314 The subjectivity of utterance

variant forms of the verb. They might be expressed by sentential (or clausal) particles which are no more closely associated grammatically with the verb than with any other part of speech in the clause (or sentence). In any case, independently of the way in which tense is expressed in languages of various morphological types, considered from a semantic point of view, tense (in tensed languages) is always a sentential (or clausal) category.

A second defect of most standard dictionary definitions derives from the assumption that all tense-systems in natural languages are three-term systems based on the grammaticaliza-tion of past, present and future. Given both the objective and the subjective directionality of time, in nature and as it is experi­enced by human beings, it is of" course possible to define past, present and future universally in relation to the temporal zero-point (locutionary or cognitive) of the deictic context. It does not follow, however, that all languages with tense must necessarily have a past tense, a present tense and a future tense. There are in principle many different ways in which distinctions of deictic temporal reference might be gram-maticalized. Most natural-language tense-systems are, in fact, basically dichotomous, rather than trichotomous.

The most common dichotomous tense-distinction in the languages of the world is past versus non-past. Less common by far (if it is properly described as a distinction of tense, rather than mood) is future versus non-future. Equally easy to define (by neglecting the directionality of time) are present versus non-present (cf. the lexicalization of this distinction in the deictic adverbs 'now' and 'then') or either proximate versus non- proximate or remote versus non-remote. None of these, unlike past versus non-past, is found as the basic distinction in a two- term tense-system in any well-studied natural language that has been fully and reliably described in the literature. Some of these distinctions may, however, be combined with others to form more complex two-level (or perhaps multi-level) tense-systems involving both absolute and relative tense.

The distinction between (so-called) absolute and relative tense that has just been invoked may be illustrated by comparing;

10.3 The grammatical category of tense 315

a simple past tense with what is traditionally called a pluperfect tense. Consider, for example, on the assumption that they are being used in a normal context of utterance (in order to make a straightforward statement of fact), the following two sentences:

11. 'John's uncle died (last week)'

12. 'John's uncle had died (the previous week)'.

The form died refers absolutely (in this sense of 'absolutely') to past time: i.e., to a point (or interval) of time that precedes the moment of utterance. The pluperfect (or past-perfect) form had died refers to a point or period of time that is past in relation to a contextually given time which, in this instance, is itself past in relation to the moment of utterance: in other words, the pluper­fect (in certain of its uses) refers to a past-in-the-past. As this example shows, the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' are somewhat misleading, since so-called absolute tense is also relative, in that it is denned in relation to a point of reference. (Alternative terms are 'primary' and 'secondary': but these are in conflict with other relevant senses of 'primary' and 'secondary', includ­ing the sense in which I used them in the preceding section.) The difference between absolute and relative tense is perhaps best described as being one of degree. The relativity of so-called absolute tense is of degree 1; that of so-called relative tense is of degree 2.

Complex two-level tense-systems based on a variety of two-term distinctions of deictic temporality are common throughout the languages of the world. For example, there are many languages which grammaticalize the difference between the proximate and the non-proximate past and/or future (or, alternatively, between the remote and the non-remote past and/or future). All of these, in so far as they are indeed based (purely and primarily) on deictic temporality, can be readily formalized in one or other of the systems of tense-logic that have been developed in recent years. For example, using p to stand for the tenseless proposition "John's uncle die" (the reference of 'John's uncle' being fixed in context) and Past as the past-tense operator, we can satisfactorily