As has been pointed out above, by asyndetic we mean composite sentences whose constituent clauses are not joined together either by a conjunction or by any kind of conjunctive word (relative pronoun or relative adverb: who, which, that, when, where, etc.). This does not mean that there is nothing at all at the beginning of the second clause to express some kind of relation between the clauses. The second (or third, etc.) clause may begin with some word that does indicate some relation of this kind: for instance, if it begins with the adverb however,, this indicates a semantic relation between the clauses akin to that expressed by the co-ordinating conjunction but; if it begins by the adverb instead this, too, indicates some sort of relation. Something similar may be said about such words as nevertheless, nonetheless, therefore, notwithstanding, still, etc. It may also be said that a personal or demonstrative pronoun referring back to some person or thing mentioned in the first clause of an asyndetic composite sentence (the so-called anaphoric use) performs some connecting function. Yet we will consider sentences built in this way to be asyndetic, as they do not contain any grammatical link between the clauses.
It must be admitted that the boundary between syndetic and asyndetic joining of clauses in a composite sentence is not clear. To some extent it depends on the way we view a particular word. For instance, if the second clause of a composite sentence opens with the word yet, we may say that it is an adverb and the connection is asyndetic, or else, that it is a conjunction and the connection is syndetic. Such doubtful cases depending on the student's viewpoint do not invalidate the basic distinction between syndetic and asyndetic composite sentences, which is of considerable importance in syntactic theory.
In traditional grammar asyndetic sentences, just as syndetic ones, were classified into compound and complex. For instance, the sentence She held out her hand to him; not taking it, he stepped back and opened the door for her (R. MACAULAY) would be classed among the compound sentences, and the sentence Everything I've done to him has been outrageous (Idem) among complex ones.
This traditional treatment of asyndetic composite sentences was, with reference to the Russian language, attacked in an article by Prof. N. Pospelov in 1950. 1 His suggestions on the classification of syndetic composite sentences were later endorsed by the editing
1 See H. С. Поспелов, О грамматической природе и принципах классификации бессоюзных сложных предложений. Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского языка, стр. 338—345.
Asyndetic Composite Clauses
staff of the Academy's Russian Grammar. Attempts have been since made to apply these ideas to other languages as well. There are phenomena of Modern English, however, notably the so-called asyndetic attributive clauses, which cause some difficulty in this respect (see below, p. 320).
The Academy's Grammar, endorsing Prof. Pospelov's views, describes asyndetic composite sentences in the following way.
Composite sentences formed without connecting words can be neither compound nor complex. Some asyndetic composite sentences express a general meaning of enumeration or juxtaposition, while others express more complicated semantic relations. 1
This way of looking at asyndetic composite sentences has been adopted by a number of scholars, including some who have studied corresponding phenomena in English.2
Such an approach to asyndetic composite sentences gives, however, rise to several questions, some of them of a more general character, applicable probably to most, or perhaps even to all languages, and others having special reference to Modern English, with its peculiar syntactic constructions. Anyway, it would not be wise to adopt the classification just stated without first considering it on its merits and then taking into account the specific English phenomena alluded to above.
First, then, let us pose the question, on what principle the classification laid down in the Academy's Grammar is based, namely, whether this is a grammatical principle, and if not, what sort of principle it is.
The difference between enumeration and juxtaposition, which lies at the bottom of that classification, cannot in any way be said
1 „Сложные предложения могут формироваться из простых предложений без помощи союзов и относительных слов; в этом случае их синтаксическая цельность обусловливается взаимосвязанностью значения и строения входящих в их состав частей и выражается теми или иными ритмико-интонационными средствами. Такие сложные предложения называются бессоюзными сложными предложениями. Отдельные предложения, входя в состав бессоюзного сложного предложения, теряют свою самостоятельность, но, так как они не связаны друг с другом союзами или относительными словами, все предложение в целом не может считаться ни сложносочиненным, ни сложноподчиненным в строгом смысле этих терминов... Предложения, образующие части бессоюзного сложного предложения, могут быть однотипны или разнотипны по характеру их взаимоотношений. Бессоюзные сложные предложения, состоящие из однотипных частей, могут иметь или общее значение перечисления, или общее значение сопоставления... Бессоюзные сложные предложения, состоящие из разнотипных частей, могут выражать более сложные смысловые взаимоотношения, более сложные виды зависимости; интонационные средства при этом более разнообразны". (Грамматика русского языка, т. II, ч. 2, стр. 382—384.)
2 See, for example, Л. П. Зайцева, Типы бессоюзных сложных предложений в современном английском языке. Автореферат канд. дисс., 1955.
820 Asyndetic Composite Sentences. Inserted Clauses
to be a grammatical principle. Neither enumeration nor juxtaposition is a grammatical notion and the opposition between these two non-grammatical notions cannot be a grammatical opposition..1 So we are bound to give a negative answer to the first part of the question formulated above. As to the second part, namely, what kind of principle it is, the answer obviously should be, that it is a semantic principle, which is not one on which a grammatical classification can be built. Besides, the rhythm and intonation, which are alluded to as the chief means of expressing the connection between the parts of an asyndetic composite sentence, are of course only perceptible in oral speech, and as in analysing facts we have mainly to deal with writings, that oral peculiarity cannot be taken as the base of grammatical characteristic or analysis.
Consequently, some other approach to asyndetic composite sentences has to be sought, namely one which would take into account their grammatical features in the first place.
As one such principle we may choose that of the grammatical connection between the clauses making up an asyndetic composite sentence. First of all we may look for examples of a clause referring to some part of the other clause within the asyndetic sentence.
Here we find a type of clauses parallel to attributive clauses in a syndetic composite sentence and differing from them by the absence of a relative pronoun or adverb. Such clauses have been variously termed either "attributive clauses with the relative pronoun omitted", or "contact-clauses" (this is O. Jespersen's term). 1 This type of clause is familiar enough and can be found in any style of speech, e. g. Mr Tanner: you are the most impudent person I have ever met. (SHAW) This is the one question you must never ask a soldier. (Idem) 2
Proof that clauses of this kind are attached to one part of the other clause, and not to the other clause as a whole, if such proof be necessary, can be found in the fact that omission of the antecedent, that is the noun to which the clause refers, makes the clause pointless and unintelligible. Facts showing the parallel use of syndetic and asyndetic attributive clauses referring to the same head word and connected by a co-ordinating conjunction are instructive from this viewpoint. "I dislike crawling in any case," said Ronald. "Particularly to men I don't care for and whose ability I despise." (SNOW) It is quite clear that there are here two clauses joined by and referring to the same head word, namely the noun men: (1 ) I don't care for, (2) whose ability I despise. These are strictly paral-
1 See O. Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, Part III, p. 132 ff.
2 Clauses of this type have been the subject of a special study by L. Isho. See Л. Х. Ишо, Бессоюзные определительные предложения в современном английском языке. Автореферат канд. дисс.. 1962.
Asyndetic Composite Clauses 321
lel semantically, and they might be replaced by homogeneous attribute adjectives, for instance uninteresting and despicable. The first of the clauses can be asyndetic because the notion men to which it refers would have been in an object relation to the verb care in the asyndetic clause, which, with a relative pronoun absent, ends in the preposition for. The second clause, on the other hand, must of necessity be syndetic, as the noun men, to which it refers, stands in an attributive relation to the noun ability with which it is immediately connected. The relative possessive pronoun whose could not possibly be dropped: the variant men I don't care for and ability 1 despise would be grammatically inadmissible and unintelligible. So the second clause cannot be made asyndetic on semantic and syntactical grounds. The homogeneity of the two clauses is not affected by this difference in the ways the syntactical ties are expressed.
It seems to follow from this analysis that there is no reason to deny the status of a subordinate clause to the clause I don't care for, though it is an asyndetic clause.
These considerations also apply to the following sentence: When you're with Sabrina, you find yourself suddenly talking about things you've always wanted to do and that you've forgotten. (TAYLOR) Other examples could no doubt be found.
There is every reason to term such clauses asyndetic attributive clauses and to take them into account when we come to a general classification of asyndetic composite sentences.
Next we consider a type of asyndetic sentence which contains a clause following a verb like think, suppose, say, tell, etc., and stating the contents of what was thought, said, etc. Examples of this type are frequent enough. Here is one of them. .Barbary said she would like to keep some of the things, such as a musical-box, a yellow scarf decorated with black kittens, a paint-box, a canary with a whistle, a cushion with a handle, and a small alarm clock. (R. MACAULAY)
Clauses of this type were formerly described as object clauses with the conjunction that omitted. We will not follow this way of looking at them, as the idea of "omission" is wholly unfounded and introduces an arbitrary element not justified by language facts. We will consider such clauses for what they are. With reference to this type the same question arises that we have already discussed with regard to syndetic object clauses with verbs like say, think, etc.; namely, do they belong to the other clause as a whole, or merely to the predicate verb? If we apply here the same principle that was established above (p. 308) we shall reach the conclusion that clauses of this kind belong to the preceding clause as a whole. Whether we choose to term such asyndetic clauses object clauses or not depends on what exact definition we give to an object clause and
11 Б, A. Ильиш
822 Asyndetic Composite Sentences. Inserted Clauses
what criteria we apply in each particular case to decide whether a given kind of clause is an object clause. If the fact that it occupies a position identical with that occupied by an object in a simple sentence is considered sufficient (which it probably should be) the asyndetic clauses found in the above examples may well be recognised as object clauses.
As in a number of other cases, parallel use of different units is significant for determining their nature. An asyndetic clause may be used in a sentence on the same level as a syndetic one which is clearly an object clause. This is what is seen in the following example: I think you ought to tell him you've admired him for a long time and that you'd like to become better acquainted with him. (E. CALDWELL) Robert Jordan, his head in the shadow of the rocks, knew they could not see him and that it did not matter if they did. (HEMINGWAY) Here the conjunction and joins together two clauses, of which the first is asyndetic. This would appear to be a strong argument in favour of the view that the asyndetic clause performs the same syntactical function as the that- clauseto which it is joined in this way, viz. that it is an object clause.
Another question is, whether the asyndetic attributive clauses (Jespersen's "contact-clauses") and the asyndetic object clauses just considered should or should not be termed subordinate. This may perhaps seem unimportant, but it is closely linked to the bigger question whether the notion of subordination is at all applicable to asyndetic sentences. There is something to be said on both sides of this question. Since the asyndetic object clauses are exactly like the syndetic object clauses considered on page 279 ff., and they equally correspond to an object in a simple sentence, there would seem to be no sufficient reason to deny their being subordinate, merely because there is no that -conjunction to introduce them. We would therefore rather allow for asyndetic subordinate clauses in some cases, at least.
After considering these two specifically English types of clauses (asyndetic attributive and object clauses), let us now take a look at those far more numerous types of asyndetic clauses which are common to English and other languages, including Russian.
It will be well to take first a type with a definite purely grammatical peculiarity. It is the type represented, for instance, by the sentence Had it not been for the presence of Captain Smellie he would have been perfectly happy. (LINKLATER)
The grammatical peculiarity is of course the order "predicate +,'+ subject" (or "part of predicate + subject + part of predicate") in the clause which in this example, and indeed in the vast majority of examples, comes first in the composite sentence. Without this order the sentence would not be possible.
Asyndetic Composite Clauses 323
The typical start of such clauses is either "should + noun + infinitive", or "had + noun + second participle," or, much less often, "did + noun + infinitive", and also "were + noun", which can be followed by a to -infinitive. The form of the predicate verb in the second clause may vary greatly. The meaning of such asyndetic clauses does not give rise to any doubt: they always express the condition on which the action of the following clause takes place. The question now arises, where and how is the meaning of condition expressed here? It is obviously not contained in the lexical meaning of any particular word or phrase, but resides mainly in the order of words in the first clause, and in the fact that this clause is followed by another to form a composite sentence. We may well check this by dropping the second clause in each case and leaving the first clause alone, that is, making a simple sentence out of it. The result will be a sentence with no conditional meaning whatever: an interrogative sentence. This definitely proves that the second clause plays a notable part in creating the general meaning of condition. So it appears that the conditional meaning is brought about by purely syntactical means. The lexical meanings of the words making up both clauses do not seem to be of any importance here, and this is basically different from the as -clauses considered on p. 288 ff., where the lexical meanings of the words contribute to the creation of a temporal, or causal, or comparative meaning.
So here we, no doubt, have conditional clauses and the question may again be asked whether they are subordinate or not. As in the case of asyndetic attributive and object clauses, there would seem to be no sufficient reason for denying this, though the question itself is rather unimportant. Those appear to be the only types of asyndetic clauses which ought to be termed subordinate.
Now we come to those other types of asyndetic clauses which are far more difficult to classify.
The difference between various types of composite sentences with asyndetic clauses may be illustrated by the following examples: Barbary and Raoul had their heads tilted back: warm beer, which they did not like, gurgled down their throats; they felt like two chickens drinking, watched by a fox. (R. MACAULAY) Here the clauses make up the description of a situation. Roly will sleep with me; David will have has own cot of course. (Idem) His heart turned over as he looked at her; his unslain passion surged in him like a great wave. (Idem) In the last two sentences simultaneous situations or processes are described. She held out her hand to him; not taking it, he stepped back and opened the door for her. (Idem) He exchanged penetrating stares with his contemporary; then David, with squeaks of indignation, began to pummel him with his fists. (Idem) Here two consecutive actions are mentioned. Of course she disliked Barbary; how shouldn't she? (Idem) The second clause
11*
824 Asyndetic Composite Sentences. Inserted Clause
contains a comment on the situation stated in the first. The differences between the various types here illustrated are important enough from the semantic point of view; but they have no bearing on the grammatical structure of the sentences.
We must also mention one more type of asyndetic sentence, which may be seen in the following example: Her eyes overflowed, and then grew so hot they dried her tears. (WOODHILL) The semantic connection between the adverb so in the main clause and the subordinate clause is absolutely clear (what is meant is result), but no grammatical connection between them is in any way expressed. The distinction between co-ordination and subordination thus appears to be neutralised and the facts justify merely a statement to the effect that the sentence is composite and that the relation between its two clauses is only seen from the lexical meanings of the words composing them. A similar clause is found in the following example: Her mind made a wild revolution casting up so much she scarcely knew where to turn for her words. (BUECHNER) The semantic connection between the phrase so much in the first clause and the second clause is doubtless, but there are no signs of grammatical subordination in the sentence. Compare also: What you want is a good-sised canvas bag, not so big it looks funny, but big enough to hold what you slip in. (R. MACAULAY)
There are essential differences of meaning here which of course should be studied and classified from the stylistic viewpoint both in themselves and by comparison with syndetic composite sentences, compound and complex, which might have been used to describe the same facts and situations, etc. But all these differences, whatever their importance from a stylistic, literary, or any other point of view, He beyond the sphere of grammar. From the grammatical viewpoint what ought to be studied is the means which are used in the various types of asyndetic composite sentence to keep the clauses together. These may be such as the use of tenses in the clauses making up an asyndetic sentence; the use of other grammatical categories, such as mood, aspect, etc.; the use of any other syntactic means with the same function. However, very little study in this field has been done so far. When it is done, new possibilities will most probably emerge of classifying asyndetic sentences. At the moment they are not clearly visible.
Among clauses joined asyndetically we should also note those which correspond in meaning to parenthetical subordinate clauses of the syndetic type. Here are two examples: She too, she felt, was of the religion. (H. JAMES) Any one who looks at me can say, I think, what's the matter with me. (Idem) Of course it is the lexical meaning of the verb functioning as predicate in the clause (feel, think) which shows what the relation between it and the rest of the sentence is. In these cases there is no formal sign to show
Inserted Clauses 325
whether the clause is subordinate or not, and thus the distinction may be said to be neutralised here.
We will do well, on the whole, to content ourselves with the conclusion that in some asyndetic composite sentences (those including attributive, object, and conditional clauses), there is a main and a subordinate clause, while the other types of asyndetic sentences do not admit of such a distinction.
INSERTED CLAUSES
By an inserted clause we mean a clause appearing within another clause and interrupting its structure. A clause of this kind may either be asyndetic, or it may be introduced by a conjunction, most usually perhaps by the conjunction for. An inserted clause usually contains some information serving to elucidate what is said in the main body of the sentence, or it may be a casual interruption due to the speaker suddenly thinking of something vaguely connected with what he is talking about, etc. There is certainly no reason to term an inserted clause subordinate, since no signs of subordination are to be found. Neither is there any valid reason for saying it is co-ordinate in the sense that clauses are co-ordinate within a compound sentence. Indeed there are no clear signs which would prove that a sentence with an inserted clause is a composite sentence at all — though this of course depends on the exact interpretation we give of the notion of "composite sentence". The question whether a sentence with an inserted clause should or should not be considered a composite sentence is, after all, of little theoretical interest, and we here content ourselves with stating that we will not take it as composite. The sentence with the inserted clause taken out of it is a simple sentence (unless of course it contains coordinate or subordinate clauses) and with the inserted clause it may be reckoned as a special type — a simple sentence with an inserted clause.
Now let us consider a few examples of a sentence with an inserted clause. In our first example the clause coming between the predicate and the subject of the main clause contains information about the author of the statement,- and in this respect is is akin to parenthetical clauses. The bird-fancier could tell him little, but there was, he had declared, no doubt a great deal of information on the subject somewhere in his notes and as soon as they were properly indexed he would exhume it. (BUECHNER)
In the two following examples the inserted clause has nothing of a parenthesis about it: Before he went down — patent leather was his final choice — he looked at himself critically in the glass. (HUXLEY) In the Times, therefore — he had a distrust of other papers — he
826 Asyndetic Composite Sentences. Inserted Clauses
read the announcement for the evening. (GALSWORTHY) The inserted clause he had a distrust of other papers explains why he (old Jolyon Forsyte) took up the "Times", and at the same time it adds a certain characteristic feature to the portrait of the man. If the clause were introduced by the conjunction for, which would not involve any essential change of meaning but would only make it somewhat more explicit, the clause would still be an inserted clause.
Our next example is somewhat different: There was a great deal more pleasure than formerly, pleasure was practically continuous — dancing at the Country Club every Saturday night in summer and quite often in winter, lunch with cards or golf and dinner parties — Wilson and she had at least four or five invitations every week — and short and long trips by automobile. (HERGESHEIMER) The inserted clause Wilson and she had at least four or five invitations every week comes in and interrupts a sequence of appositions to the subject pleasure, namely, dancing... lunch... parties... trips. It comes after parties and makes it clear how frequent the parties were. It would hardly be possible here to add the conjunction for in front of the inserted clause: that would make the statement too exact and introduce an element of superfluous accuracy which is out of place here.
It must be owned, however, that the boundary line between inserted clauses remaining, as it were, outside the structure of the sentence proper, and clauses making part of that structure, is not always easy to draw; in certain cases it may depend on the grammarian's view, that is, it may be to some extent arbitrary. We may, then, either leave the question open, or decide in advance that doubtful cases of this kind will be judged in a definite way, for instance, that we will consider such doubtful sentences to be inserted.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF MIXED SENTENCES
It would be vain to expect that every sentence we can meet with in a text is bound to be either syndetic or asyndetic, either compound or complex, etc. Several or indeed all of these characteristics may be found in a sentence at the same time. It may, for instance, consist of several clauses, some of them connected with each other syndetically, i. e. by conjunctions or connective words, while others are connected asyndetically, i. e. without any such words; it is also possible that some of the clauses are co-ordinated with each other, so that a certain part of the whole sentence is compound, while others are subordinate, so that another part of the whole sentence is complex, etc. The amount of variations is here probably bound-
Different Types of Mixed Sentences 327
less, though to assert this with any degree of certainty a detailed study of a great number of texts would have to be made.
It would serve no useful purpose to invent special terms for every possible variety of sentence that might be found. It will perhaps be best to term them "mixed sentences". Here is an example of a mixed sentence showing simultaneously several of the syntactical peculiarities which we have so far studied separately: Barbary did not tell Mavis where she had stored the things; the sly secrecy of the maquis rose in her; she said she had hidden them somewhere safe. (R. MACAULAY)
Chapter XLI
SEQUENCE OF TENSES
The term "sequence of tenses", though widely used both in practical language teaching and in theoretical investigation, has still not received a clear and commonly accepted interpretation which might be used as a firm basis for further research in this field.
The different interpretations of this term are first of all distinguished by the scope of its application. In the widest possible sense the term "sequence of tenses" might include practically all cases of the use of two or more finite verb forms within a sentence. Taken in this widest sense, "sequence of tenses" would include such phenomena as the use of tenses of two homogeneous predicates in a sentence, or that of the predicate verbs in two clauses within a compound sentence.
Starting from this widest application of the term we might then gradually narrow it down, until we arrived at the narrowest possible interpretation, which would run something like this: "By sequence of tenses we mean the use of a tense form in a subordinate clause which is not in accordance with the meaning of the tense form itself but is conditioned by the tense form of the predicate verb in the head clause." Sequence of tenses in this narrowest meaning is found, for example, in the sentence What did you say your name was? The past tense was in the subordinate clause is not used because of its own meaning: the question is not about what the person's name was in the past, but about what it is now. So the use of the past tense in the subordinate clause is due to the fact that there is a past tense in the head clause, and to this fact alone: it cannot be accounted for in any other way. Such cases, then, fit into the narrowest definition of sequence of tenses.
Halfway between the extreme cases we have considered so far are a number of other sentences which admit of a double interpretation: it may be possible to argue that the use of a past tense in the subordinate clause is due to the influence of the tense in the head clause, but it is also possible to argue that the use of the tense is due to its own structural meaning. This may be seen, for instance, in the following sentence: Sir Angus realised that his description of Helen was largely responsible for the sharpness of the last word, and for the execution of the rose in bloom. (R. MACAULAY)
A twofold interpretation is possible here. On the one hand, we can assert that the past form was of the link verb in the subordinate clause is used because the predicate verb of the head clause is in the past tense and does not admit of a present form in the subordinate clause. If we take that view, the sentence will appear as an example of sequence of tenses. But on the other hand, it may be
Narrow View of Sequence of Tenses 329
argued that the past tense in the subordinate clause is used owing to the form's own meaning: the action of the subordinate clause is simultaneous with that of the head clause and is accordingly expressed by the same tense form.
A similar reasoning applies to our next example: The lines on his face reminded her that he had known long and atrocious sufferings from wounds in the war. (R. WEST) It may be argued either that the past perfect in the subordinate clause is due to the principle of sequence, or that it is used in its own right.
The choice between the two alternatives is entirely dependent on a scholar's viewpoint and it is not possible to prove that either of the two is the only correct one. If we prefer the former view, the notion of sequence of tenses will be taken in a wider sense, so as to include those types of sentences which admit of a different explanation. If we adhere to the second, the notion of sequence will be narrower, and will include only the sentences which do not admit of any other explanation. According as the one or the other view is endorsed, both the definition and the treatment of the sequence of tenses will have to be adjusted to it. 1
Let us consider one more example before we proceed to final conclusions on sequence of tenses. Let us compare the two sentences: He sits near the window so that he may have a wider view of the landscape, and He sat near the window, so that he might have a wider view of the landscape. The question is, why is the verb may, which is part of a compound modal predicate in the subordinate clause, used in the past tense form might in the second sentence? Is this use due to the sequence of tenses, i. e. does the tense of the predicate verb in the head clause (sat) influence the tense in the subordinate clause, so that the present tense may is inadmissible after it? Or is the use of the past tense might in the subordinate clause to be explained by the meaning of the form might? The answer seems to be this. As the action denoted by the predicate of the subordinate clause is not necessarily limited to the past tense (his wider view of the landscape might well last into the present), there would appear to be no need for using the past tense form on account of its own meaning. The conclusion seems therefore to follow, that the use of the form might is indeed due to the influence of the predicate verb form in the head clause. However, that view may perhaps be disputed, namely if we think that the action of the subordinate clause is limited to the past.
Having to make up our mind in favour of either one or the other alternative, we will decide to choose the narrower view, that is, to
1 The whole problem has been treated at some length by Prof. I. Ivanova (see И. П. Иванова, Последовательность времен английского языка. Исследования по английской филологии, ЛГУ, 1958).
330 Sequence of Tenses
define sequence of tenses as a use of a tense entirely and unequivocally due to the tense form of the predicate verb in the head clause.
Taken that way, the rule of sequence applies to a limited number of syntactic situations only. It will not do to assert that sequence of tenses is a general law applying to all kinds of subordinate clauses and then to class all cases where this does not hold good as exceptions. Sequence of tenses applies to certain types of subordinate clauses only, and these are, object clauses and adverbial clauses of purpose. We need not give examples here, as the sentences we have so far considered in this chapter all belong either to the one or to the other variety. And even with object clauses sequence of tenses is not always found to be operating. Sometimes an object clause has its predicate verb in the present tense, though the predicate verb of the head clause is in one of the past tenses. This may be due either to the contents of the subordinate clause, or to the stylistic colouring of the sentence. The contents of the subordinate clause may tell on the tense of its predicate verb if the statement contained in it is to be presented as something objectively true, rather than as somebody's utterance. This may be seen, for example, in the following passage, where the speaker, reporting another speaker's words, does not mean merely to report them as the other man's utterance but presents them as intrinsically true, no matter who the speaker may have been. Sentences like the following, with no sequence of tenses after a main clause with its predicate verb in one of the past tenses, are by no means rare: She had made me understand that not only her mother and brother, but you also, are well acquainted with the story of my acquaintance with Mrs Hurtle. (TROLLOPE) It is but natural that as the degree of objective value of somebody else's words may vary, so may the use of either the one or the other tense in indirect speech.
As for stylistic peculiarities connected with the use of tenses in an object clause, it may be noted that absence of sequence, that is, the use of a present tense in a subordinate clause with a head clause having its predicate verb in a past tense, seems to characterise informal speech.
The general conclusion on sequence of tenses would then appear to be this, that it is the rule in Modern English, but not a rule that holds good in all cases equally. Under certain conditions, partly semantic and partly stylistic, a use of tenses is also possible which runs counter to the rule of sequence.
Chapter XLII
