Noun Clause Tense

[Michael E. Galario]

Hi sir,

Just want to ask you about the tense usage in noun clauses functioning as a subject of a sentence. Do noun clauses grammatically functioning as subjects in a sentence follow the sequence-of-tenses rule?

What I had for breakfast gave me heartburn.      (The action was contained in the past.)

What she did remains a mystery.                       ( The action happened in the past but the effect is still true
                                                                         at  the present time.)

How media are reporting the news is being scrutinized by the public.

How she maintains her body bothered me for a while.           (Could this structure be possible?)


Hope you can give me a clear-cut explanation on this.


Thank you.

[Michael E. Galario]

Hi sir,

Just want to ask you about the tense usage in noun clauses functioning as a subject of a sentence. Do noun clauses grammatically functioning as subjects in a sentence follow the sequence-of-tenses rule?

What I had for breakfast gave me heartburn.      (The action was contained in the past.)

What she did remains a mystery.                       ( The action happened in the past but the effect is still true
                                                                         at  the present time.)

How media are reporting the news is being scrutinized by the public.

How she maintains her body bothered me for a while.           (Could this structure be possible?)


Hope you can give me a clear-cut explanation on this.


Thank you.

Hi sir Joe,

May I know your thoughts on this? Thank you.

[Joe Carillo]

I don't think that in English, the sequence of tenses rule is applicable to noun clauses functioning as subject of a sentence. It generally applies only to indirect speech or reported speech, which by definition is a way of expressing the content of statements, questions, and other utterances without quoting them explicitly as is done in direct speech. For instance, a woman by the name of Nancy might have uttered this verbatim remark in your presence yesterday: "I hate you for your bigotry." When you recount what she said to a friend today, it would normally take the form of reported speech, as follows: "Nancy told me yesterday that she hated me for my bigotry." What happens is that when the past tense is used for the reporting verb "tell," the verb of the utterance itself takes one tense backwards into the past tense, from "hate" to "hated." Of course, there's the narrative option to use the present tense "tells" for the reporting verb, in which case the verb in the utterance itself takes the present tense, as follows: "Nancy tells me that she hates me for my bigotry." This is the typical context in which the sequence tenses of tenses is used.

Sentences that have a noun clause as subject don't follow nor need to follow the sequence of tenses rule. This is because such sentences are actually not indirect speech or reported speech. They are complex sentences with a noun clause as subject and a subordinate clause as predicate, with no reporting verb in its construction. For instance, in the case of the sentence "How media are reporting the news is being scrutinized by the public," the tense verb of the subject noun clause is a fixed thing, while the verb of the subordinate clause can vary in tense or conditionality any which way, as follows:

"How media are reporting the news is being scrutinized by the public."
"How media are reporting the news will be scrutinized by the public."
"How media are reporting the news would be scrutinized by the public."
"How media are reporting the news should be scrutinized by the public."
"How media are reporting the news can be scrutinized by the public."

It will be different, of course, when any of the alternative constructions above is made into reported speech like, say, "The Mass Media Council argues that how media are reporting the news should be scrutinized by the public." In such cases, with a reporting verb now at hand, the sequence of sentence rule will now apply. If the reporting verb is changed to the past-tense "argued," however, the verb of the utterance should take one tense backwards: "The Mass Media Council argued that how media were reporting the news should be scrutinized by the public."

[Michael E. Galario]

Thank you for clarifying and confirming this sir Joe. What about with relative clauses? Do they obey the sequence- of - tenses rule in English?

Examples:

This is the woman who was at the party yesterday. ( pointing the woman at the moment of speaking)
              
The girl who is singing the song right now had an affair with the CEO. (singing happens at the moment of speaking; affair was in the past and may no longer be true at the present time)

Mark Anthony who was caught with Marijuana now rots in jail.

Can we say the sequence-of-tenses only operates on indirect speech and sentences that use adverbial clauses?

[Joe Carillo]

Simply by inspection of the sentences with relative clauses that you provided, I don't think that such sentences need to obey the sequence-of-tenses rule at all. We need a reporting verb for the utterance to make the sentence obey that rule, as in, say, "She tells me that Mark Anthony who was caught with Marijuana now rots in jail" and, with the reporting verb in the past tense, "She told me that Mark Anthony who had been caught with marijuana was now rotting in jail."

I'm not absolutely sure that the sequence-of-tenses only operates on indirect speech and sentences that use adverbial clauses, but perhaps some such constructions might seem or sound like they do use the sequence-of-tenses rule but only by implication or happenstance. Do let me know if you find one such sentence so we can analyze it.

[Michael E. Galario]

Sure sir Joe!

This topic, for me, is really difficult to nail down, but if this is answered, it will help me a lot in my understanding of tenses and developing my communicative competence. Most often than not knowing what I don't know makes me caught off guard. It gives me that feeling of uneasiness whenever I speak or write. I just don't want to make use of the language by simply parroting/copying English phrases and sentences based on how how I read or heard it from the English or native speaker. I believe that if one would really like to make use of the language creatively and confidently, he/she must know it by heart. Knowing the English syntax and semantics can help anyone play with words.

[Michael E. Galario]

Hi sir Joe,

These are what I have gathered from my readings, but this is an indirect speech exception as can be seen from the examples below:

Example: :

"A New Orleans hydrologist said flow of the Mississippi River, which runs through the city, dropped considerably last year"

"The highway department spokesman said that the new highway, which connects three southeast Kansas cities to the turnpike, was closed in three places by flooding. "

The above examples clearly defy the SOT rule.  Accordingly, "Not every verb in a reported speech sentence is automatically subordinate to the past tense verb of attribution. The sentence might contain a non-restrictive clause that includes a verb. Such a verb would not be subordinate to the verb of attribution and might need to remain in the present tense if the meaning of the clause is to be retained. "

Basing on the examples above, the SOT rule prescription that is printed on most of the grammar references and that is being prescribed by teachers and grammarians then needs to be tweaked so as to include the exception(s). The above examples clearly tell us that the SOT does not operate in non-restrictive clauses in indirect speech. The examples used in the non-restrictive clauses above tell about "facts".   That's why the use of present tense is justified, but what is not certain is if it covers idea which is true at the moment of speaking.


May I know you thought on this sir Joe?

By the way, I am still looking for examples of sentences that don't make use of an indirect speech structure.

[Michael E. Galario]

Hi Sir Joe,

I've found a couple of examples which are not structured like that of the indirect speech.

       Examples:

      1. The people who you met at the party are all old friends of mine.
      2. The book which I’m reading comes from the library.

      3. The tall man is my uncle. The tall man was standing by the bar.
          Subordination: The tall man that was standing by the bar is my uncle.
          
      4. The newspaper is being sued. The newspaper first reported the incident.
          Subordination: The newspaper that first reported the incident is being sued.

For examples 1 and 2, there is no problem. The tense combination in the matrix clause and subordinate clause is possible since the operative verb is in the present tense.

For examples 3 and 4, the structure is the same, but I would just like to know If we can we combine the above sentences as in the examples below:

       3. The tall man who is my uncle was standing by the bar.
       4. The newspaper which is being sued first reported the incident.

[Michael E. Galario]

I found some sir Joe! ☺

Here are the examples taken from "Elements of Language" by Holt:

       "The clerk who is waiting on us was smiling."
       "Salmon, which live in salt water but spawn in fresh water, flourished in the Northwest."
       "Sandra lent the book to the girl who is her lab partner."
       "Georgia gave me the phone number of the man who organizes the softball league."

examples from other sources:

        "The number that is in my book was incorrect."
        "Jack drove the car that is small. "
        "The prison that/which is located in San Francisco Bay was a depressing place to live."
        "I gave it to Peter, who is my close friend."
        "Sue recently won a prize, which she never stops talking about."


May I know your thoughts on this sir Joe. ☺




 

      

[Joe Carillo]

To answer all of your lingering concerns and doubts about the normal sequence-of-tenses rule in English, I am posting in the Forum today, October 13, 2016, two chapters in my book Give Your English the Winning Edge (Manila Times Publishing, 2009), namely Chapter 51 – “The Historical, Literary, and Eternal Present” and Chapter 52 – “How Verbs Behave in the Exceptional Sequence.” Check them out perhaps an hour or so from now in the “Essays by Jose Carillo” discussion boards. I am absolutely sure that the two essays will be an eye-opener for you and, in your own words, enable you to “make use of the language creatively and confidently.”

[Michael E. Galario]

Hi sir Joe,

I have just read your reply to my question. Thank you for the reply.  I visited the link you provided; however, the discussions only cover the general usage of the present tense and all the examples use the indirect report structure. The prescriptions about tense usage do not cover the concern in question whether there is a tense dependency if one would use a relative clause describing the subject or the object of a sentence.

While waiting for your answer, I did some research and read that the tense dependency on the main clause by relative clauses is not observed. With all the examples presented here, my observation and readings led me to conclude that the sequence of tenses only operates in indirect structure, complex sentences which use subordinating conjunctions or adverbial clauses, and in paragraph level but with exceptions. Syntax and semantics play a great role in the sequence of tenses usage in the said structures.Only semantics, on the other hand, plays a role in tense usage in relative clauses.

[Joe Carillo]

Based on your quick research, you came to this conclusion: “With all the examples presented here, my observation and readings led me to conclude that sequence of tenses only operates in indirect structure, complex sentences which uses subordinating conjunctions or adverbial clauses, and in paragraph level but with exceptions.”

This is fine as it goes, but I’m getting this feeling that what you are attempting is to formulate some sort of “Universal Theory of Gravitation” on something so disparate in properties, attributes, and functionality as the elements of the English language, which of course includes such aspects as vocabulary, grammar, syntax, semantics, sentence structure, idioms, and the peculiarities of usage. Such an enterprise could lead you to a wild-goose chase of particular sentence constructions that will fit your theory that “noun clauses grammatically functioning as subjects in a sentence should follow the sequence-of-tenses rule,” when the preponderance of evidence militates against that possibility by virtue of the nature of language itself. As I pointed out in a previous posting, it may be possible to find particular sentence constructions that appear to fit that theory of yours by simple accident or happenstance, but coming across just a single exception actually would be enough to invalidate your theory.

Let me just pick at random from the examples you presented of sentences with a noun clause grammatically functioning as their subject:

(1) “What I had for breakfast gave me heartburn.” The sequence-of-tenses rule doesn’t come to play at all in this complex sentence construction. The noun clause “what I had for breakfast” is something the speaker had eaten in the indefinite past, and the tense of the verb that follows it could be anything at all and will not conform to the sequence-of-tense rule that you have in mind: “What I had for breakfast gives me heartburn.” “What I had for breakfast has been giving me heartburn.” “What I had for breakfast certainly will give me heartburn.” “What I had for breakfast could give me heartburn.” “What I had for breakfast might give me heartburn.”

(2) “The girl who is singing the song right now had an affair with the CEO.” The sequence-of-tenses rule likewise doesn’t come to play at all in this complex sentence construction. The relative clause “who is singing the song right now” modifies the subject “girl” and, together, they form a subject that can be followed by a verb of any tense or modality whatsoever: “The girl who is singing the song right now has an affair with the CEO.” “The girl who is singing the song right now will have an affair with the CEO.” “The girl who is singing the song right now might have an affair with the CEO.”

(3) “The highway department spokesman said that the new highway, which connects three southeast Kansas cities to the turnpike, was closed in three places by flooding.” This is a legitimate, authentic reported speech that uses the past tense for the reporting verb (“said”) and where the operative verb of the utterance took one tense back (“was closed”) following the normal sequence-of-tenses rule. The modifying phrase “which connects three southeast Kansas cities to the turnpike” is in the present tense because of the “eternal truth” present-tense rule or permanent condition rule. Keep in mind that in direct speech, that reported sentence would take this form: “The new highway, which connects three southeast Kansas cities to the turnpike, is (or “has been”) closed in three places by flooding.”

(4) “Salmon, which live in salt water but spawn in fresh water, flourished in the Northwest.” The sequence-of-tenses rule doesn’t come to play at all in this complex sentence construction that clearly has no reporting verb. It’s actually a simple sentence, “Salmon flourished in the Northwest,” with the subject “salmon” modified by the relative clause “which live in salt water but spawn in fresh water” as appositive. Indeed, this basic sentence is in the classic subject-verb-predicate construction where the operative verb can take any tense or modality whatsoever: “Salmon flourishes in the Northwest.” “Salmon has flourished in the Northwest.” “Salmon had flourished in the Northwest.” “Salmon will flourish in the Northwest.” “Salmon could flourish in the Northwest.” “Salmon might flourish in the Northwest.” The tense or modality ultimately depends on what the writer or speaker has said or wants to say. You can insert the appositive relative clause in any of them without causing any problem or sequence-of-tenses complication at all.

I could go on and on evaluating so many other examples, including the latest batch that you have provided, but I think the analysis above will suffice to convince you that it isn't advisable or warranted to further pursue your theory that “noun clauses grammatically functioning as subjects in a sentence should follow the sequence-of-tenses rule.”

[Michael E. Galario]

Well, with the discussions that we had, I can finally rest my case. This is just one of the exceptions in the English language which, I believe, need to be discussed to English learners. The SOT rule as prescribed in most of the language books is too restrictive that could lead learners into thinking that all sentence structures need to obey this rule. As a result, leaners would try to fit the structure of their sentences into it  so as to conform with the said prescription. The SOT rule failed to discuss how tense operates in relative clauses. This concern clearly indicates the richness and vastness of the English language. It's a good thing that I stumbled upon this website of yours. Through this website, I have found out that there's a lot to learn about the language which is beyond what most of the books cover and what the classroom teachers discuss.

Thank you for your assistance sir Joe. ☺