tense and time (part 1)

[iconoclast]

TENSE AND TIME

iconoclast


1. Introduction.


The inflectional endings of Latin verbs not only carry tense, e.g. present, future, imperfect, but also carry indicative or subjunctive "mood". Imperative mood also exists, but is restricted to a very few inflections. This wealth of Latin tense-and-mood inflection was thought in times past to be integral to meaning, so 18th-century grammarians steeped in the Classics did not think twice about painting English in the same formal colours. The flaw in their ground-breaking standardisation was that English is not Latin, and English verbs do not possess the formal profusion of Latin. Over the last 1,000 years English verbs have not only lost imperative and subjunctive inflections, but have seen off most indicative inflections, too. Formally, then, English has gone its own merry way, unconcerned about the Latinate grammatical mould in which it has until recently been cast. As a result, EFL/ESL text books, grammars, and on-line courses are often less than clear and consistent when it comes to the relationship between verb tense and time reference.
The aims of this paper are (1) to re-establish the distinction between tense and time, (2) to rescue modal auxiliaries from formal oblivion and reinstate them as tenseforms, (3) to dismiss "future tense" and re-unite will with its fellow modal auxiliaries, (4) to provide a brief rundown of future time reference today, (5) to discuss the gulf between the elegance of the verb formation system and the view of it seen by the start-out learner, (6) to make two recommendations, and (7) to intimate that the circle might, despite all, be squared.



2. Time is an Arrow.


Time's Arrow, the title of a novel by Martin Amis (about a man who experiences his life backwards), is an apt metaphor for our contemporary Western perception of "time". Time proceeds along a straight unbending line, on which the beaten track behind us is the past, the approximate point we are at is the present, and the pristine stretch before us is the future. To refer to and connect up past, present, and future points and periods on "time's arrow", in other words, to create time reference, Indo-European languages such as English, German, and Spanish use verbphrases and time adverbials. It is not necessarily the verbphrase alone that establishes the time reference, nor is it necessarily the presence of a time adverbial that does so, either, for it may also take the absence or presence of a time adverbial acting in conjunction with the tense to clearly establish time reference. For example, in

I've lived there

we understand the speaker to be referring to a (started and) completed period unspecified for duration in the past, whereas, in

I've lived there for fifteen years

we understand the speaker to be referring to a (started but incomplete) situation that began fifteen years ago and is still true in the present. In both cases, the verbphrase is have lived (present perfect simple tense), so the difference in time reference between the two sentences is created by the absence of a time adverbial in the first sentence, and by the combination of present perfect simple tense and duration adverbial in the second. If we replace present perfect simple tense have lived with past simple tense lived, as in

I lived there for fifteen years

we now understand the speaker to be referring to a (started and) completed fifteen-year period that occurred at an unspecified period in the past. In both cases now, the duration adverbial is for fifteen years, and the difference in time reference is created by the use of different tenses. But what exactly do we mean by the term "tense"?



3. Tense is Form.


In Indo-European languages, tense is a formal property attached to the first - or only - verbform in the verbphrase, and is traditionally defined in terms of conjugation, i.e. inflectional suffixes grafted onto the verb root to mark first, second, and third person, and singular and plural number. In a nutshell, a definition of tense is primarily a matter of form, and not of meaning per se. Spanish, whose tenses are still highly inflected, may serve as an example. The Spanish verb amar (to love) possesses eight one-word indicative and subjunctive tenses, plus two one-word imperative tenseforms (Latin American "voseo" forms are not included). Inflectional suffixes are in bold:

present indicative: amo, amas, ama, amamos, amáis, aman
present subjunctive: ame, ames, ame, amemos, améis, amen
future indicative: amaré, amarás, amará, amaremos, amaréis, amarán
future subjunctive: amare, amares, amare, amáremos, amareis, amaren [obsolescent]
potential (indicative): amaría, amarías, amaría, amaríamos, amaríais, amarían
imperfect indicative: amaba, amabas, amaba, amábamos, amabais, amaban
imperfect subjunctive: amara, amaras, amara, amáramos, amarais, amaran
OR: amase, amases, amase, amásemos, amaseis, amasen
preterit (indicative): amé, amaste, amó, amamos, amasteis, amaron
imperative: ama, amad

In contrast, English love has only two such one-word tenses, as well as one affirmative "imperative", namely affirmative present and past simple:

present simple: love (all persons and numbers except 3PS), loves (3PS)
past simple: loved (all persons and numbers)
imperative: (Texas -) love (it or leave it)

Formally, then, while English possesses one-word present and past tenses, it possesses no other one-word tenses. Indeed, since English tenseforms have all but lost their inflections over the centuries, we must use the subject pronoun in order to clearly mark person and number (and, even so, you loved could be singular or plural). But what about the two-word present perfect simple tense mentioned above - where does it fit in?

In this case, we are dealing with "compound tenses" made up of two or three verbforms. During its long history, the English tense system has beefed itself up through:

· The combination of present- and past-tense forms of have with the past participle to make "perfect" tenses.
· The combination of present- and past-tense forms of be with the present participle to make "continuous" tenses.
· The combination of perfect and continuous forms to make "perfect continuous" tenses.
· The combination of be and have with participles to make "continuous", "perfect", and "perfect continuous" infinitives.
· The unusual standardisation of present- and past-tense forms of do plus infinitive for present and past "simple" tense negation, inversion, code (short answers), and emphasis.
· The creation of passive tenses to parallel active ones.

By accident or design, there is a curious "binary symmetry" between non-/perfect and non-/continuous forms in English tense formation. The examples of the active and passive tenses of eat (with one null), where tenseforms are in bold and non-tenseforms are in italics, demonstrate that tenses are always either:

active
(a) non-perfect and non-continuous (I eat / ate it) or
(b) non-perfect and continuous (I am / was eating it) or
(c) perfect and non-continuous (I have / had eaten it) or
(d) perfect and continuous (I have / had been eating it)

passive
(a) non-perfect and non-continuous (it is / was eaten) or
(b) non-perfect and continuous (it is / was being eaten) or
(c) perfect and non-continuous (it has / had been eaten)

Nowhere in the literature, to my knowledge, is this intrinsically pleasing symmetry in tense formation explicitly brought to the light of day.

The spanner in the works of this scheme is do plus infinitive, which seems to have originated as an emphatic auxiliary for present and past tense, and which for quite a while co-existed with the previous auxiliary-less system. By the end of the 18th century, do plus infinitive was standardised, although some fossils of the old system still live on, as in the greeting 'How goes it?'. As a verb formation anomaly, the do structure has not been included in this analysis, and will be discussed later.



4. Future Tense Formally Struck Off the List.


The curtain finally rises on the defective modal auxiliary verbs can, could, dare, dared, may, might, must, need, ought, shall, should, will, would, which are followed by, or "take", an infinitive. Excepting will, which has been labelled "future tense", these auxiliaries have long been left to languish in a mysterious tenseless limbo. This runs contrary to the logic of Indo-European verbphrase formation. Simply put, since modals always pop up as the first verbform of the verbphrase, they are tenseforms - likewise, since modals are tenseforms, they always pop up as the first verbform of the verbphrase - or else the definition of tense given above is void. (Exactly what tense modal auxiliary verbs may be in, or "carry", we shall leave to later discussion.)
That settled, one feature stands out about infinitive formation, namely the non-/perfect and non-/continuous binary symmetry of tense formation is neatly replicated. The examples of the active and passive infinitives of eat (with two nulls), where tenseforms are in bold and infinitives are in italics, demonstrate that, just like tenses, infinitives are always either:

active
(a) non-perfect and non-continuous (he must eat it) or
(b) non-perfect and continuous (he must be eating it) or
(c) perfect and non-continuous (he must have eaten it) or
(d) perfect and continuous (he must have been eating it) and

passive
(a) non-perfect and non-continuous (it must be eaten) or
(c) perfect and non-continuous (it must have been eaten)

Consequently, verbphrase formation is but the consistent application of recurrent patterns. However, there is a mystery as to why, uniquely among the modal auxiliaries, will plus base infinitive has come to be called "future simple tense", since all modals (except dared) may be gainfully employed in future time reference, as the example shows, where tenseforms are in bold and the one non-tenseform is in italics:

· We can't / couldn't possibly / daren't / may well / might just / must / needn't / ought to / definitely shan't [obsolescent] / should probably / will definitely / would never mention your sister's plight at the dinner tomorrow.

Indeed, on formal grounds alone, will has never had any right to be called future tense. First, if an Indo-European language possesses future tense, it possesses a one-word future-tense verbphrase, as in Spanish, whereas our "future simple tense" is a compound verbphrase. Secondly and in any event, compound tenses are made up of auxiliary plus participle(s), and not of auxiliary plus infinitive. Ergo, will is not future tense. Despite such a breathtakingly easy formal proof of its non-existence, future tense is still alive and well. We must delve deeper.



4. The Nature of the Beast.


If will is not future tense, what could it be? A quick look at the German verb werden /verdn/ may shed some light, for German is in the same boat as English in obstinately refusing to possess future tense. As a main verb, werden has the basic meaning of 'become', as in

Er wird /virt/ *beep*. (He's getting fat.)

but as an auxiliary, werden marks future prediction/certainty, as in

Er wird *beep* werden. (He'll get fat / He's going to get fat.)

However, the verbform wird is obviously not a future-tense form, but is the third person singular of the present indicative tense of werden. In other words, wird is a present-tense auxiliary verbform used in future time reference. Similarly, most of the "modal infinitives" dürfen, können, mögen, müssen, sollen, wollen, the majority of them cognate with English modal auxiliaries, also use present indicative in future time reference, as the examples show, where present indicative is underlined:

Darf ich es morgen tun? (May I do it tomorrow?)
Kann er es morgen tun? (Can he do it tomorrow?)
Du musst es morgen tun. (You must do it tomorrow.)
Er soll es morgen tun. (He should / is supposed to do it tomorrow.)
Ich will es morgen tun. (I want to do it tomorrow.)

Could will and other modal auxiliaries work the same way?

A second question begs itself, namely how often in tongues like Spanish that do possess future tense is it actually used in future time reference? Future time reference may be accomplished in Spanish by many means other than its future tenses. Present indicative, present subjunctive, potential, imperfect subjunctive, and imperative are used as well as future, as the selected examples show. Non-future tenseforms are in bold, and future tenseforms are in italics:

Ahorita lo hago / haré.
(I'll do it right now.)

Mi hermano llega / va a llegar mañana de Estados Unidos.
(My brother arrives / is arriving / is going to arrive from America tomorrow.)
¡Aguas! ¡Te vas a caer!
(Look out! You're going to fall!)

¿Qué van a hacer hoy en la noche?
(What are they doing / are they going to do tonight?)

Si llueve, no salimos / no vamos a salir / no saldremos.
(If it rains, we aren't going out / we aren't going to go out / we won't go out.)

Si pudiera juntar el dinero, podría salir de aquí mañana
(If I could get the money together, I could be out of here tomorrow.)

Cuando hayas terminado el reporte, mándamelo por fax.
(When you've finished the report, fax it to me.)

Nos vemos / Nos estamos viendo.
(I'll see you / I'll be seeing you.)

Consequently, the fact that a language boasts future tense in no way entails that every instance or even most instances of future time reference will necessarily involve its use. In fact, it is the specific future time reference "focus", and not the idea of futurity per se, that determines, or "selects for", the appropriate tense, and even then cases of overlapping occur, as we shall also see when we consider future time reference in English. But first we must look into will itself.



5. The Beauty of Will.


English will may function as a main verb with the basic meaning of 'employ volition' and, by extension, 'bequeath', as in

He willed the spoon to bend
She willed her fortune to a cat home

It is also a noun closely related in meaning to the main verb, as in

It's a test of wills
It's a matter of willpower
She left us nothing in her will

As an auxiliary, moreover, it retains the volition-related ideas of "immutable" nature when unstressed, and of "unalterable" habits and characteristics when stressed (often accompanied by always), as in

Boys will be boys and girls will be girls
Water will freeze at zero
That dog will always chase after cars
George will always whistle tunelessly in the bath

But, as an auxiliary, will plus infinitive is most closely associated in the literature and in materials with future time reference, as in

I'll love you for ever and a day
The Bills will win!
In 100 years' time, humanity will probably be back to huddling in caves

Sad to report, I have seen will plus infinitive inexplicably described as "will plus present tense" on more than one occasion, and have also seen am/are/is going to enigmatically labelled the "idiomatic future tense" when it is unmistakeably present continuous tense. Such muddle about and between form and meaning not only does a disservice to learners, who have enough on their plate as it is, but is also hard to understand given that simplicity itself has long been staring us in the face.



6. The Proof of the Pudding.


In specific contexts, English "modal pairs" can clearly be shown to be acting in tandem to refer to present and past time, leading us to conclude that modals are present-tense or past-tense verbforms. And, if in these contexts they are such, then formally so must they be in all other contexts, for leopards may not arbitrarily change their spots.

First, we shall consider "lapsed-time" reported speech, which is common in journalism and historical writing. In lapsed-time reporting, present-tense verbforms in the subordinate clauses following reporting verbs are "tense-changed", i.e. changed to their corresponding past-tense forms, as the examples show. The relevant tenseforms are underlined:

"The government has no intention of raising taxes."
= Gordon Brown stressed that the government had no intention of raising taxes.

"The people of East Timor have much to celebrate."
= Kofi Annan said that the people of East Timor had much to celebrate.

"This administration is never going to give in to terror."
= President Bush stated that his administration was never going to give in to terror.

Here, the present-tense verbforms has, have, and is of direct speech are tense-changed to the past-tense verbforms had and was in reported speech. Now let us see what happens if we add will to the last example and then report it, as in

"This administration is never going to / will never give in to terror."
= President Bush said that his administration was never going to / would never give in....

Since the is-was tandem is a bona-fide case of tense-changing, must not the will-would tandem also be a bona-fide case of tense-changing? Surely so. Moreover, this present-to-past pattern also holds for can-could and may-might, as in

"Unfortunately, Jack Straw is unable to / cannot comment at this moment in time."
= A spokesperson stated that Mr. Straw was unable to / could not comment….

"The India-Pakistan conflict may escalate into nuclear war unless...."
= White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer expressed the administration's concern that the India-Pakistan conflict might escalate into nuclear war unless....

The case of must is instructive, too, as must may not itself be tense-changed and had to is normally used, as in

"You must / have to hand in your essays by Friday."
= Mr. Fuller-Sessions told his students that they had to hand in their essays by Friday.

The form had to is the past tense of present-tense have to, which may co-occur with must in this context. This means that must is also a present-tense form like have to. Thus, will-would, can-could, and may-might are present-tense and past-tense pairs, and must is a lone present-tense ranger. Any other conclusion would turn lapsed-time reporting upside-down and inside-out.

Secondly, to return to the examples of "volition", we see that

That dog will always chase after cars

means that 'it is that dog's unalterable habit to chase after cars', and

George will always whistle tunelessly in the bath

means that 'it is George's unalterable habit to whistle tunelessly in the bath'. Now, if we change will to would, we see that

That dog would always chase after cars

means that 'it was that dog's unalterable habit to chase after cars (which is how he got himself killed)', and

George would always whistle tunelessly in the bath

means that 'it was George's unalterable habit to whistle tunelessly in the bath (until poor old Myrtle started lacing his rum and coke with arsenic)'. Here, the will-would pairing clearly marks present and past time reference.
Similarly, a "negative volition" is attributed to in/animate "party poopers", as in

My stupid car won't start
The blasted printer won't work
My bleeding oldies won't let me go see Pink Floyd

which in past time reference become

My stupid car wouldn't start
The blasted printer wouldn't work
My bleeding oldies wouldn't let me go see Pink Floyd

Equally, if, while he is alive, Grandda Adams will always take a break from the garden to sit down in the windbreak at the side of the manse and work up a smoke, then, once he has passed on, one will reminisce (with unstressed would) that:

My Grandda would always sit himself down to work up his pipe. First, he would take out his plug of tobacco, then he'd slice off a few bits, and then he'd…

Finally, in the context of "counterfactual" wishes, tense-changing is also mandated for will-would and can-could. Although, as in lapsed-time reports, we are not dealing with past time reference here, the examples serve to underscore that modals are indeed either present-tense or past-tense verbforms:

George will always whistle tunelessly in the bath, and I wish he wouldn't
My snotty little brother will always pester me, and I wish he wouldn't
The doctor's taking for ever (he "won't" arrive) - I wish he'd hurry up
It's been dry for weeks (it won't rain) - I wish it would rain
I'm stuck in this hole (I can't get out of here) - I wish I could get out of here

Let us sum up. In the various areas of "volition", will and would are consistently and systematically selected for in a present-tense and past-tense tandem to refer to present and past time, and the examples of lapsed-time reporting and counterfactual wishes leave us no choice but to accept that all modal auxiliaries must be present-tense and past-tense verbforms, as well.
Present-tense and past-tense modal auxiliary pairs, it can confidently be stated, are can-could, may-might, shall-should (which are not a tense-changing tandem) and will-would, as well as obsolescent dare-dared. Lone present-tense modals are must and need, and ought is, in actual fact, an obsolete past tense of owe.



7. A Bird's-Eye View of the Future.


A quick overview of future time reference in contemporary English should lay to rest any niggling nostalgia for future tense, for the most frequent forms used in future time reference in English are our "re-born" present-tense and past-tense modal auxiliary verbs, present-tense "semi-modal" verbs (i.e. verb structures which share and contrast meaning with modals), and "normal" present tenses. In the examples, tenseforms are in bold, and relevant non-tenseforms are in italics:

· modals, and "semi-modals" such as be able to, be going to, have (got) to, be supposed to, be allowed to, be likely to, dare (to), need to, had better, would rather:

1. They should / ought to / 're supposed to / 're likely to be here any time soon.
2. You'd better / must / have to / need to hand in your projects by Friday.
3. He daren't / doesn't dare (to) tell you.
4. She needn't / doesn't need to worry about accommodation.
5. We may / might / could be going to Germany.
6. Shall / Should I bring something to drink?
7. I'll / 'm going to be there if I can / 'm able (to).

· present tenses in subordinate real-time and real-condition clauses, and "imperative" in main clauses:

8. When he arrives, give him a big cheer.
9. When you've finished with the book, pass it on to Gareth.
10. If it rains, we'll / 're going to stay home.

· past tense in "unreal" conditions and wishes:

11. If I won the lottery, I'd travel around the world.
12. I wish (that) I could meet Bono.

· present simple, including am/are/is to, for scheduled or timetabled events:

13. President Fox is to visit Beijing in April.
14. I have an appointment at nine o'clock tomorrow.
15. My plane flies out early in the morning.

· modals plus continuous and perfect infinitives:

16. This time next week I should be lying on the beach.
17. In a few months they'll have been married for sixty years.

But perhaps the future reference forms most specifically treated for future time reference in materials are the "Big Three": will plus base infinitive; am/are/is going to plus base infinitive; and present continuous tense. In some contexts, will and am/are/is going to are interchangeable. In other contexts, am/are/is going to and present continuous are also interchangeable. The future time reference focuses commonly associated with the Big Three are:

will plus base infinitive:

· predictions/certainty
· possibility
· sudden decisions
· statements of willingness
· promises

am/are/is going to plus base infinitive:

· predictions/certainty
· "evidence-based" imminent predictions
· intentions/plans

present continuous tense:

· pre-arranged events
· plans in progress

18. You'll meet / 're going to meet a tall, dark, handsome stranger.
19. I'm sure he'll / 's going to be a great success in his new job.
20. Maybe I'll stay home tonight.
21. I'll do it right now.
22. I'll never do it again, I swear.
23. I know what - I'll sell my house.
24. Look out! We're going to crash!
25. We're going to sell our house.
26. I'm going to visit my grandma this weekend.
27. I'm visiting my grandma this weekend.

In 18 to 27, we see the Big Three in common future time reference environments. In 18 and 19, will and am/are/is going to are essentially interchangeable in the context of prediction and certainty. In 20 to 22, will is common in the context of possibility with maybe/perhaps, in statements of willingness, and in promises, but am/are/is going to could be used, as well, to indicate stronger intention. In 23, will is more frequent in the context of sudden, spur-of-the-moment decisions, but am/are/is going to is not impossible. In 24, however, only am/are/is going to is normally acceptable in the context of an "evidence-based" imminent prediction. In 25, am/are/is going to clearly expresses intention, contrasting with the sudden decision of 23.
Intentions, plans, and arrangements merge into one another. Imagine I decide to go to home to Britain/Ireland for a visit. That is my intention. But it will come to naught unless I take steps to buy a ticket, and unless I contact family and friends about dates. That is preparation and planning. Eventually, I have my ticket and know who I will be staying with and when. The arrangements have been made, and I can't wait to get gone. In this light, 26 and 27 could be basically synonymous. However, they could also be interpreted differently. While 26 could be seen merely as a statement of intention, meaning that Grandma does not know of her grandchild's intentions, 27 could be seen as declaring that everything has been arranged, and Grandma is expecting her grandchild.
There is one other common future time reference structure in the "expectative" combination of will plus continuous infinitive, where some kind of expectation seems to be built in, as in 28 to 30. Interestingly, subtracting will plus base infinitive from the structure leaves us with present continuous, which is most commonly used for pre-arranged situations, thus contributing to the idea of expectation.

28. Will you be stopping by the supermarket today [- you do it on a regular basis]?
29. Will you be going to the U2 concert next month [- since you like them so much]?
30. I won't be going over to Grandma's this Thursday [- contrary to usual routine].

In sum, we have re-established the distinction between tense and time, rescued modal auxiliaries from formal oblivion and reinstated them as tenseforms, dismissed "future tense" and re-united will with the other modal auxiliaries, and taken a peek at how basic future time reference hums along happily without future tense. Does it all matter?

[Stephen Jones]

Ok a lot to answer, but I suspect you are wrong!

Let us take your examples of reported speech.
First of all let us point out that "timeshiifting" in reported speech is certainly not obligatory, and is indeed much less common than the numerous exercises in it first and second language learners are given.

In fact I would say that time is not always, the most important factor in deciding the verb form to use, and that the closeness/distance nexus is much more common as the reason.

The Past tense, or Second or Distant Form, is used to describe actions that are prior, or otherwise distant, from the moment of enunciation . With reported speech however we have two moments of enunciation, that of the reporter and that of the original speaker, and whether we decide to change the form of the verb from that used in direct speech depends on how much we wish to distance it from the reporter's moment of enunciation and not that of the speaker's.

Let's look at an example."John's on the way," she said.
can be put in reported speech as
She said John was on the way.
She said John is on the way.

In both cases the choice of verb form depends on how close the reporter feels (or presumes his hearer to feel) to John's being on the way. That closeness may be in time - that is to say that in the first example John may indeed have already arrived before the reporting, but it is not necessarily so.

Equally the difference between
He said David will do it.
and
He said David would do it.
Has nothing to do with time (indeed even in direct Speech "David will/would do it" are not differentiated by time.

[Xui]

In fact I would say that time is not always, the most important factor in deciding the verb form to use, and that the closeness/distance nexus is much more common as the reason.

The Past tense, or Second or Distant Form, is used to describe actions that are prior, or otherwise distant, from the moment of enunciation .

I wonder the closenes/distance nexus happens in English only, or in other languages also?

Xui

[Duncan Powrie]

I wonder the closenes/distance nexus happens in English only, or in other languages also?

Add "if", or a comma followed by "does", after "wonder".

Is that a rhethorical question you're asking, Shun? Most will probably presume it is, sit back and let you follow you muse rather than try to give you an answer. Or, better still, everyone will ignore you totally, which is what I myself am contemplating doing soon.

In fact, I might post a poll asking that very question: should we not reply to Shun's posts AT ALL from now on?

[Xui]

In fact, I might post a poll asking that very question: should we not reply to Shun's posts AT ALL from now on?

I wish you had done so a long time ago.

[Duncan Powrie]

Shun, the main reason that people respond to you is not actually to tell you that you are wrong, but to confirm to themselves that they are right (and it doesn't take a whole lot of thought to come to such confirmations).

I don't think you will ever get anyone on Dave's to agree that you are right about anything, so why don't you just stop distracting (and potentially confusing) people, go away and die somewhere lonely, and save me the trouble of making that poll?

[Duncan Powrie]

ANYWAY, sorry, I was forgetting that this was iconoclasts's thread, so let's get back to what was being discussed (or has the discussion now moved to the, rather unhelpfully separated* "part 2" thread?).

* I must admit that I haven't read this, part 1, as closely as part 2, so I am not sure if the break is for more than logistical (time needed to type, edit etc) reasons; and if it were for just logistical ones, part 2 could've been posted on the same thread as 1, no? It would save us skipping back and forth, anyway.

[woodcutter]

"Despite such a breathtakingly easy formal proof of its non-existence, future tense is still alive and well."

Arguments with youself are easy to win. You have trounced yourself in this one by claiming that tense is primarily to do with "form". Another chap who has lost his dictionary, and feels free to build a long-winded intellectual edifice on a very personal definition of a word.

You also claim that all modals can be gainfully employed in reference to the future. That is so. However, "will" is the only one among them that turns up only in order to indicate future. Does that not strike you as important?

[Stephen Jones]

it possesses a one-word future-tense verbphrase, as in Spanish, whereas our "future simple tense" is a compound verbphrase.

Careful here; the Spanish future tense comes from the infitintive plus the verb 'haber'
So andaré is andar he
and andarán is andar han

As you've put nearly all your 'tesina' on one posting, I am afraid it will take me some time to comment on all the points I come across, and even longer to make a final synthesis.

[Xui]

I wonder whether the closeness/distance nexus happens in English only, or in other languages also?

Xui

[Stephen Jones]

You've posted that before Xui, but seeing it is a highly apposite question I will try to answer it.

The nexus exists in all languages I know of, and I suspect in nearly all languages. Where I believe English is peculiar is that the Second/Distant/Past form must bear more of the weight of expressing it than in other languages.

For example most languages have different pronouns in at least the second person to express the relationship of distance/closeness and deference/respect. Indeed I am told that in Indonesian it is an absolute nightmare. Now often the use of the correct pronoun alone will convey the due respect, whilst in English we would have to change the verb tense to the distant form, using Could you? instead of Can you? for example.

Also there is the fact that the subjunctive has all but disappered in English, so that the Past Simple must express the distant/hypothetical nature that in other languages is expressed by the subjunctive.

With regard to reported speech, I think that both French and Spanish work in the same way as English with regard to whether the tense shifiting appilies or not, but would need to check more carefully before I could say for certain.

[Xui]

In a story book where there are only past tenses, we don't have closeness whatsoever, would you explain that also?

Note: In story books, in reported speech, there is only Past Perfect. Again, why we don't have nearness anymore?

According to time, all happenings in a story are past, and therefore all past tenses. Easy.

But remoteness theory doesn't care about time, and in a story it is hard to say we don't have any psychological distance whatsoever or something near, right? Then how to express a nearness in a story writing?