the country, I realized that he has left his wallet at home. are all grammmatical ? – iamRR May 10 '15 at 16:05
  • @John Lawler -- Then why its written in book that a past tense in the main clause should be followed by a past tense in a subordinate clause ? – iamRR May 10 '15 at 16:15
  • @iamRR: Because some English clergymen in the 18th century firmly believed that this was the proper rule, and the fact that common people did not talk that way was simply proof that they were common and not proper at all. The clergymen had a lot of time on their hands, so they tried to improve the grammar of the common folk by writing books, as a public service. These silly ideas caught on, unfortunately, and were spread throughout the world by English colonists, in their quest to civilize people who were civilized before the English stopped trying to eat rocks. – John Lawler May 10 '15 at 16:29
  • See also "Zombie Rules". – John Lawler May 10 '15 at 16:32
  • They're all grammatically correct, although they mean different things than they do if you use the past tense. And for sentences like "I realized that he has left his wallet at home," I think using the present perfect would be very unusual. – Peter Shor May 10 '15 at 20:02
  • @Peter Shor -- If the sentence "I realized that he has left his wallet at home." is unusual then how come its grammatically correct ? – iamRR May 11 '15 at 01:55
  • Because he has to have left his wallet at home, and done in a context so that there is a connection to the present, and not just a connection the time that you realized it. Because leaving a wallet (or painting a door) usually happens at some specific point in time, you would almost always want to use the past perfect. A clock stops and remains stopped, and earthquakes can cause havoc for an extended period of time, so for these the present perfect is reasonable. – Peter Shor May 11 '15 at 02:35
  • @Peter Shor -- And what would you say about the guideline 'A past tense in the main clause will always be followed by past tense or past perfect tense in the subordinate clause.' How correct and how frequently is it applied ? – iamRR May 11 '15 at 03:13
  • I think that guideline should not contain the word "always". For many verbs (like the ones in your question), you should use the past or past perfect tense unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. I suspect "sequence of tenses" was invented because ESL students tend to use present in this type of subordinate clauses much too often. – Peter Shor May 13 '15 at 15:04
  • What would you say about this - you are in a train station and want to let the station official know that the clock has stopped. So under this condition can one say, "I noticed that the clock has stopped.". One more query --
    Does the tense usage in subordinate clause is independent of tense in main clause ? But my grammar book has mentioned that 'if the verb in the main clause is in the past tense then the verb in the subordinate clause will also be in the past tense.' So by this logic only 'had caused' should be used. Dilemma !     – iamRR May 14 '15 at 03:25

1 Answers1

2

It's a complicated situation, with English seeming to be in flux. Here is my idea about one thing that is going on. Sometimes, what appears to be a complement sentence functions as the main assertion, and what appears to be the main clause gives the grounds for that assertion. When this is so, the functional main assertion may have a present tense verb, while the grounds for asserting it may have a past tense verb. And so we wind up with a violation of the sequence of tenses rule.

Let's take Peter Shor's example: "Yesterday, I learned that our company is planning to lay off our entire division." This asserts "Our company is planning to lay off our entire division", giving as grounds "Yesterday, I learned". If expressed like this, "Our company is planning to lay off our entire division, as I learned yesterday", it would be unproblematic. But now, for some of us, there is the option of expressing the "I learned yesterday" part as the main clause.

An odd construction with tags was noticed by Jerry Morgan: "I believe the Yankees lost the pennant, didn't they?" A tag question, like "didn't they", ordinarily goes with the main clause and not with a subordinate clause: "Horace doubts that the earth is flat, doesn't he? / *isn't it?". So, in Morgan's example, the apparent complement sentence, "the Yankees lost the pennant", is behaving grammatically as though it were the main clause.

Let's add a tag to Shor's example, and see what happens. "I learned yesterday that our company is planning to lay off our entire division, (i) didn't I? / (ii) isn't it?" Which tag is grammatical? I say, it's (ii), and if so, this is evidence that the apparent complement "our company is planning to lay off our entire division" is acting like a main, asserted, clause.

So, in answer to your question, I think it is easier to find examples of reported speech that violate the sequence of tenses rule, because we often cite what someone said previously as grounds for our own current opinion, but we can also find other cases where the grounds for our assertion are given in what looks like the main clause, but functionally is more like an adverbial.

Greg Lee
  • 17,406
  • Excellent explanation. So that also means if we want to emphasize on the stopping of clock, then we can use "I noticed that the clock has stopped." Did I get you right ? – iamRR May 10 '15 at 17:29
  • "We"? No, not me. As I've said several times, I find that sentence ungrammatical. And I didn't say anything about emphasis playing a part. So, no, you didn't get me right. – Greg Lee May 10 '15 at 17:42
  • Well you meant to say that if stress is laid on the subordinate clause rather than stressing on main clause then present tense can be used. This is what I perceived from tour answer. Anyway, if there's anything which I missed kindly tell where I'm missing. – iamRR May 10 '15 at 17:53
  • I really didn't say anything about stress. Please read it again. – Greg Lee May 10 '15 at 17:59