Does French have a relative past tense

transcript

Does French have a relative past tense?

RAPHAEL SALKIEUniversity of Brighton

(Received 30 November 1998; revised 16 August 1999)

abstract

Some recent work on French tenses has proposed a new analysis of thedifference between the imperfect and the passeÂ simple/passeÂ composeÂ. Theimperfect is said to be a relative or anaphoric tense, while the PS/PC areabsolute or deictic tenses. A number of studies have argued against the morewidely accepted analysis which sees the difference between these tenses interms of aspect.

This paper argues that the new analysis is fundamentally incorrect as anaccount of the meaning of the French past tenses, although it has brought tolight a range of phenomena which need to be included in a full account of thebehaviour of the tenses in discourse. I argue that an enriched version of thetraditional analysis can account for all the relevant data.

introduction

The French imperfect tense has traditionally been analysed as denoting part ofa situation, whereas the passeÂ simple (PS) and passeÂ composeÂ (PC) focus on acomplete situation.1 A typical contrast is shown in (1a), where the imperfectindicates that the repair was incomplete, versus (1b±c), from which we learnthat the car was subsequently in working order:1a Marie reÂparait la voiture.b Marie reÂpara la voiture.c Marie a reÂpareÂ la voiture.

Recently, however, a new analysis of French past tenses has been proposedwhich starts from some different facts. Consider these examples:2a Quand Marie rentra, Paul lui preÂpara une tasse de theÂ.b Quand Marie rentra, Paul s'occupait des enfants.

In (2a) the event described in the second clause occurs after the event in the®rst, whereas in (2b) the time of Paul doing childcare is simultaneous with thetime when Marie came home. Thus the PS in the second clause of (2a) seems

1 As the main issue in this paper is the difference between the imperfect and the other two past

tenses, I will follow widespread practice in studies of this kind and treat the PS and the PC as

semantically equivalent, ignoring differences between the PS and the PC such as those analysed

carefully in Engel (1990).

French Language Studies 10 (2000), 245±271, Copyright # Cambridge University Press

to move the narrative sequence forward in time, whereas the imperfect in (2b)does not. A number of studies ± most notably, Molendijk (1990, 1994, 1996),Berthonneau & Kleiber (1993, 1996, 1998) and Vetters (1993a, 1993b, 1996) ±have argued that it is this distinction between the PS and the imperfect whichis crucial.

Similar observations can be made about the use of French past tenses inindirect reported speech, as in (3):3 Arthur deÂclara qu'il eÂtait heureux.The imperfect eÂtait in the reported clause indicates that the time of Arthurbeing happy was simultaneous with the time of him speaking. Here we haveanother instance where the imperfect seems to express simultaneity.

The new analysis which takes simultaneity as central to the use of theimperfect has been presented in the literature as resting on a distinctionbetween DEICTIC and ANAPHORIC tenses. I shall argue, however, thatthese terms are inaccurate and confusing, and that a better pair of terms isABSOLUTE and RELATIVE tenses. The central claim of the new analysis isthat the imperfect is a relative tense, so we shall call it the RELATIVETENSE analysis. I refer to the traditional treatment as the ASPECTUALanalysis, because it draws on notions concerning stages of situations and theirtemporal boundaries which come under the heading of `aspect'.

This paper examines the two analyses and concludes that the new analysis isfundamentally incorrect as an account of the meaning of the French pasttenses, although it has brought to light a range of phenomena which need tobe included in a full account of the behaviour of the tenses in discourse. Iargue that an enriched version of the traditional analysis can account for all therelevant data. I will try to show that the aspectual analysis can explain most ofthe facts that have been used to justify the relative tense analysis, and that theremaining data are best handled within a model of textual relations rather thanthe semantics of tenses.

2 the aspectual analysis

2.1 The basic distinction

Most grammars of French adopt the aspectual analysis of the imperfect and thePS. Hawkins & Towell are typical:

[The imperfect] is used to describe ongoing past events without reference to a time of

starting or ®nishing. (1996: 228)

A thorough version of the traditional treatment is provided by Wilmet, whodistinguishes `l'aspect global bornant le proceÁs' signi®ed by the PS from`l'aspect seÂcant l'ouvrant aÁ ses deux bouts' expressed by the imperfect (1996a:398). Similar analyses in other major studies of French grammar such as

R. Salkie

Brunot (1936), Wagner & Pinchon (1962), Martin (1971) and ArriveÂe et al.(1986) are discussed by Monnerie-Goarin (1996), who writes:

± le passeÂ composeÂ [le passeÂ simple aussi ± RS] traduit un proceÁs deÂlimiteÂ dans le passeÂ

(totaliteÂ du proceÁs ± ®n ± commencement du proceÁs);± l'imparfait traduit un proceÁs en deÂroulement dans le passeÂ (1996: 19)

An extended and vigorous defense of the aspectual analysis is provided byRand (1993), who agrees with Imbs (1960) that `the de®ning characteristic ofthe imparfait is its lack of beginning or end, or, in other words, of boundaries'(1993: 14). The PS, on the other hand, is said to express boundedness ± tofocus on the boundaries of a situation rather than on any internal phases.

Another way of making the same distinction is to use the terms perfectiveand imperfective. Vetters (1993a), for example, says this of French past tenses:

Pour la grammaire traditionnelle . . . le PS exprime l'aspect perfectif (acheveÂ ), ou saisitles eÂveÂnements dans leur globaliteÂ tandis que l'IMP exprime l'aspect imperfectif (inacheveÂ,

seÂcant ), ou saisit l'eÂveÂnement dans son deÂroulement . . . (1993a: 15) (emphasis inoriginal)

2.2 Arguments against the aspectual analysis

Several arguments against an aspectual analysis of French past tenses arepresented by Molendijk (1990: 18 ff. and 1994: 24) and repeated by Vetters(1993a: 15±16) (a further argument presented by Berthonneau & Kleiber(1993) is discussed in connection with their theory below). Molendijk's ®rstargument involves examples like (4), which he argues is perfective because `lefait mentionneÂ est preÂsenteÂ comme eÂtant valable pendant toute une peÂriodebien deÂlimiteÂe: celle qui couvre la vie entieÁre d'HeÂleÁne':4 HeÂleÁne eÂtait la ®lle du Roi de Pologne.It is, of course, true that if you are someone's daughter then this is acharacteristic which remains the case during your whole life. The point about(4), however, is that it does not focus on the entire life of HeÂleÁne. If a writerwanted to do that they would use the PS:5 HeÂleÁne fut la ®lle du Roi de Pologne.Here is an authentic example which is similar in its ®nal sentence:6 `Charles IX . . . roi de SueÁde (1607±1611), 3e ®ls de Gustave Vasa. Il

acceÂda au troÃne apreÁs avoir eÂcarteÂ Sigismond, roi de Pologne et heÂritierleÂgitime. Il fut le peÁre de Gustave Adolphe.' (Le Maxidico, Paris, Editionsde la Connaissance, 1996, p. 1282).

A sentence like (4) would be used where the text is concentrating on a smallerperiod than HeÂleÁne's whole life ± typically as background to a narrative usingmostly the PS. It is because the imperfect has unclear temporal boundaries thatit is used in this way. The fact that we can sometimes make inferences about alonger period of time with clearer temporal boundaries does not oblige us to

revise our analysis of the imperfect. Vetters (1996: 108) accounts for thedifference between (4) and (5) in a similar way.2

Molendijk's second argument concerns examples in which he claims thatthe imperfects are perfective because `ils reprennent le laps de temps d'uneÂveÂnement perfectif au PS':7 Le roi mourut aÁ l'aÃge de 65 ans (S1). Pendant deux semaines, les journaux

publieÁrent des paneÂgyriques du deÂfunt (S2). On vantait sa prudence, soncourage, et cent autres qualiteÂs qu'il n'avait jamais eues (S3).

8 Soudain, il interrompit le silence (S1). «Il faut en®n deÂcider», dit-il (S2).Sa voix trahissait l'impatience (S3). Puis il retomba dans le silence (S4).

Here again Molendijk's reasoning is not convincing. In (7) the event describedin (S2) relates to the entire period of the two weeks ± it is a single, completeevent with clear temporal boundaries. The events referred to in (S3) are notpresented as complete but as partial snapshots to indicate what was happeningin (S2).

In the case of (8) the focus of (S3) is again not on the whole event ofspeaking but on a description of the speaker's voice. Notice that (S3) could beparaphrased as Sa voix eÂtait impatiente, which is clearly an unbounded situation.As with the ®rst argument, in both (7) and (8) the fact that we can determinethe exact time for which each description holds is taken by Molendijk asindicating that they are perfective. Such reasoning would make any imperfectperfective if by some process of inference we could calculate the exact timeduring which the relevant state of affairs held true. It is the focus on theactivity in progress that is important, not the result of a process of inference.

The third argument adduced by Molendijk involves an example in whichthere is a delimited time expression in the same clause as the imperfect:9 Pendant un sieÁcle, des hommes comme Hudson observeÁrent VeÂnus, sans

pouvoir interpreÂter les pheÂnomeÁnes bizarres qu'ils enregistraient. Pendanttout ce temps, les VeÂnusiens se preÂparaient.

The aspectual explanation of the imperfect has no problem with se preÂparaient:the preparations remained incomplete, hence the imperfect is used. The factthat they remained incomplete throughout a speci®c period of time does notmake them complete: the period of time may have been over but thepreparations were not. It is the temporal boundaries of the situation that arerelevant to the choice between imperfect and PS, not the temporal boundariesof any adverbials in the context. This argument therefore fails too.Molendijk's fourth argument starts with the observation that in each of thesentences containing the imperfect in (4) ± (9), it is impossible to break in witha clause beginning lorsque soudain . . .:

2 Examples involving `reigning' or `being queen' are frequent in the literature on tense and

aspect. These predicates have unusual aspectual properties, as Bache (1985) pointed out: they

can either be regarded as states, or as an abstract way of referring to a collection of events.

Because of this they should be used with care.

R. Salkie

4' *HeÂleÁne eÂtait la ®lle du roi de Pologne, lorsque soudain . . .7' *On vantait sa sagesse, lorsque soudain . . .

/[Impossible in the context given in (7)]8' *Sa voix trahissait l'impatience, lorsque, soudain . . .

/[Impossible in the context given in (8)]9' *Pendant tout ce temps, les VeÂnusiens se preÂparaient, lorsque soudain . . .

/[Impossible in the context given in (9)]Molendijk claims that this shows that the situations in question are notimperfective. Here again the conclusion does not follow. There are manysentences in the imperfect where it is not possible to use lorsque soudain . . . inany context:10a *HeÂleÁne avait les cheveux courts, lorsque soudain . . .

b *Les brontosaures eÂtaient veÂgeÂtariens, lorsque soudain . . .The sentences in (4') and (10) are used to give a characteristic description of

a person or a certain group of animals, and it is this that makes thecontinuation with lorsque soudain . . . sound strange. The same is true of (7') ±(9') in the context given. It is the incomplete aspectual nature of the imperfectthat makes it appropriate for characteristic descriptions of this kind. We returnto this point in section 4.

Molendijk (1994: 24) gives a ®fth argument, which is cited here in itsentirety:

`. . . if the difference between the passeÂ simple and the imparfait were fundamentally

aspectual (perfectivity vs. imperfectivity), then the use of the imparfait in sentences thatrefer to `completed' facts should be impossible. But (11) shows that this is not whatactually happens:

11 Quand j'atteignis la foreÃt, une heure sonnait.Here the example given by Molendijk is misleading. If sonner refers solely tothe single chime of the bell at one o'clock then the PS would be used. Butsonner can also refer to the entire sequence of sounds, including the tunebefore the single chime of the bell on the hour. This sequence takes severalseconds and it is therefore possible to use the imperfect to indicate part of thesequence.

No one has produced arguments against the perfective nature of the PS, asVetters notes (1993a: 25). The arguments against the aspectual analysis have allinvolved the imperfect. So far, then, we have found no convincing reason toabandon this analysis.

3 the relative tense analysis

3.1 Background

The starting point for this analysis was the use of French past tenses in texts.Important steps on the way were Weinrich (1973), an in¯uential work which

studied the use of tenses in narrative, and Partee (1973, 1984), who examinedsome parallels between time relationships and the relationships of anaphorabetween pronouns and their antecedents. It was Hans Kamp, however, whosediscussion of French tenses in text led to the relative tense analysis (cf. Vet,1991: 7±13; Vetters, 1993a: 14). Kamp proposed that certain relations betweenthe situations described in a text should be represented in a discourserepresentation structure (DRS) of the text. Consider again the examples in (2),repeated here:2a Quand Marie rentra, Paul lui preÂpara une tasse de theÂ.2b Quand Marie rentra, Paul s'occupait des enfants.The idea is that each PS takes the storyline forward in time in the DRS whilethe imperfect refers to the same time as the previous PS. In the terminology ofReichenbach (1947), the PS moves the reference point forward whereas theimperfect does not.As soon as this proposal was put forward it was beset by problems. Kamp andRohrer (1983) noted the three following examples:12 Marie chanta et Pierre l'accompagna.13 L'anneÂe dernieÁre Jean escalada le Cervin. Le premier jour il monta jusqu'aÁ

la cabane H. Il y passa la nuit. Ensuite il attaqua la face nord. Douzeheures plus tard il arriva au sommet.

14 L'eÂteÂ de cette anneÂe-laÁ vit plusieurs changements dans la vie de nos heÂros.FrancËoise eÂpousa AdeÁle. Jean-Louis partit pour le BreÂsil et Paul s'achetaune maison aÁ la campagne.

In (12) the two events are not consecutive but simultaneous. In (13) the ®rstsentence summarises the separate ones in the following clauses. The ®rstsentence is not so much simultaneous with all the sentences that follow, but isa different way of referring to the same events. This is also the case in (14),except that here the order of events in the second and third sentences is notindicated.

Various mechanisms were proposed by Kamp and Rohrer to solve theseproblems, and later studies such as Vet (1991) and Vetters (1993a) pointed outfurther dif®culties of the same kind. In this paper it is not necessary to pursueexamples like (12) ± (14) which make exclusive use of the PS. We can acceptthat in most narrative texts the storyline tends to move forward, but thatwriters will often vary the time relations where it suits their purpose. It isnatural to use the PS for events in a narrative which move forward in thisway: it follows from the aspectual meaning of the PS that it should be usedlike this.

The more signi®cant issue is the part of Kamp's analysis that applies to theimperfect. We need to look ®rst at the claim that the imperfect normally doesnot move the reference point forward. Whatever we ®nd when this claim isscrutinised, we then need to ask if the relevant facts can be explained by theaspectual analysis of the imperfect or whether they point to a differentanalysis.

R. Salkie

3.2 Anaphoric and deictic tenses

Although Kamp concentrated on the textual behaviour of tenses, he did notexplicitly abandon the aspectual analysis of the PS and the imperfect. It waslater studies such as Houweling (1986), Lo Cascio (1986) and Molendijk(1990) which built on Kamp's work and proposed a distinction betweendeictic and anaphoric tenses. The basic claims in this work are summarised byBerthonneau & Kleiber as follows:

`Une conception anaphorique coreÂfeÂrentielle de l'imparfait'. . .Les diffeÂrentes theÂories que nous avons regroupeÂes sont d'accord pour reconnaõÃtre ou

postuler que ± contrairement au passeÂ composeÂ ou au passeÂ simple auxquels ellesl'opposent ± l'imparfait ne localise pas lui-meÃme la situation qu'il introduit: (i) il nepeut eÃtre utiliseÂ s'il ne renvoie pas aÁ une uniteÂ temporelle du passeÂ, deÂjaÁ disponible

dans le contexte ou accessible dans la situation immeÂdiate, (ii) en l'absence d'un teleÂleÂment, l'imparfait est jugeÂ ininterpreÂtable. (1993: 57)

The claim now was not simply that the imperfect and the PS/PC functiondifferently in texts, but that the way in which they locate events in time isradically different. The imperfect needs help from its context in a way that thePS/PC do not ± just as a pronoun like he is not interpretable unless it has helpfrom its antecedent.

We thus have two claims which together led to the application of the term`anaphoric' to the imperfect.

Claim 1: The time of the imperfect is simultaneous with the time of areference point in the context (Kamp & Rohrer).

Claim 2: The imperfect requires an antecedent in the context in a way thatthe PS/PC do not.

We shall look below at the accuracy of these two claims, but the importantpoint here is their potential for confusion. Each of them has connections withanaphora, but in different ways. A typical pronoun like he has to be identicalwith its antecedent. Claim 1 focuses on the identity, while claim 2 highlightsthe need for an antecedent. The dif®culties arise when the notion `anaphorictense' is applied to other tenses. The pluperfect, for instance, often seems torequire an antecedent past time in the context (thus conforming to claim 2),but the relationship with the antecedent is one of anteriority, not simultaneity:2c Quand Marie rentra, Paul lui avait preÂpareÂ un repas.If as a result of this problem claim 2 is considered to be the central part of thenotion `anaphoric tense', then problems quickly emerge in situations wherethe PS seems to behave similarly to the imperfect in relating to a referencepoint in the context. Vetters discusses pairs of examples of this kind:15a Il se remit en marche. Il avancËait avec preÂcaution maintenant.

15b Il se remit en marche. Il avancËa avec preÂcaution maintenant.He comments: `la disponibiliteÂ d'une reÂfeÂrence temporelle n'empeÃche pasl'emploi du PS' (1993a: 25±6). It seems that (15b) contains a reference point asmuch as (15a). Thus claim 2 on its own cannot distinguish between anaphoricand deictic tenses.

Kleiber (1993) examines the conceptual status of anaphora and deixis inrelation to verb tenses, and concludes that a principled division betweenanaphoric tenses and deictic tenses is highly problematic. There is, however,another distinction that is far less problematic and which avoids the conceptualproblems associated with anaphoric and deictic tenses. This is the distinctionbetween ABSOLUTE tenses, which take speech time as their deictic centre,and RELATIVE tenses which do not.

3.3 Relative and absolute tenses

There is a sense in which all tenses are relative. The function of tenses is tolocate situations in time, and the only way to do this is to take some knownlocation in time as a starting point and then relate the situation to the startingpoint. Most tense systems single out the time of utterance (TU) as this startingpoint, and tenses which relate the time of the situation (TS) to TU are knownas absolute tenses. Relative tenses are those which relate their TS to someother starting point. Consider this example:16 I will be happy when we are in Paris.The future will be is an absolute tense: it means `future in relation to TU'. Thepresent are, in contrast, is relative: it means `present in relation to some time' ±speci®cally, the future time referred to by will be. This example shows thatrelative tenses are by their nature context-dependent in a way that absolutetenses are not. Because relative tenses invite the hearer to ®nd a time otherthan TU to serve as starting point, the hearer of the subordinate clause of (16)will look to the linguistic context for such a starting point: in this case themain clause provides one.

Tenses in certain kinds of subordinate clauses are often interpreted asrelative. In example (16), though, the basic meaning of the tense does notchange in any other way: the present tense are still expresses simultaneity andnot, say, anteriority. All that changes is the starting point for this simultaneity.Any theory of tense has to accommodate this ability of tenses which arenormally absolute to be interpreted as relative in certain types of clause.

The dif®cult and controversial question is whether there are tenses whichare either (a) always relative, or (b) have a fundamentally different sense intheir relative interpretation from the one they have in their absolute use (forexample, if a relative present tense expressed anteriority rather than simulta-neity). If either of these situations can be convincingly demonstrated, this hasprofound implications for the semantics of tense. Such tense behaviour wouldmake it impossible to defend a simple theory of tense in which all tenses are

R. Salkie

basically absolute except in certain de®nable constructions in which theyacquire a relative interpretation. Instead, relativity would have to be an optionwithin the theory of tense itself.

Situation (b) has been argued to exist in English in recent work by Declerck(1990, 1991, 1995). Declerck argues that the English simple past can have arelative interpretation in which it means `simultaneous to some other (past)time in the context'. Since in its absolute sense the past means `anterior toTU', Declerck is proposing that a past tense can sometimes express simulta-neity rather than anteriority, as in the second clause of (17):17 I met him when I was in London.Declerck says that met is an absolute past tense but was is a relative past. IfDeclerck were correct, this would be similar to the hypothetical case in theprevious paragraph of the present tense changing its meaning. I have arguedelsewhere (Salkie & Reed, 1997) that Declerck's arguments for a relative pasttense in English are unconvincing, and Declerck has responded with counter-arguments (Declerck, 1999).

Consider now the situation in French. The similarity between Declerck'salleged relative past in English and the supposed anaphoric sense of theimperfect in French is striking. In other respects, French is prima facie ratherdifferent. Unlike English, which only has one in¯ected past tense, French hasthree tenses which refer to past time ± the imperfect, PS and PC ± so anyanalysis has to distinguish between them. It may be that the differencesbetween them are not basically to do with tense: it is well known, for instance,that the PC is typically used in speech where the PS would be used in certaintypes of writing, but that in such cases their temporal meaning is essentially thesame. Similarly, the traditional analysis sees the difference between theimperfect and the other two tenses in terms of aspect. If this is correct then asfar as tense is concerned the three forms are identical: they simply locate TSbefore TU. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the imperfect is alwaysa relative tense, then it differs in temporal meaning from the other two forms,we have an instance of situation (a) and tense theory has to be modi®edaccordingly.

We have noted that relative tenses are by their nature context-dependent.An uncontroversial relative tense like the present tense in (16) thus needsanother time in the context to act as the starting point for tense interpretation.Without this other time it is impossible to begin to locate in time the situationthat the sentence containing the relative tense refers to. We need a term torefer to this property of relative tenses: let us say that they are deictically strandedif no other time in the context is available to come to their help, and deicticallyanchored if such a time is available.

When a tense is deictically stranded it is not interpretable: every occurrenceof a tense needs to be deictically anchored. This is true of relative tenses likeare in (16). There is no way that We are in Paris can begin a discourse in thesense of `present in relation to some future time' that it has in (16). Because of

the requirement that tenses be deictically anchored, the present tense can onlyhave its normal, absolute sense in such cases.

There are several reasons for using the relative-absolute distinction in placeof the deictic-anaphoric distinction. Firstly, it is widely accepted and has along history (cf. Comrie, 1985: 56ff.). Secondly, it avoids the need to drawconfusing parallels between tenses and pronouns. Thirdly, it enables thosewho believe that the imperfect is a relative tense to dispense with what wecalled claim 1 for French and allow other tenses to count as relative: thus thepluperfect, the imperfect and the future in the past can all be classed as relativetenses in examples where they seem to behave similarly:18 Jean deÂclara qu'il avait beaucoup travailleÂ, qu'il eÂtait fatigueÂ, et qu'il

reviendrait apreÁs l'heure de repos.Here each tense after the ®rst takes the time of deÂclara as its starting point,expressing anteriority, simultaneity and posteriority to that time. A fourthadvantage is that the debate about French can be related to the controversyabout relative tenses in English mentioned above.

Kleiber compares the relative-absolute and anaphoric-deictic distinctions,and concludes that they are not the same (1993: 126±7). He does not, how-ever, bring out any problems that are intrinsic to the relative-absolutedistinction, whereas his paper shows many dif®culties with the anaphoric-deictic distinction when it is applied to tenses. It is therefore fully in the spiritof his work to replace the latter with the former, and I shall do so henceforth.

3.4 The relative tense analysis in Molendijk

Molendijk (1994) is the most consistent version of the relative tense analysis ofthe imperfect. He gives this example:19 Pierre se promenait avec sa femme (S1). Il expliquait aÁ sa femme les

conditions de vie sur VeÂnus (S2) et lui indiqua Mars (S3).His comment is:

. . . both expliquait (IMP) and indiqua (PS) indicate simultaneity with respect to thewalking . . . But they do not do so in the same way. Expliquait (IMP) quali®es the

walk as a whole, whereas indiqua (PS) only refers to a speci®c moment of the walk.(1994: 25).

Molendijk goes on to argue that the simultaneity for the imperfect must be`global':

Information contained in an IMP form in a sentence P:There is a fact or moment of time X (explicitly provided by or deducible from the textthat contains P, or relevant to the (speech) situation in which P is asserted) such that P

globally holds for X. (X is anterior to the moment of speech) (1994: 27).

The basic idea is that the other fact or moment of time is completely containedwithin the time to which P refers. Molendijk's formal de®nition of globalsimultaneity (`_') is as follows:

R. Salkie

X_Y if and only if X coincides with Y and:(i) X is not a proper part of Y;(ii) if X holds for moment of time that temporally precedes Y, then it also holds for a

moment of time that temporally follows Y;(iii) if X holds for a moment of time that temporally follows Y, then it also holds for a

moment of time that temporally precedes Y (1994: 27)

Molendijk argues that the imperfects in (20) and (21) meet this de®nition:20 Vers 6 heures, Jean rentra. Sa femme sortait.21 Pierre rentra. Il pleuvait.I would argue, however, that none of this machinery is necessary to explainthe temporal relationships in (20) and (21). The aspectual analysis sees theimperfect as focusing on a sub-part of a situation, ignoring its temporalboundaries. In order to be able to do this the boundaries must lie before andafter the period focused upon: in other words the situation must also hold fora period of time afterwards (Molendijk's condition [ii]) and for a period oftime beforehand (his condition [iii]). We thus often infer from a situationdescribed in the imperfect that it went on longer than actually stated.Molendijk's notion of `global simultaneity' thus follows directly from theaspectual analysis of the imperfect. As for (19), the imperfect expliquait is usedbecause the explaining was incomplete within the period of time referred toby se promenait, whereas the PS indiqua is used because the indicating wascomplete within this period of time.

My argument here is not that Molendijk's analysis is wrong, but that it isredundant. It follows from the aspectual analysis rather than itself being thebasis of an analysis of French past tenses. Since we seem to need aspectualinformation anyway, and since the arguments against the aspectual analysis are± we have argued ± unconvincing, then if the aspectual analysis can doeverything that the relative tense analysis can, we should dispense with therelative tense analysis. The onus is on the proponents of the relative tenseanalysis to show either that their analysis is independent of the aspectualanalysis, or that it can account for facts that the aspectual analysis cannothandle. So far they have not succeeded in meeting either of these conditions.Returning to Molendijk, much of his paper concerns examples like (22) ±(23). Here the other time X is not explicitly mentioned in the previoussentence but has to be inferred.22 Pierre alla aÁ son travail dans sa nouvelle Mercedes (S1). Juste aÁ l'entreÂe de

Gorges, il attrapa une contravention (S2): il roulait trop vite (S3).23 Le vieil homme alluma la lampe (S1). La faible lumieÁre donnait aÁ la pieÁce

un air de tristesse.The simultaneity in (S3) of (22) is not with either of the times indicated by thetwo previous sentences. From (S1) and (S2), however, we can infer thatbetween starting out and being booked for speeding there was a period oftime in which Pierre was driving along, and it is this time that is simultaneouswith the time of (S3). In example (23) we infer from (S1) that the lamp was

then burning, and it is again this inferred situation that is simultaneous withthe time of the imperfect. We shall return to these examples in the nextsection.

3.5 Relative tense and non-temporal anaphora: Berthonneau and Kleiber

The hypothesis of global simultaneity put forward by Molendijk is exam-ined critically by Berthonneau & Kleiber (1993). Their ®rst argument relatesto cases where the reference time is allegedly given by a time adverbial. As wesaw above, one of the central parts of Molendijk's analysis is the existence of `afact or moment of time X (explicitly provided by or deducible from the textthat contains P, or relevant to the (speech) situation in which P is asserted)'.For Berthonneau and Kleiber, the imperfect needs to have nearby `une uniteÂtemporelle du passeÂ, deÂjaÁ disponible dans le contexte ou accessible dans lasituation immeÂdiate' (cf. section 3.2). In the cases we have looked at so far thistime nearby can be given by an independent clause using the PS as in (20±23),or by a subordinate clause in the PS as in (2b):2b Quand Marie rentra, Paul s'occupait des enfants.It is natural to treat similarly a time adverbial occuring with the imperfect as away of providing the reference time, and Molendijk's discussion of timeadverbials like last year is based on this approach (1994: 42).

Berthonneau & Kleiber point out a fatal problem for this assumption thatthe time adverbial can provide a reference time for the imperfect. They simplynote that where the time adverbial expresses the totality of a period of time,the imperfect is impossible:24 *Pendant deux ans / durant deux ans / pendant toute l'anneÂe / toute

l'anneÂe, Paul vivait aÁ Paris. (1995: 63)An analysis like Molendijk's which dispenses with aspect altogether in itsanalysis of the imperfect cannot handle examples like (24). In the aspectualanalysis (24) is unacceptable because the perfective time adverbials con¯ictwith the notion of incompleteness which is a fundamental part of the meaningof the imperfect.

Berthonneau & Kleiber go on to discuss pairs of sentences like (25a±b) inwhich the PC indicates just certain segments of last year, while the imperfectapplies to the whole of last year and more time besides.25a L'anneÂe dernieÁre aÁ Paris il faisait chaud.25b L'anneÂe dernieÁre aÁ Paris il a fait chaud.These examples seem at ®rst sight to support Molendijk's `global simultaneity'analysis nicely. Berthonneau & Kleiber point out, however, that if theadverbial does not function as the reference point in (25b) then some otherexplanation is needed for the facts in (25). We return to these examples insection 4. It is worth adding that the relative tense analysis of (25) depends onthe claim that the relation between the time adverbial and the tense is differentin (25a) and in (25b): in (25a) the time adverbial is simply a time adverbial,

R. Salkie

whereas in (25b) it is allegedly a `reference point'. While it is true that the timerelations come out differently in (25a) and (25b), the onus is once again on theproponents of the relative tense analysis to show that this is not because ofaspectual factors but has something to do with the nature of the `referencepoint'. No one, to my knowledge, has attempted to do this.Berthonneau & Kleiber then turn their attention to examples like (22) and(23), repeated here.22 Pierre alla aÁ son travail dans sa nouvelle Mercedes (S1). Juste aÁ l'entreÂe de

Gorges, il attrapa une contravention (S2): il roulait trop vite (S3).23 Le vieil homme alluma la lampe (S1). La faible lumieÁre donnait aÁ la pieÁce

un air de tristesse.They point out that if Molendijk's account of these examples was correct, itshould be possible to use the imperfect in the second sentence of (26), `. . .puisque l'on dispose ici aussi d'une implication tireÂe de S1, aÁ savoir Paul eÃtrepar terre, aÁ laquelle peut s'appliquer l'imparfait' (1993: 64):26 Paul tomba de la falaise (S1). On le ramassa / *ramassait avec les deux

jambes fractureÂes.They also point out that (22) becomes `nettement moins approprieÂ' if wereplace the third sentence by Il roulait avec plaisir : the point is that there is aconnection between being booked for speeding and driving too quickly,whereas there is no such connection between being booked for speeding andenjoying the drive. Berthonneau & Kleiber conclude that the imperfect needsmore than just a temporal antecedent: there is also a non-temporal relationshipwhich in their view has to hold, namely that the situation in the imperfectmust be a part of the antecedent situation. The traditional term for the part-whole relationship is `meÂronomie', so they describe the imperfect as `un tempsanaphorique meÂronomique' (1993: 68).

Applying their analysis to (22), Berthonneau & Kleiber argue that (S3) refersto a part of the situation denoted by (S2), namely its cause. They thus disagreewith Molendijk's claim that the antecedent of (S3) is the situation inferredfrom (S1) ± `John driving in his car'. For them the antecedent of (S3) is (S2),but the relationship is not just a temporal one. They argue that the aspectualanalysis can link (S2) and (S3) in purely temporal terms ± `Jean eÂtait en train derouler trop vite au moment ouÁ il a eÂteÂ (arreÃteÂ pour eÃtre) verbaliseÂ' (1993: 69) ±but that the aspectual account does not explain why Il roulait avec plaisir is notpossible as the ®nal sentence of (22). However, this is not a very cogentargument. It is simply pragmatically dif®cult to ®nd a connection betweenbeing booked for speeding and enjoying the drive, so it is hard to see whyanyone would mention one and then the other. If we change the order of thesentences then the sentence becomes acceptable if we add mais before (S2):22' Pierre alla eÂ son travail dans sa nouvelle Mercedes (S1). Il roulait avec

plaisir (S2), mais juste eÂ l'entreÂe de Gorges, il attrapa une contravention(S3).

The conjunction mais is used here to indicate that the expectations arising

from (S2) are about to be contradicted in (S3): expectations that everythingwould continue to go nicely in the absence of any information to the contrary.I would therefore argue that it is independent pragmatic considerations thatrule out Il roulait avec plaisir, not the meaning of the imperfect.

Berthonneau & Kleiber note that their analysis has apparent problems indealing with examples like (27), which, they concede, the aspectual analysisand the mainstream anaphoric analysis can handle easily:27 Marie rentra (S1). Paul s'occupait des enfants (S2).(Compare (2) above). They say:

On ne voit pas immeÂdiatement quel pourrait bien eÃtre le tout anteÂceÂdent dont lasituation aÁ l'imparfait serait un meÂronome (Berthonneau & Kleiber 1993: 70 ±

meÂronome = a part of some whole).

The solution they propose is that the `structure du monde' provides theantecedent:

L'essentiel est de retenir qu'au moment de la rentreÂe de Marie, il y a dans le cadre

pertinent ouÁ a lieu cette rentreÂe, des eÂtats et des eÂveÂnements en cours. On voit alorsimmeÂdiatement quel est le fonctionnement meÂronomique de l'imparfait dans (27): ilpreÂsente la situation E2 comme eÂtant un ingreÂdient du cadre spatio-temporel tel qu'ilest au moment ouÁ s'y produit la rentreÂe de Marie (1993: 70) [NB quote amended

because I've changed (27) to make it less sexist].

This solution seems unconvincing to me. We can always reconstruct a`structure du monde' as part of any context. If the imperfect can takesomething as vague as this for its antecedent then any imaginable context willlicence its use. What happens in (27) is that the situation in (S2) is taken to bepart of the background because of the nature of incomplete events: as waspointed out above, we normally presume that they began some time beforethe sub-interval focused on by the imperfect, and will continue for some timeafterwards. The aspectual analysis thus handles (27) adequately: the problemsraised by Berthonneau & Kleiber's approach seem to be an artefact of thatapproach and show its fundamental inadequacy.

Molendijk (1996) rejects Berthonneau & Kleiber's treatment of (22),arguing that the explanation which they offer would also allow (22')(# indicates unacceptability in this context):22 Pierre alla aÁ son travail dans sa nouvelle Mercedes (S1). Juste aÁ l'entreÂe de

Gorges, il attrapa une contravention (S2): il roulait trop vite (S3).22' Pierre alla aÁ son travail dans sa nouvelle Mercedes (S1). Juste aÁ l'entreÂe deGorges, il attrapa une contravention (S2): # il brulait un feu rouge. (S3).It is quite possible for bruler un feu rouge to be part of the event of beingbooked in (22'), just like rouler trop vite in (22). Molendijk continues tomaintain that the antecedent of (S3) is Pierre driving his car, rather than Pierrebeing booked. He proposes that (22') is unacceptable because bruler un feu rougecannot be globally simultaneous to the event of Pierre driving (1996: 118±9).

R. Salkie

Berthonneau & Kleiber (1998) argue that Molendijk's solution is nottenable. As evidence that it is (S2) which is the antecedent of the imperfect in(22) they point out that (S1) can be left out:22'' Jean attrapa une contravention. Il roulait trop vite. (1998: 60)Since it is (S1) in (22) which yields the inference (John was driving his car)that Molendijk claims to be the antecedent of the imperfect, example (22'')shows that Molendijk's claim is incorrect.

As for (22'), Berthonneau & Kleiber simply appeal to aspectual differencesbetween rouler trop vite, which is an activity, and bruler un feu rouge, which istoo short to have any internal structure and is an accomplishment (cf. section4.1 below). They claim that bruler un feu rouge cannot therefore be part of theantecedent, which they argue is `Pierre dans la situation ouÁ il est au momentouÁ il attrape une contravention' (1998: 54). This is true, but only becauseBerthonneau & Kleiber de®ne the antecedent here as a state of affairs, ratherthan the whole event of being booked. They give no reason for doing so,however, which casts doubt on their explanation.

There is a more cogent reason to reject their explanation of (22'), a reasonwhich also makes Molendijk's explanation unnecessary. Berthonneau &Kleiber themselves note that an aspectual explanation would be just as adequate:

AÁ ce niveau explicatif, la solution imperfective ou la vision seÂcante rendraient les

meÃmes services. Mais le recours aÁ un anteÂceÂdent fait ressortir la motivation del'enchaõÃnement des phrases. (1998: 55)

What Berthonneau & Kleiber fail to recognise is that il brulait un feu rouge isalways bizarre, unlike il roulait trop vite ± precisely for the aspectual reasons thatthey indicate. There is therefore no need to say anything about other sentencesnearby. It thus appears that the aspectual explanation of (22) and (22') isperfectly adequate.

3.6 Vetters on aspect and relative tense

Vetters (1993a) accepts Molendijk's arguments against an aspectual analysis ofthe imperfect, but notes that no one has produced evidence against thetraditional analysis of the PS. He therefore constructs a hybrid theory which inhis view combines the positive elements in both the aspectual and relativetense analyses. The PS is given a traditional analysis as a perfective past. For theimperfect, Vetters says that it is aspectually neutral (neither perfective norimperfective) and that its essential property is de®ned on the textual level as arelative past tense. He cites Tasmowski-De Ryck:

. . . une phrase aÁ l'IMP a besoin de se rapporter aÁ un moment speÂci®que, un point dereÂfeÂrence, que le contexte doit permettre d'eÂtablir. (1985: 76).

Vetters adds:

`Cette caracteÂrisation saisit ce qui est commun aÁ tous les emplois de l'IMP. (1993a: 22)

The ®rst thing that Vetters does is attempt to show how this hybrid theory canaccount for (4) and (7±9), the key examples that Molendijk used against theaspectual analysis:4 HeÂleÁne eÂtait la ®lle du Roi de Pologne.7 Le roi mourut eÂ l'aÃge de 65 ans (S1). Pendant deux semaines, les journaux

publieÁrent des paneÂgyriques du deÂfunt (S2). On vantait sa prudence, soncourage, et cent autres qualiteÂs qu'il n'avait jamais eues (S3).

8 Soudain, il interrompit le silence (S1). «Il faut en®n deÂcider», dit-il (S2).Sa voix trahissait l'impatience (S3). Puis il retomba dans le silence (S4).

9 Pendant un sieÁcle, des hommes comme Hudson observeÁrent VeÂnus, sanspouvoir interpreÂter les pheÂnomeÁnes bizarres qu'ils enregistraient. Pendanttout ce temps, les VeÂnusiens se preÂparaient.

For (4) the argument is that `la vie de la personne en question est accessiblecomme peÂriode de reÂfeÂrence' . For (7) and (8) Vetters claims that `il existe desliens seÂmantiques et pragmatiques entre la phrase aÁ l'IMP et celle au PS quipreÂceÁde, qui font que nous interpreÂtons ces IMP comme reÂfeÂrant aÁ la meÃmepeÂriode. Le compleÂment de temps pendant tout ce temps de (9) est la peÂriode dereÂfeÂrence aÁ laquelle se preÂparaient reÂfeÂre' (1993a: 22).

The dif®culty with this approach, in my view, is that it reduces the notionof `reference point' to near vacuity. As we noted in our discussion ofBerthonneau & Kleiber, it is not enough to claim that certain times functionas the `reference point' with the imperfect. Vetters also needs to show that thesame times do not function as the `reference points' with other tenses like thePS. So he has to show that the relationship between the imperfect in (4) andthe life of HeÂleÁne is different from the relationship if the PS were used instead.Similarly, the semantic and pragmatic links between sentences have to bedemonstrably different when one uses an imperfect; and the relationshipbetween the tense of a clause and a time adverbial has to be crucially differentwhen the tense is the imperfect. Vetters does not attempt to show any of thesethings. The dif®culty for Vetters is particularly clear in the case of (9), whichhas a time adverbial in each of the two sentences. Why is pendant tout ce temps areference point but pendant un sieÁcle in the ®rst sentence just a normal timeadverbial? It is more natural to say that both time adverbials function in thesame way ± as time adverbials, no more and no less ± and that the differentinterpretations of the two tenses results from aspectual properties of the PS andthe imperfect, as we argued above. A similar observation is made by Wilmetin his critique of the relative tense analysis of the imperfect: `l'imparfait . . . nerequiert ni plus ni moins de localisateur que n'importe quelle forme verbale'(1996b: 211).

Vetters combines this relative tense analysis of the imperfect with an aspectualanalysis of the PS. His proposal is that the imperfect is aspectually neutral, onlythe PS being positively marked for aspect. He goes on to examine some caseswhere according to this account either tense should be possible because thesituation is presented in its totality ± hence licensing the PS ± but with an

R. Salkie

accessible reference point ± thus meeting the condition for the use of theimperfect:28 La guerre de Cent ans ± qui dura [/*durait] d'ailleurs 116 ans ± fut surtout

ameneÂe par la rivaliteÂ entre Philippe VI et Edouard III.29 Personne n'aima NeÂron parce que ± deÁs le deÂbut de son reÁgne, et jusqu'aÁ

la ®n ± cet homme fut [/*eÂtait] un tyran terrible.Vetters makes the following comment:

. . . le PS s'impose ici pour des raisons aspectuelles: malgreÂ la neutraliteÂ de l'IMP, on

constate qu'il est dif®cile, voire impossible de le combiner avec un compleÂment dedureÂe qui ou bien mesure la dureÂe totale (116 ans ), ou bien speÂci®e les deux bornes del'intervalle (deÁs le deÂbut de son reÁgne, et jusqu'aÁ la ®n ). Il semble donc que ces

compleÂments ne se contentent pas de la forme aspectuelle neutre de l'IMP, maisexigent la forme marqueÂe perfective du PS (1993a: 27).

Surely, however, it is perverse to maintain that the imperfect is aspectuallyneutral in the face of examples (28) and (29). The reason that the imperfect isincompatible with the time adverbials in these examples is simply that theimperfect is imperfective while the time adverbials are clearly perfective.

Vetters goes on to argue that in example (9) the time adverbial pendant toutce temps is less speci®cally perfective than the time adverbials in (28) ± (29),hence allowing the imperfect se preÂparaient. This is surely correct, and isentirely consistent with the aspectual analysis.

Vetters then tries to explain why the PS preÂpareÁrent is impossible in (9): heargues that although it is not a fundamental part of the meaning of the PS thatit always introduces a new reference time, it normally does so (except in whathe calls `quelques contextes particuliers' such as parallel events [e.g. Mariechanta et Pierre l'accompagna ± cf. example (12)). In (9) the time adverbialpendant tout ce temps is clearly not a new reference time, and this con¯icts with`le lien eÂtroit entre PS et nouvelle reÂfeÂrence' (1993a: 28). I argued above,however, that this explanation is not necessary: the contrast between incom-plete preparations (imperfect) and complete ones (PS) explains the facts.

Vetters (1996: 142) modi®es his earlier system. He accepts the analysis ofBerthonneau & Kleiber as the correct account of the imperfect, but keeps the`hybrid' nature of his earlier system in proposing that `au niveau de sensdescriptif ', an aspectual treatment can handle the distinction between PS andthe imperfect. The claim is that the aspectual facts are a consequence of thepart-whole relationship put forward by Berthonneau & Kleiber. We notedabove, however, that Berthonneau & Kleiber appeal to aspectual informationwhen they need it (cf. their treatment of (22) and (22')), and I have argued thatthe textual behaviour of the two tenses follows from their aspectual properties,rather than the other way round. Vetters accepts that `dans la plupart des cas,le modeÁle aspectuel fait des preÂdictions correctes' (1996: 147). The problemsthat worry him are those raised by Molendijk, but we saw in section 2.2 thatthese are not insuperable. I would argue that aspect makes the right predictions`dans tous les cas'.

3.7 Tense in indirect reported speech

In Declerck's analysis of English tenses, the behaviour of tense in indirectreported speech (IRS) is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favour ofdistinguishing a relative past tense. Most of the arguments and counter-arguments that have been presented by Declerck (1991, 1995, 1999) and hiscritics (Salkie & Reed, 1997) carry over directly to French, and there is littlepoint in reproducing them here. There are one or two extra dimensions ofIRS in French, however, which shed a useful light on tense use in bothlanguages.

Consider the following examples:30a Arthur declared that he was happy.30b Arthur will declare that he is happy.Both of these examples are ambiguous. In the preferred sense of (30a), thetime of being happy is understood to be simultaneous with the time of Arthurspeaking (his original words might have been Ì am happy'). There is also a lesssalient but possible interpretation of (30a), brought out if we add a timeadverbial like the previous day to the end of the sentence, in which Arthur washappy at some time before the time of his speaking (his original words wouldhave been Ì was happy [yesterday]'. In (30b) we ®nd a similar state of affairs: apreferred interpretation in which the being happy is simultaneous with thetime of Arthur speaking, and a less preferred interpretation in which Arthur ishappy now (and in which his original words would once again have been Ìwas happy').

The traditional way of handling the preferred sense of (30a) is by means of asequence of tense (SOT) rule which changes the tense of the original utterancefrom present to past if the reporting verb is past. Comrie (1986) presents athorough treatment of tense in IRS which sharpens up the traditional SOTrule. He formulates the SOT rule as follows:

If the tense of the verb of reporting is non-past, the tense of the original utterance isretained. If the tense of the verb of reporting is past, then the tense of the originalutterance is backshifted into the past . . . (1986: 279)

Comrie's system assumes that the meaning of the original tense is unaffectedby the SOT rule, except in one respect: the tense of the original utterancechanges from an absolute tense to a relative tense. So was in (30a) is analysed asa relative present, just like is in (30b): the difference is that SOT applies tochange the form of the verb in (30a) but does not in (30b), because in (30b)the verb of reporting is non-past. To account for the less preferred sense of(30a), Comrie subsequently amends the SOT rule so that it does not apply ifthe tense of the original utterance was past. Comrie does not discuss the lesspreferred sense of (30b), which seems to be a problem for his system.

Declerck (1990, 1991) gives a number of powerful arguments againstComrie's treatment of tense in IRS, and puts forward an alternative analysis

R. Salkie

which does not involve an SOT rule. Declerck proposes that in (30a) and in(30b), the tense in the complement clause can be either relative or absolute.For (30b) this appears to be correct. If we accept this analysis of (30a),however, we must accept that English has a relative past tense meaning`simultaneous with another past tense in the context'.

Consider now the situation in French, where the equivalents of (30) aregiven in (31) (compare (3) above):31a Arthur deÂclara qu'il eÂtait heureux.31b Arthur deÂclarera qu'il est heureux.The interpretations of these examples parallel those of (30) exactly: twopossible meanings in each case. It would be tempting to conclude that (31a)supports the claim that the imperfect in French is a relative past, because theimperfect is the normal tense in the complement clause in such examples.3

This would be a correct conclusion if (31a) only had one sense, the sensewhere Arthur's being happy is simultaneous to the time of his speaking.Unfortunately, (31a) also has a sense in which the being happy was prior tothe time of Arthur speaking ± the sense which Declerck treats as anABSOLUTE past tense in English. A similar example is given by Descotes-Genon, Morsel & Richou (1993: 235):32a SeÂbastien a demandeÂ aÁ IreÂne: «C'eÂtait bien cette feÃte?» (Style direct).32b SeÂbastien a demandeÂ aÁ IreÂne si cette feÃte eÂtait bien. (Style indirect).Example (32a) is intended to be the original, and indicates clearly that the timeof SeÂbastien asking is after the time of the `feÃte'. The same time relations areexpressed in (32b), so we have here an instance where the imperfect does notexpress simultaneity to another time in the context but anteriority.

Examples like (31a) and (32b) are thus fatal to the claim that the imperfect isa relative past tense in the important sense of always expressing simultaneity toanother past tense in the context. It is conceivable that Declerck's analysisworks for English but that some other account of tense in IRS ± such as anSOT analysis ± is necessary for French. The fact that (30) and (31) seem towork in the same way in the two languages would argue against this approach,and in favour of a single treatment for both languages. Salkie & Reed (1997)argue that neither Declerck's analysis nor Comrie's works for English, and thatpragmatic principles can handle tense in IRS without complicating the

3 Declerck (personal communication) has emphasised that he does not subscribe to the view that

the French imperfect is always a relative past tense. Even those scholars who do hold this view

have not tended to regard the use of the imperfect in indirect reported speech as evidence in

support of their view: thus Vetters (1993b) endorses Comrie's treatment of sequence of tense.

An explicit account of indirect reported speech in French that appeals to relative tense can be

found in Grevisse (1993: 1397), who says:ApreÁs un passeÂ dans la principale, on met le verbe de la subordonneÂe . . . aÁ l'imparfait pour marquer la

simultaneÂiteÂ du fait subordonneÂ par rapport au fait principal . . .

If Declerck's analysis of tense in indirect reported speech were correct for English, it would be

entirely natural to extend it to French in this way. It is therefore relevant to show that the

analysis does not work for French.

English tense system in undesirable ways. It is reasonable to assume that asimilar treatment is appropriate for French.

Berthonneau & Kleiber (1996) also argue that Comrie's and Declerck'sanalyses are inadequate. They claim to ®nd support for their analysis of theimperfect in examples like (31a) by arguing that the antecedent of the situationin the imperfect is Arthur, `saisi[. . .] dans le passeÂ . . . [auquel] on attribue laproprieÂteÂ d'eÃtre [heureux] (1996: 123). This property is `part of ' the ante-cedent, and we therefore supposedly ®nd another instance of `anaphoremeÂronomique' in the use of the imperfect. This is ingenious but dubious: intheir 1993 paper the antecedent of the imperfect was a situation, not anindividual. Any property such as being happy can be conceived of as `part of 'the entity of which it is predicated: Berthonneau and Kleiber need to showthat (31a) is different in this respect from the simple sentence Arthur estheureux. We can thus conclude that no support for a relative past analysis ofthe imperfect has yet been found from tense in IRS.

4 conclusions

In a way this paper leads to negative conclusions. We have claimed that thearguments against the traditional analysis of French tenses are unsuccessful;that the arguments for the new analysis are inaccurate or unnecessary; and thatthe traditional analysis can therefore be maintained. More positively, though,the defence of the traditional analysis leaves it enriched and more coherent.This section summarises the picture that emerges.

4.1 Aspect and types of situation

We start with the fundamental distinction that separates the PS/PC from theimperfect: the distinction between bounded and unbounded situations. Wethen have to take into account the kind of situation that a sentence refers to.The widely-used typology of Vendler (1967) distinguishes four main types ofsituation:

Activities: situations which are homogeneous (have no internal structure) and have

no inherent time boundaries. Example: pousser une bicyclette.

Accomplishments: situations which have an inherent end point and clear temporalboundaries. Examples: peindre un tableau en trois jours; marcher 1 km.

Achievements: situations which have no internal structure because they are so short.

Example: gagner une course.

States: situations which have no internal structure because they do not involve anychange. Example: eÃtre malade.

(Examples from Monnerie-Goarin (1996: 12 and 36).

The PS/PC are the normal tenses for situations in the past which are clearlybounded, namely single complete accomplishments and achievements. With

R. Salkie

accomplishments, the PS/PC retain the sense of a process leading to an end-point, while the imperfect leaves the end-point out of the picture (Monnerie-Goarin 1996: 29).33a Nous avons eÂcrit une lettre en deux minutes.33b Nous eÂcrivions cette lettre quand nous avons recËu la nouvelle.The examples in (1) about repairing a car are also accomplishments andbehave in the same way.

Achievements are in principle too short to have a `deÂroulement' andtypically occur in the PS/PC. Monnerie-Goarin notes that when they appearin the present tense, achievements can have three interpretations:

Je pars peut signi®er (1) je viens de partir; (2) je suis en train de partir; (3) je vais partir.(1996: 30)

The same three possibilities are available with the imperfect Paul partaitquand j'ai recËu le message :

partait peut signi®er (1) venait de partir; (2) eÂtait en train de partir; (3) allait partir(1996: 31)

Essentially what happens with achievements is that we look for some way tointerpret the sentence in terms of `deÂroulement': either the state of affairs afterthe situation is over (interpretation 1) or leading up to it (interpretation 3) orby reconceptualising the situation as lasting longer than an instant (interpreta-tion 2). In the case of the achievement that we gave as an example above,gagner une course, the second sense is obtained by focusing on the process whichnormally leads to the achievement (in other words, we reconceptualisewinning a race as an accomplishment):34 Pendant la premieÂre partie de l'apreÁs-midi c'est Villeneuve qui gagnait,

mais Schumacher l'a deÂpasseÂ aÁ la ®n du 14ieÁme tour et Villeneuve a ®nien deuxieÁme place.

For situations in the past which depart from these clear cases in any respect,the question of which tense to use arises. Let us look at the different cases inturn.

Activities and states do not have inherent temporal boundaries, and onewould therefore expect to ®nd the imperfect used often in connection withthem. For many activities and states, however, it is possible to indicatetemporal boundaries if desired: someone can walk or push a bicycle for aspeci®c length of time, and the same is true of states of affairs like a personbeing ill or a car being on a road. The PS/PC can therefore be used withactivities and states if they are regarded as bounded. The boundaries do nothave to be speci®ed, as the following example from a novel shows. Thenarrator has gone to his usual bar to recover from some disturbing events:35 Je commandai un autre whisky. La lecture des journaux, l'ambiance du

cafeÂ, l'alcool qui me bruÃlait la gorge et une consommation effreÂneÂe deLucky, tout cela contribua aÁ me deÂtendre un peu. (Gattegno 1992: 108)

The PS contribua treats the situation as a single complete event with temporalboundaries, even though these boundaries are not explicitly indicated.

Some states are not normally limited in time, and the imperfect is the morenatural tense to use. Someone can be happy or ill for a speci®c period of time,but it is not normal to be tall, or English, or female for a limited time only. Asentence like Mary fut anglaise is therefore bizarre, unless the adjective is beingused to refer to characteristics that English people are typically thought tohave, which may be considered as limited in time.

States and activities are both homogeneous, and they therefore behave insimilar ways. A further consequence of this similarity is evident in thefollowing examples:36a Le Parlement sieÂgea (ou: a sieÂgeÂ) pendant l'eÂteÂ 2023.36b Le Parlement sieÂgeait pendant l'eÂteÂ 2023. (from ArriveÂ et al 1986, cited in

Monnerie-Goarin 1996: 19)25a L'anneÂe dernieÁre aÁ Paris il a fait chaud.25b L'anneÂe dernieÁre aÁ Paris il faisait chaud. (from Berthonneau & Kleiber

1993: 61)Since the imperfect focuses on the intermediate stages of a situation, it oftenrefers to a shorter period of time than the PS/PC, which view the situation asa whole. This is typically the case with accomplishments, where the imperfectleaves the end-point out of the picture. In (36) and (25), however, the effect isthe opposite: the (a) examples in the PS/PC refer to some delimited segmentof time which may only be part of the time period explicitly mentioned (= forsome unspeci®ed period during the year 2023 the parliament was in session);whereas the (b) examples in the imperfect indicate that the situation was nottotally encapsulated by the time period, and therefore may well have spilledover into the periods beforehand and afterwards (= the year 2023 was part of aperiod of time during which parliament was in session). It is characteristic ofhomogeneous situations that if only part of them is taken into consideration,other parts (identical parts since the situations are homogeneous) can beinferred to precede and follow that part. We thus ®nd that the PS/PC in (36)and (25) refer to shorter time periods than the imperfect, an observationwhich has led some grammarians to speak of a separate, durative use of theimperfect or to propose that duration is a basic part of the meaning of theimperfect. Both of these steps are incorrect, as Rand (1993: 4 ff.) andMolendijk (1994: 24±5) have demonstrated.

Multiple events also depart from the simple case. In a study of tense andaspect in a wide range of languages, Dahl (1985: 74±5) used a questionnaire inwhich bilingual speakers were asked to translate a number of English stimulussentences. The three sentences that deal with single vs. multiple events are(37±9). The verbs in upper case were put in the base form so as not to suggesta particular translation:37 Context : Speaker A: I went to see my brother yesterday.

R. Salkie

Speaker B: What he DO? (= What activity was he engaged in?).Sentence : He WRITE letters.

38 Context : A: What did your brother do after dinner yesterday?Sentence : He WRITE letters.

39 Context : A: What did your brother do after dinner yesterday?Sentence : He WRITE a letter.

The French speakers in Dahl's sample responded as follows:37F Il eÂcrivait des lettres.38F Il a eÂcrit des lettres.39F Il a eÂcrit une lettre.The PC is used in (38F) because the time period suggested by after dinnermakes it easier to see the writing of several letters as a single complete event.In (37F), on the other hand, the context clearly indicates an activity inprogress, so the imperfect is appropriate.

4.2 Tense in texts

As well as the meaning of the tenses, and the aspectual properties of differenttypes of situation, various textual features also play a part in the choice ofimperfect or PS/PC. Following Kamp & Rohrer we assume that the default ina narrative text is for single complete events in the PS to follow one another inthe order in which they are recounted, with allowance made for exceptionslike (12±14) above. For more complex narrative structures we need a theoryof tense relations in texts, using notions like setting and perspective (Vet, 1991)and temporal orientation (Molendijk, 1994). This theory has to take the meaningof the tenses and the type of situation involved as its starting points: theproblem with the relative tense analysis is that it tried to leave out these elementsand to solve all the problems of tense choice using only textual notions.

To illustrate how the different levels of analysis work together, here isanother short extract from a novel. The narrator has taken his son to the zoo,and the trip has been a great success so far:40 Pourtant, aÁ la fauverie je sentis une sorte de malaise me gagner (S1).

C'eÂtait l'heure du repas (S2) et les tigres se jeteÁrent sur leurs quartiers deviande, (S3) qu'ils deÂchireÁrent avec une feÂrociteÂ impressionnante (S4).Vaguement effrayeÂ par ce spectacle, le public, proteÂgeÂ par une doublerangeÂe de barreaux, regardait en silence (S5). Je ne me plaisais gueÂre danscette salle (S6). La peÂnombre dans laquelle nous eÂtions plongeÂs, l'odeurpuissante des fauves, le vacarme de leurs rugissements, tout cela con-tribuait aÁ creÂer une atmospheÁre un peu lourde (S7) et j'avais haÃte de m'enaller (S8).C'est alors que je me retournai (S9) et que je le vis (S10) ou, plusexactement, que je crus le voir (S11). VeÃtu de son eÂternel costume gris,GuÈnther Bloch nous regardait (S12). (Gattegno 1992: 91±2)

The events that take the narrative forward are:

They go to the big cat enclosure (not explicitly stated);the tigers eat their meat (S3 and S4);the narrator feels uneasy (S1);the narrator turns (S9) and sees (S10) or thinks he sees (S11) Bloch.

The other situations in the extract indicate the background, or setting, againstwhich these events take place. The imperfect is used in (S2) because the focusis not on the whole of feeding time but just on the fact that it was in progressat this time. Similarly in (S5) the focus is on the part of watching that was inprogress at this time. In (S6) the imperfect is used to describe a state of affairsthat resulted from the event in (S1). The imperfects in (S7) and (S8) continueto elaborate the state described in (S6). Finally the imperfect in (S12) signalsthat the watching was already in progress when the narrator turned and sawBloch. Each of the imperfects can be accounted for in aspectual terms, but thesame semantics (imperfectivity) has a variety of different textual effects withinthe overall framework of the setting for the events in the PS.

Extract (40) contains the words tout cela contribuait whereas (35) had tout celacontribua. The difference is partly attributable to the aspectual properties of thefollowing verbs: creÂer une atmospheÁre in (40) is less easily seen as a singlecomplete event than se deÂtendre in (35), so the PS is not the obvious choice in(40). Another reason for the different tenses is the different structure of thetwo extracts. In (35) the situation to which contribua applies is new: thissentence is the ®rst indication that the narrator is relaxing. In (40) we havealready been told in (S1) that the narrator started to feel uneasy, and thesentence containing contribuait is part of the elaboration of the state thatresulted.

A comprehensive analysis of French past tenses thus has to combine ananalysis of the meaning of the tenses with an account of aspectual properties ofdifferent types of situation and a system for representing the use of tense intexts. By enriching the traditional analysis in this way the useful parts of therelative tense analysis can be included in a full and coherent picture.

4.3 Tense in general

As we have seen, a complete account of French past tenses has to containseveral different levels of analysis. As far as tense is concerned, though, they areextremely simple: the PS, the PC and the imperfect all mean `past in relationto the time of utterance'. The other levels of analysis have nothing directly todo with tense.

The relative tense analysis claimed that French past tenses are more complexthan this. By rejecting this analysis we are able to maintain the `minimaltheory of tense' put forward in Salkie & Reed (1997) in which past, present

R. Salkie

and future tenses are given the simplest possible de®nitions. The onlyelaboration that is required by the data considered in this paper is the principle± accepted by everyone to my knowledge ± that in certain contexts the timeof utterance is not the starting point for locating a situation in time. Sentenceslike (16), and (30b) for English and its French equivalent (31b), contain arelative present tense which takes a time in the future as its starting point.

We therefore do not reject the notion of relative tense altogether, since wehave to account for situations where the tense has its normal meaning but doesnot start with the time of utterance. The arguments in this paper have beenagainst the other kind of relative tense, where the time relations in the tense(before, simultaneous with, etc.) are allegedly different from those in the absolutetense.

We are thus left with a minimal theory of tense, a conservative conceptionof aspect, a widely-accepted typology of situations, and an account of the useof tenses in texts. Each of these four components is simple in itself: takentogether, though, they provide a powerful model of French past tenses.Author's address:University of Brighton,School of Languages,Falmer,Brighton BN1 9PHr.n.salkie@brighton.ac.uk

references

ArriveÂ, M., Gadet, F. & Galmiche, M. (1986). La Grammaire d'aujourd'hui: guidealphabeÂtique de linguistique francËaise. Paris: Flammarion.

Bache, C. (1985). Verbal Aspect: a general theory and its application to present-day English.

Odense: Odense University Press.Berthonneau, A.-M. and Kleiber, G. (1993). Pour une nouvelle approche de

l'imparfait; l'imparfait, un temps anaphorique meÂronomique. In: J. Moeschler (ed),

Temps, reÂfeÂrence et infeÂrence (Langages 112), pp. 55±73.Berthonneau, A.-M. and Kleiber, G. (1996). Subordination et temps grammaticaux:

pour une conception non condordancielle de l'imparfait en discours indirect. In:

C. Muller (ed.), DeÂpendance et inteÂgration syntaxique, Actes du Colloque de l'ERSSAB(October 1994). TeÂbingen: Niemeyer, pp. 94±104.

Berthonneau, A.-M. and Kleiber, G. (1998). Imparfait, anaphore et infeÂrences. CahiersChronos, 3: 35±65.

Brunot, F. (1936). La PenseÂe et la langue. Paris: Masson.Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Comrie, B. (1986). Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica, 20: 265±96.

Dahl, OÈ . (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Declerck, R. (1990). Sequence of tenses in English. Folia Linguistica, 24: 513±44.Declerck, R. (1991). Tense in English: its structure and use in discourse. London:

Routledge.Declerck, R. (1995). Is there a relative past in English? Lingua, 97: 1±36.

Declerck, R. (1999). Reply to Salkie and Reed (1997). English Language and Linguistics,3: 83±116.

Descotes-Genon, C., Morsel, M.-H. and Richou, C. (1993). L'Exercisier: l'expression

francËaise pour le niveau intermeÂdiaire (2e eÂdition). Grenoble: Presses Universitaires deGrenoble.

Engel, D. (1990). Tense and Text: a study of French past tenses. London: Croom Helm.Gattegno, M. (1992). NeutraliteÂ malveillante. Paris: Calmann-Levy.

Grevisse, M. (1993). Le Bon Usage. 13e ed. Paris: Duculot.Hawkins, R. and Towell, R. (1996). French Grammar and Usage. London: Arnold.Houweling, F. (1986). Deictic and anaphoric tense morphemes. In: V. Lo Cascio and

C. Vet (eds.), Temporal structure in sentence and discourse. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 161±190.Imbs, P. (1960). L'Emploi des temps verbaux en franeÂais moderne. Paris: Klincksieck.Kamp, H. and Rohrer, C. (1983). Tense in texts. In: R. BaÈurle et al. (eds.), Meaning,

Use and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 250±69.Kleiber, G. (1993). Lorsque l'anaphore se lie au temps grammaticaux. In: C. Vetters

(ed.), Le Temps: de la phrase au texte. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, pp. 117±66.Lo Cascio, V. (1986). Temporal deixis and anaphor in sentence and text: ®nding a

reference time. In: V. Lo Cascio and C. Vet (eds.), Temporal Structure in Sentence andDiscourse. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 191±228.

Martin, R. (1971). Temps et aspect. Paris: Klincksieck.

Molendijk, A. (1990). Le PasseÂ Simple et l'imparfait: une approche reichenbachienne.Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Molendijk, A. (1994). Tense use and temporal interpretation. In: C. Vet and C.

Vetters (eds.), Tense and Aspect in Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21±47.Molendijk, A. (1996). Anaphore et imparfait: la reÂfeÂrence globale aÁ des situations

preÂsupposeÂes ou impliqueÂes. Cahiers Chronos 1: 109±123.

Monnerie-Goarin, A. (1996). Les Temps du passeÂ et l'aspect du verbe: theÂorie et pratique.Paris: Didier.

Partee, B. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English.The Journal of Philosophy, 70: 601±9.

Partee, B. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7:59±77.

Rand, S. (1993). The French imparfait and passeÂ simple in discourse. Arlington, TX:

Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.Salkie, R. and Reed, S. (1997). Time reference in reported speech. English Language

and Linguistics, 1.2: 319±348.Tasmowski-De Ryck, L. (1985). L'imparfait avec et sans rupture. Langue francËaise 67:

59±77.Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Vet, C. (1991). The temporal structure of discourse: setting, change and perspective. In:S. Fleischman and L. Waugh (eds.), Discourse-pragmatics and the Verb: the evidence fromromance. London: Routledge, pp. 7±25.

Vetters, C. (1993a). PasseÂ simple et imparfait, un couple mal assorti. In: J. GueÂron(ed.), Temps et aspect dans la phrase francËaise (Langue francËaise 100), pp. 14±29.

Vetters, C. (1993b). Temps et deixis. In: C. Vetters (ed.), Le Temps: de la phrase au

texte. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, pp. 85±115.Vetters, C. (1996). Temps, aspect et narration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

R. Salkie

Wagner, E. and Pinchon. J. (1962). Grammaire du francËais classique et moderne. Paris:Hachette.

Weinrich, H. (1973). Le Temps. Paris: Seuil.

Wilmet, M. (1996a). Grammaire critique du francËais. Paris: Duculot.Wilmet, M. (1996b). L'imparfait: le temps des anaphores? Cahiers Chronos, 1: 199±215.

Does French have a relative past tense

Documents