Job Discussion Forums

[erracht]

I have just seen the following example of reported speech in a textbook with a student: "I have told him I will think about it".

Shouldn't the "will" be "would", or is there a technical reason why this is different in this case?

[denise]

Generally, you're supposed to go one tense back, but you can keep the present tense if the situation is still true. In this case, maybe if you're still thinking about it you could keep the present tense.

I think I remember seeing the following example in Headway (I haven't used it for several years, so please forgive me if I've forgotten the exact example!):

He said that London was a nice city./He said that London is a nice city.

The first follows the "one tense back" rule, but the second is OK too because London is still a nice city--it's something that was true at the time of speaking and will continue to be true. (And yes, I realize that the example makes quite an assumption about London, and not all of our fine posters will agree, but I actually do think it is a nice city.)

d

[Stephen Jones]

Both are correct, as are,
I told him I'd think about it.
I told him I'll tnnk about it

The backshifting is optional, presuming that the possibiity of thinking about it is still open.

'would' is the remote form. It suggests you are more emotional distant than using 'will'.

Let's give you a clearer example. You are walking through the town of a third world country and one of the locals stops you and asks you something. The friend who is with you asks you what he says. You can reply in three ways.
He said he was starving
He said he's starving.
He says he's starving
All three describe the same objective situation. Which of the three suggests the guy isn't going to be eating anytime soon?

[Deconstructor]

Yes, all your examples are correct.

But what I find interesting is your choice of a starving man in a third world asking help from Westerners. We just can't get over ourselves, can we?!

[Stephen Jones]

Actually I originally made up those examples in another post a couple of months ago, when the tsunami was in the news.

[fluffyhamster]

You've explained the "remoteness/emotional distance"much better here than on the Teacher Forums at least, Stephen, but I think this is partly due to the context: the intentions that can be inferred within and from the context are much clearer and stronger (these westerners might be sick of beggars by now, what! whereas the marines distributing water to tsunami victims would be less likely to be standoffish about helping).

But even so, were a person to say 'He says he's starving', we would be no more able to predict that the poor guy would still end up with no money being given to him than we could predict 'He said he was starving' would in fact result in him being handed some; that is, interesting as all this talk about mental states it, the language we use doesn't constrain what we do or allow us to be certain about what the facts are (or rather, will become).

Of course, you will say 'But I know that' - all I am saying is, should we be teaching this stuff to students (especially stuff like 'He said he is/was coming tomorrow') like it is telling them anything that is absolutely true? If the students have ears and eyes (in the "tomorrow" and "beggar" contexts) they will soon hear or see enough extra context to make things clearer ("tomorrow": potentially nothing extra is said - perhaps it was an answer to 'How's Fred?' - or it is followed by '...but I doubt if he will', even 'He says he is coming tomorrow...'; "beggar": the westerners walk hurriedly away, or dig into their pockets and give him something).

Now, the observant student might take note of what exact verb form is used in each case and start constructing interesting theories, but I'd submit that ultimately the really interesting thing is simply what is said or happens next, which may not necessarily be "in the light of" (predictable according to) what was said (that is, follow on from a rigid or exacting interpretation of the forms used) at all.

[Deconstructor]

[Stephen Jones]

Thanks for the sarcasm Decon. Are you naturally bilious or is it just a temporary response to the environment?

[fluffyhamster]

Ah, so sarcasm is what gets a response, is it? I thought carefully worded arguments would be the way to go. Hmm...

[fluffyhamster]

I think I've managed to bring up some bile here: 'I may often write a load of total rubbish, but at least I try not to trot out the same old tired and unnecessarily "detailed" takes on things that could be far simpler (simplified?) in "reality" (as it's constructed by us)'.

[Deconstructor]

[fluffyhamster]

I don't mind anyone's bile just so long as what they're bringing up is important rather than self-important. Anyway, I can see you guys have a lot to talk about so I'll leave you to it.

[Deconstructor]

[fluffyhamster]

Darn, and there I was, about to put on me anorak and go spot some lucious locomotives (I'd made sarnies, a thermos of tea, crammed my Biber et all into my satchel as well, everything!). Now it looks like I'm gonna have to stick around and "face the mucis", have the last dance with this SJ after all. Thanks a lot, Deconstructor!!!

[fluffyhamster]

BTW that 'mucis' was a typo, but when I spotted it, I liked it and thought it should stay/would stick nicely (bile and all that)!