>Michael Kirschner wrote: > How does one explain the use of the present rather than the future tense > in the subrdinate clause of the following: > > "I will search the guests as they leave to make sure that nobody walks off > with any silver." > > An ESL student demands a clear explanation as to why we don't say ". . . > that nobody will walk off with any silver." >Mary Ann Black replied: >What would be wrong with saying " has walked off." It seems to me >that the present perfect fits here since technically the person >would have picked up the silver before leaving the room. What do >you think? Replying first to Michael's question can help me establish the framework for replying to Mary Ann's. I draw my answer from a work by Ilse Depraetere, _The Tense System in English Relative Clauses_ (1996). Depraetere's work is based on a study of a large corpus of written and spoken English analyzed within the framework of Renaat Declerck's _Tense in English: Its Structure and Use in Discourse_ (1991). In the case of the sentence cited by Kirschner, Declerck (and Depraetere) would say that the verb tense in the subordinate clause is temporally subordinated to the time of orientation established by the verb tense in the main clause. There is in the subordinate clause a shift of perspective--we are now transported to the future and 'experiencing' (as it were) the future as if it were present. The present tense is used to indicate that the situation in the subordinate clause is simultaneous with the situation represented in the main clause. Thus, the 'walking off' is represented as simultaneous with the 'searching.' Contrast two sentences given by Declerck: They will believe that Jack is back in town. (Jack's presence in town is simultaneous with their believing it.) BUT He will say that he will never leave her. (The situation of his potentially leaving her is posterior to --even further in the future than--the situation of his saying so.) The past tense or indefinite present perfect are used in subordinate clauses to indicate that the newly introduced situation is anterior to the time of orientation specified by the future tense in the main clause. The following two sentences illustrate this principle of interpretation: (A pair of criminals have a conversation in which this line appears) The police will think that he was killed tonight. AND What will happen when the others have left? ( both the 'killing' and the 'leaving' are represented as having occurred before the future time of orientation expressed in the main clause. The problem with Mary Ann's suggestion of using the present perfect is that the 'walking off' is then interpreted as occuring before the searching can take place. Thus, the intention of searching is futile. If the guests have walked off with the silver, then it is illogical to suggest that they be searched. So Michael, what can you tell the ESL student? The answer is very complex. Simply put, you might say that some languages, like English, have an elaborate system of temporal subordination, where the verb in the subordinate clause is sometimes (but not always) temporally subordinate to the verb in the main clause. As part of Depraetere's study shows, even native speakers of English do not always agree 100% on the interpretation of tense sequences in main and subordinate clauses. Read Declerck and Depraetere and you will begin to appreciate just how complex is the relationship between verb tenses in main clauses and subordinate clauses. Our abilities to interpret the meanings of such sequences are amazing to me. How does a native speaker acquire such an amazing ability? What does it take for a non-native speaker to come close to acquiring this competence in interpreting tense sequences? Mike Medley ********************************************************************** R. Michael Medley VPH 211 Ph: (712) 737-7047 Assistant Professor Northwestern College Department of English Orange City, IA 51041 **********************************************************************