There is an interesting distinction between normal inference that reinforces meanings already in the sentence and invited inference that suggests something different from what the communicant would normally infer.  I think that Herb’s interpretation of the perfect is normal, rather than invited.  The invitation to understand the sentence differently, I believe, is in the simple past, where her removal from the event is not expected from the build-up.  The analytical conflict is where the perfect in the second example may be taken as reinforcing the build-up and harmonizing with it.  The formal register seems to allow this.  If the author is inviting an inference with the second sentence, I believe it would be as I explained it and for the reasons given.  

 

 

Because of the lack of context, we’re in the realm of invited inference.  The second sentence invites the inference that what she related happened just prior to the time of the sentence and is somehow related to her emotional state.  The first sentence permits but does not invite this inference, and so she could also be relating something that long before, perhaps did not involve her directly, but moved her deeply.

 

The pragmatics of sentences like these is particularly interesting, and there’s been some good work done on the nature of invited inference by Michael Geis, Jerry Morgan and others.

 

Herb

 

 

What does this sentence mean: She took a deep breath and, between sobs, related what happened?   What does this sentence mean: She took a deep breath and, between sobs, related what had happened?   .brad.04nov09.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/