A Neo-Reichenbachian Theory of Tense
The neo-Reichenbachian approach has extended Reichenbach’s (1947) system, arguing that tenses are composed by linearly ordering three times: the Event time (E), the Reference time (R), and the Speech time (S). As an illustration, let us consider (1).
John had left the restaurant
In (1), the Event time is the time of John’s leaving the restaurant, the Reference time is the time by which John leaves, and the Speech time is the time at which this sentence is uttered. The basic tense structure of the past perfect (1) is represented by (2).
(2) E_R_S
When two points are separated by an underscore, the one to the left is interpreted as temporally preceding the one to the right. In (2), E is located before R, which is itself located before S. This is in accord with the natural interpretation of (1).
The neo-Reichenbachian approach also enables us to account for the properties of complex tense configurations. Let us consider adverbial modification, taking (3a–c) as examples.
(3)
Hornstein (1990) argues that an adverb can combine with a basic tense structure (BTS) to form a derived tense structure (DTS). The temporal structures of (3a–c) are given in (4).
(4)
In (4), the points separated by a comma, which are called ‘‘associated’’ points, are interpreted as contemporaneous. Hornstein assumes the following constraint on the derivation of a derived tense structure:
(5)
The notion of preservation is defined as follows:
(6)
In (4a), the adverb now modifies E or R without altering the basic tense structure; there is no violation of the CDTS (5). In (4b), although the ad verb tomorrow, which modifies E or R, alters the basic tense structure, dissociating R and E from S, there is no violation of the CDTS (5). In (4b), there are no SER points that are associated in the derived tense structure but not in the basic tense structure. Furthermore, the order of the SER points in the derived tense structure is the same as their order in the basic tense structure. Hence, the basic tense structure is preserved; (4b) satisfies the CDTS (5). In (4c), on the other hand, the order of the SER points in the derived tense structure is not the same as their order in the basic tense structure. Modification by yesterday alters the order of the SER points; this violates the second part of the notion of preservation (6) relevant to the CDTS (5). Hence, the neo-Reichenbachian approach can account for the contrast in acceptability between (3a–b) and (3c).
