On the effects of over-simplified rules

[Stephen Jones]

Clinging to timing as an explanation for verb selection, however, leaves too many examples of real language data confusing and puzzling in the eyes of students and teachers alike. Why make it hard? Especially when clarity is so easy?

I am not suggesting that we cling to timing as the only explanation. Only that we accept that often it is the explanation. It is clinging to the chimera that there should only be one explanation that causes all kinds of confusion.

[fluffyhamster]

I mean, if somebody said to me, "I'm coming tomorrow" and I had reason to suspect he wasn't actually intending to come, there are many ways (and, it must be said, many more clearer ways) I could express that beyond a supposed choice between is "versus" was (and I myself might well plump more for "He said he's coming, but I doubt if he actually will").

Where on earth do you get the idea from that the difference between
He said he's coming
and
He said he was coming
has anything to do with whether he's actually coming or not? The only difference between the two is the amount of interest the reporter, or the person the reporter is speaking to, has in the other person's coming.
If Gordon Brown announced that he was doubling the salaries of EFL teachers with silly noms de plume then most of the world would report it as
Tne Chancellor said he was increasing salaries for ...... but you would no doubt report it as The Chancellor said he is increasing ....."

I got that idea because somebody was claiming that the latter (using "was") was (for some reason) more "remote"! If "remoteness" in this instance has no functional bearing (beyond a nebulous "amount of interest"), then what is the difference in meaning between your two examples, Stephen?!

[fluffyhamster]

Okay, so that nice Mr Brown says he is/will be doubling my salary, and my pal says he is coming tomorrow. In both instances, I'd teach my students to report those statements as He says/said (that) he's... (no need for using or even mentioning "remote" forms here, as far as I can tell, thus no potential for confusion).

This is in contrast to e.g. "I('ve) sold my car" > He says/said he('s) sold his car (a past act, hence the past/more "remote" second verb).

[Stephen Jones]

Teh "nebulous" amount of interest, that you refer to is the difference between the two statements.
To take the example from the 'Univesity Grammar of English' we can say either
Socrates said that nothing could harm a good man.
or
Socrates said that nothng can harm a good man.
Again the choice of 'can' or 'could' is dependent on our emotinal closeness to the idea of nothing being able to harm a good man.

Let's give you another example/
He said there had been an accident on the M1......
He said there has been an accident on the M1......
In both these cases the actual words said "There has been an accident on the M1" are the same, but which of the two sentences would conclude so we'd better get the ambulances there as quickly as possible.?

Sometimes the difference between the two forms is small - but there is something that causes the speaker to chose one instead of the other, and remoteness explains that as well as many other non-temporal forms of the past simple, such as the modal
"I wondered if you would like some more tea"
and the hypothetical "If I knew the answer I would tell you."

You can basically tie up all uses of the Past tense as opposed to the Present using either temporality or remoteness.

[fluffyhamster]

"Emotional closeness"?! I wonder what Socrates actually said - presumably he used the quivalent of "can" (to be more forceful or reassuring)? Reporting with "could" doesn't really affect the thrust of his message's meaning though, does it?

Your second example (to report the accident in past perfect, as opposed to present perfect) would make no sense in just purely "temporal" terms, why the need for "remoteness" (again!)?

Which brings me back to the original is vs. was; indeed, the difference in meaning is so small as to be almost negligible! About the only explanation I'd be willing to hazard is that those who use "was" prefer (subconsciouly?) a symmetry in their grammar (tenses across verbs), and those who use "is" like to report the original words as closely as possible.

In polite offers/requests and hypothetical conditionals the use of remote (arguably non-temporal) forms is well established and seems accepted on the AL Forum too!

[Stephen Jones]

This is in contrast to e.g. "I('ve) sold my car" > He says/said he('s) sold his car (a past act, hence the past/more "remote" second verb).

There is no second or past verb here at all.

And the fact that an act happens in the past does not decide whether the tense used. He sold his car in the past but if you say
He's sold his car. ypu're using a present tense (the present perfect) because you as a speaker have subjectively decided that the time scheme involved ecompasses the present, or to think of it another way that the action is influencing the present.

In reported speech you can choose to backchain or not. Tne alternatives are
He said he'd sold his car.
and
He said he's sold his car.
In this case again it is a question of whether you iview his selling the car as having any effect on the present, that is to say whether you feel close to it or not.

Put it another way, which of the two forms of reported speech would you use if you knew the person you were talking to had expresed an interest in buying the car?

Think of it again. Suppose you were on a desert island devastated by the tsunami and an Anerican relief helocipter comes by. All the wells on the island have been contaminated by sea water and through cracked lips you just manage to say to the young marine "water, ...w-at-errr'"
Would you prefer he told the guy with the supplies on the plane, who asks
"What did he say".
He said he wanted some water.
or
He said he wants some water.?

[fluffyhamster]

I chose to use a (bracketed) present perfect there so as not to simplify the issue (by forcing people to discuss things only using past simple). Glad it gave you more to play with, SJ!

Put it another way, which of the two forms of reported speech would you use if you knew the person you were talking to had expresed an interest in buying the car?

I'd choose to say "He says/said he's sold his car", simply because I'm probably one of those who "like to report the original words as closely as possible" (which means, as a bonus, that I don't see the need to teach complex-yet-simplistic backshifting rules!).

The tsunami example is "imaginative" and "topical" (and very "amusing"! ), but there is one thing you reductionists are overlooking: context. Even if the marine in the relief helicopter says "He said he wanted some water", I'd like to imagine the water bearers wouldn't be so stupid as to think my need was only a past, passing thing, and would hope water would soon be on its way!

[Stephen Jones]

If Socrates had spoken English I am sure he would have said 'can'.

'could' does not affect the 'thrust' of the action; that's my whole point.

Your second example (to report the accident in past perfect, as opposed to present perfect) would make no sense in just purely "temporal" terms, why the need for "remoteness" (again!)?

I find it hard to follow you here. You can either backchain in this example or you can't. To suggest there is no need for backchaining is futile; what you need to do is to explain why you sometimes backchain and why you sometimes don't even though the objective sense is exaclty the same.

Equally, you are merely copping out if in the example of the Cnancellor you tell your student's never to backchain unless objecitvely necessary. If they come across a standard course book they will be told to always do so, and even if you can keep them away from Thomson and Martinet, and Swan, and Betty Azar, you won't be able to keep them away from radio reports or newspapers where you will see backchaining.

(You could of course argue with Lewis that you would do better to ignore reported speech altogether, but that is another debate).

[fluffyhamster]

If Socrates had spoken English I am sure he would have said 'can'.

'could' does not affect the 'thrust' of the action; that's my whole point.

Hmm, that's my point too (I think)!

I find it hard to follow you here.

I was just trying to say that as the accident is quite recent (and only incidentally quite pressing - that is due to the semantics of "accident" rather than "has been", isn't it?), it wouldn't make any sense for anyone, even many mouths down the line of communication, to use Past Perfect (although I do accept that, incidentally, that would make the accident sound like a distant, non-pressing event, rather than recent one).

Equally, you are merely copping out if in the example of the Cnancellor you tell your student's never to backchain unless objecitvely necessary.

I'm not ever sure what I will be telling my students in their next class, but it isn't much of what I read on Dave's!

[fluffyhamster]

I was just trying to say that as the accident is quite recent (and only incidentally quite pressing - that is due to the semantics of "accident" rather than "has been", isn't it?), it wouldn't make any sense for anyone, even many mouths down the line of communication, to use Past Perfect (although I do accept that, incidentally, that would make the accident sound like a distant, non-pressing event, rather than recent one).

I wasn't making much sense there (unless you can accept that people run around shouting "Accident on the M25 at Junction 3! Go A-squad!!"). Of course, the tense distinction is important, but ask yerselves, which would be more likely to be heard in relaying reports of an accident, (He said) there has been... or the rather "literary" (He said) there had been... (and both opposed to the emergency worker returning home and saying, "There was a bad accident on the motorway this afternoon, honey". Damn, it seems even I can't resist introducing silly examples into the debate!).

[fluffyhamster]

I think he messes things up when in defence of some kind of core mystical meaning of modality he tries to claim the "John can't speak Chinese" is not factual while "John doesn't speak Chinese" is , but that is another matter.

Just to change the subject, that reminds me of the tangent that Larry introduced on the second page of his 'Interesting use of "Future Perfect Tense" form' thread:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... c&start=15

[LarryLatham]

Stephen Jones wrote:
If Socrates had spoken English I am sure he would have said 'can'.
'could' does not affect the 'thrust' of the action; that's my whole point.


Hmm, that's my point too (I think)!

And that's why the two of you are stirring up a tempest in a teacup. You don't really disagree much here. You both simply enjoy making it sound that way.

Much as I enjoy it too, and let me assure all readers that I am enjoying it (I guess I just have the type of personality that enjoys a good argument), I can't help but notice what Fluffy, I think, did on another thread at another time, that we seem to be a very small club here. I can count the active participants on one hand, yet the number of hits on this thread leads me to believe that there are many (well, OK, at least quite a few more than the half dozen or so who post) lurking about. Come on, people. Join the fun. Jump in and splash about (as our Aussie friends might put it). It's good clean fun, and it's not likely you'll get trampled too badly, even if your ideas are different. What we(the few)'re after, actually, is improvement of our own ideas, and perhaps you can help us there. Many of you must have some ideas. Why not join us in expressing yourselves? All are welcome, I give you my assurance.

Larry Latham

...and why, Fluffy, does all this remind of you of some "tangent" elsewhere? (And what drives you to call it a "tangent", anyway? I thought it was rather germane to the discussion there!)

[fluffyhamster]

Calling it a tangent seemed a good way to get you to begin to froth, Larry.

[woodcutter]

Temporal issues are of course paramount - anything else is a byproduct.
Of course we are going to say that a dying man in front of us "said that he wants a glass of water", because he still wants it now, and that is what we wish to emphasize. If we are talking about the event later on, we can emphasize the fact that he did want a glass of water, or assuming that he still does, we can emphasize his present desire. Since we haven't given him one yet, we are probably evil, so we may not do so!

If we choose the past form in a more neutral situation it may be to be polite, to be formal, because we are not concerned to deal with a current desire, whatever. All of these things are natural byproducts of the basic difference in temporality, since distant time is less direct than current time. Since there is more than one reason to employ the past tense, we cannot make definite inferences. Anyway, no "uber-concept" of remoteness is required.

[LarryLatham]

Of course we are going to say that a dying man in front of us "said that he wants a glass of water", because he still wants it now...

Ah, woodcutter, I don't think you've really thought this one through well enough.

Let's look at the situation exactly:

Survivor: "Waaater.....waater..." [Can we asume that this might be paraphrased by a 'reporter' as, "I want a glass of water"?]

Flyboy in hovering helicopter to Marine on the ground (shouted): "What did he say?"

Marine to Flyboy (1st alternative): "He says he wants a glass of water."

Marine to Flyboy (2nd alternative): "He said he wants a glass of water."

Marine to Flyboy (3rd alternative): "He said he wanted a glass of water."

Now the pertinent questions here are, 'Are all three colored responses appropriate? In this situation? With the Marine knowing that the survivor still wants the water?' And, 'If so, what are the differences?' Actually, there is a fourth alternative which does not apply here in this situation: "He says he wanted a glass of water." That one does seem to apply to a different situation, which has a different meaning altogether. It can probably be presumed that the water is no longer an issue.

I can imagine all three of the colored responses in this situation. All three could imply that the water is wanted now. But the three responses are obviously not identical. And the difference, it seems to me, depends on what, exactly, is uppermost in the speaker's mind at the precise moment of utterance. If he is focused on the survivor's present needs, he is likely to select the red response. If he notes the "did" in the flyboy's question and focuses on the fact that whatever the survivor said, he said it before now, then he is likely to select the blue response. If, however, his mind is on his own use of the word "said" in "He said...", and realizes that he now has cast the die for a remote reporting of what the survivor said (before now) he is likely to opt for remote all the way, and the green response.

The salient point is that all are possible, all are correct, and all are meaningful, but do not have exactly the same identical meaning. All three do, however, have the same pragmatic effect.

Larry Latham