- Email: [email protected]
Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt
REVIEW
Harald Weinrich, Tempus: Besprochene und erziihlte Welt, Zweite, vijllig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Stuttgart, Verlag W. Kohlhammer; 1971. 349 pp. When the first edition appeared in 1964, it was immediately apparent that Tempus was a book of real importance, which would be determinative for further studies in the use of tenses in ‘narrating’ and ‘discussing’ contexts (the German terms erz2hlend and besprechend are difficult to translate). It was also clear that the book was rather carried away by the tremendous sweep and ambition of its theory, and tended to oversimplify linguistic and literary details. In the new edition, which represents a considerable amount of reworking, the theory has lost nothing of its ambitiousness, but a number of refinements have been made which limit its applicability. On the whole, the new version may be said to be much better organized and to have profited by the developments in linguistics and poetics since 1964, including the author’s investigations into the textual function of the articles. The most striking change is in fact that the new version clearly presents itself as a study in textual linguistics. The awareness that a grammar of tense cannot be restricted to the sentence came more or less as an afterthought in the original version (310); in the new book it informs the argument from first to last. As a result of this new emphasis on textual aspects, Weinrich is more modest now about some purely linguistic claims he made in 1964. He no longer states that on the strength of his theory he is able to give a definition of the sentence, or that his theory has done away once and for all with the concept of MOOD. For such omissions one can only be grateful. Looking back at the first edition from the vantage point of the second, one cannot help thinking that in certain respects its publication in 1964 was premature. For there is a second essential feature of the new book
110
W. BRONZWAER
that came only as an afterthought in 1964, in a very rambling chapter (279). Weinrich recognizes three dimensions in the tense-systems of the modern European languages : “Sprechhaltung, Sprechperspektive, Reliefgebung” (I am not convinced that these dimensions are categorically comparable, nor of the rightness of the term ‘dimensions’). These three notions now determine the organization of the book, which has gained a good deal in clarity of design as a result. What is said about the “Sprechhaltung” does not differ essentially from the theory such as it has become familiar. There are two sets of tense forms (I: he sings/he has sung/ he will have been singing etc. ; II: he sang/he had sung/he would have been singing etc.) from which the speaker or writer can choose according as to whether he is discussing or narrating the world. The dimension of the “Sprechperspektive” allows for temporal distinctions between past, present and future. Weinrich here makes a distinction between “Text-Zeit” (textual time) and “Akt-Zeit” (performative time). It may have been J. Klare’s review of the original edition that prompted this change. (Weinrich gives a selective list of the most important reviews devoted to the 1964 edition, summarizing their contents. He might have given a complete list, so that the effect of these reviews could have been inspected more accurately ; the whole procedure is now rather half-hearted. One review, incidentally, was one hundred pages long). The distinction is of course vitally important, but as I shall indicate below, Weinrich does not always keep it in view. The dimension of “Reliefgebung” remains as problematical as ever. Microlinguistically, “Reliefgebung” replaces the old Consecutio Temporum, while it also accounts for such phenomena as the preference for the Imparfait in subclauses in French and the word-order of predicate elements in subclauses in German and Dutch. Macrolinguistically, it implies a distinction between foreground and background which we are empirically aware of but cannot, it seems to me, use as linguistic evidence to support Weinrich’s theory without falling into the trap of circular reasoning. I do not want to go into this question at any length, but must point out once again that Weinrich’s statement about the backgrounding function of the expanded form in English in both narrative and discussing discourse seems to me mistaken (see my Tense in the Novel: An Znvestigation of Some Potentialities of Linguistic Criticism [Groningen, 19701, 68). The introduction of the three dimensions has important consequences for what is still the most exciting aspect of Weinrich’s theories, the concept of the tense metaphor. First of all, certain combinations of a tense form from group I with one from group II are merely transitions
REVIEW
111
(“ungleiche Uebergange”) and no longer metaphors. We have such a transition when we move from narrative into direct reported speech. In the original version, such a transition constituted a tense metaphor (123); now it is seen as a categorical shift (the category not being named, as it will have to be - see below). That there is no metaphor in such a case is explained by the fact that there is a change (of tense form) in one dimension only (that of “Sprechhaltung”). The categorical nature of the change would have to be accounted for in terms of “Aussagesubjekt” or point of view, but Weinrich ignores this. Similarly, the historical present, called tense metaphor in the old edition (296) and “Stilisticum” in the new (294), involves a change in “Sprechhaltung” only. The famous conclusion of Goethe’s Werther, however, shows a change not only of “Sprechhaltung” but also of “Sprechperspektive”: the zero-preterite of the narrative is replaced by a perfect, which in the discussing mode has past-time reference. The new theory of tense metaphor raises a large number of questions. One may, first of all, be grateful that it has removed the embarrassing discussion of the sentence Gestern war ich krank, heute bin ich gesund which in the first edition (118) showed up the inadequacy of Weinrich’s original theory of tense metaphor so glaringly. What Weinrich would do with this awkward little sentence at the present stage of his thinking I cannot guess; nor can I see how an explanation in terms of “Reliefgebung” would rule out an interpretation of the sentence in terms of a temporal contrast. There can, it seems to me, be no question of a change in “Sprechhaltung”. The preterite here is not the zero-tense of narrative discourse but a temporally marked tense of discussing discourse (the presence of the adverb gestern is clearly relevant). The sentence illustrates a quality of the language which Sapir described earlier than anybody else: the fact that in a given context linguistic elements may be placed in structural oppositions which foreground features that in other contexts are muted. To say, as Weinrich does, that the preterite is always a tense of the narrative mode is to be guilty of the same absolutism as to say that the preterite always has past time reference. A distinction between competence and performance may also be involved: it is true that the zero-tense of the narrative mode is the preterite, but the statement cannot be reversed. The transition to direct speech involves another major problem. To argue, as Weinrich does on p. 35 of the new edition, that the use of group I tenses in dialogue confirms his theory since in dialogue we discuss the world, is again, of course, to be caught in a vicious circle, for one of the
Harald Weinrich, Tempus: Besprochene und erziihlte Welt, Zweite, vijllig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Stuttgart, Verlag W. Kohlhammer; 1971. 349 pp. When the first edition appeared in 1964, it was immediately apparent that Tempus was a book of real importance, which would be determinative for further studies in the use of tenses in ‘narrating’ and ‘discussing’ contexts (the German terms erz2hlend and besprechend are difficult to translate). It was also clear that the book was rather carried away by the tremendous sweep and ambition of its theory, and tended to oversimplify linguistic and literary details. In the new edition, which represents a considerable amount of reworking, the theory has lost nothing of its ambitiousness, but a number of refinements have been made which limit its applicability. On the whole, the new version may be said to be much better organized and to have profited by the developments in linguistics and poetics since 1964, including the author’s investigations into the textual function of the articles. The most striking change is in fact that the new version clearly presents itself as a study in textual linguistics. The awareness that a grammar of tense cannot be restricted to the sentence came more or less as an afterthought in the original version (310); in the new book it informs the argument from first to last. As a result of this new emphasis on textual aspects, Weinrich is more modest now about some purely linguistic claims he made in 1964. He no longer states that on the strength of his theory he is able to give a definition of the sentence, or that his theory has done away once and for all with the concept of MOOD. For such omissions one can only be grateful. Looking back at the first edition from the vantage point of the second, one cannot help thinking that in certain respects its publication in 1964 was premature. For there is a second essential feature of the new book
110
W. BRONZWAER
that came only as an afterthought in 1964, in a very rambling chapter (279). Weinrich recognizes three dimensions in the tense-systems of the modern European languages : “Sprechhaltung, Sprechperspektive, Reliefgebung” (I am not convinced that these dimensions are categorically comparable, nor of the rightness of the term ‘dimensions’). These three notions now determine the organization of the book, which has gained a good deal in clarity of design as a result. What is said about the “Sprechhaltung” does not differ essentially from the theory such as it has become familiar. There are two sets of tense forms (I: he sings/he has sung/ he will have been singing etc. ; II: he sang/he had sung/he would have been singing etc.) from which the speaker or writer can choose according as to whether he is discussing or narrating the world. The dimension of the “Sprechperspektive” allows for temporal distinctions between past, present and future. Weinrich here makes a distinction between “Text-Zeit” (textual time) and “Akt-Zeit” (performative time). It may have been J. Klare’s review of the original edition that prompted this change. (Weinrich gives a selective list of the most important reviews devoted to the 1964 edition, summarizing their contents. He might have given a complete list, so that the effect of these reviews could have been inspected more accurately ; the whole procedure is now rather half-hearted. One review, incidentally, was one hundred pages long). The distinction is of course vitally important, but as I shall indicate below, Weinrich does not always keep it in view. The dimension of “Reliefgebung” remains as problematical as ever. Microlinguistically, “Reliefgebung” replaces the old Consecutio Temporum, while it also accounts for such phenomena as the preference for the Imparfait in subclauses in French and the word-order of predicate elements in subclauses in German and Dutch. Macrolinguistically, it implies a distinction between foreground and background which we are empirically aware of but cannot, it seems to me, use as linguistic evidence to support Weinrich’s theory without falling into the trap of circular reasoning. I do not want to go into this question at any length, but must point out once again that Weinrich’s statement about the backgrounding function of the expanded form in English in both narrative and discussing discourse seems to me mistaken (see my Tense in the Novel: An Znvestigation of Some Potentialities of Linguistic Criticism [Groningen, 19701, 68). The introduction of the three dimensions has important consequences for what is still the most exciting aspect of Weinrich’s theories, the concept of the tense metaphor. First of all, certain combinations of a tense form from group I with one from group II are merely transitions
REVIEW
111
(“ungleiche Uebergange”) and no longer metaphors. We have such a transition when we move from narrative into direct reported speech. In the original version, such a transition constituted a tense metaphor (123); now it is seen as a categorical shift (the category not being named, as it will have to be - see below). That there is no metaphor in such a case is explained by the fact that there is a change (of tense form) in one dimension only (that of “Sprechhaltung”). The categorical nature of the change would have to be accounted for in terms of “Aussagesubjekt” or point of view, but Weinrich ignores this. Similarly, the historical present, called tense metaphor in the old edition (296) and “Stilisticum” in the new (294), involves a change in “Sprechhaltung” only. The famous conclusion of Goethe’s Werther, however, shows a change not only of “Sprechhaltung” but also of “Sprechperspektive”: the zero-preterite of the narrative is replaced by a perfect, which in the discussing mode has past-time reference. The new theory of tense metaphor raises a large number of questions. One may, first of all, be grateful that it has removed the embarrassing discussion of the sentence Gestern war ich krank, heute bin ich gesund which in the first edition (118) showed up the inadequacy of Weinrich’s original theory of tense metaphor so glaringly. What Weinrich would do with this awkward little sentence at the present stage of his thinking I cannot guess; nor can I see how an explanation in terms of “Reliefgebung” would rule out an interpretation of the sentence in terms of a temporal contrast. There can, it seems to me, be no question of a change in “Sprechhaltung”. The preterite here is not the zero-tense of narrative discourse but a temporally marked tense of discussing discourse (the presence of the adverb gestern is clearly relevant). The sentence illustrates a quality of the language which Sapir described earlier than anybody else: the fact that in a given context linguistic elements may be placed in structural oppositions which foreground features that in other contexts are muted. To say, as Weinrich does, that the preterite is always a tense of the narrative mode is to be guilty of the same absolutism as to say that the preterite always has past time reference. A distinction between competence and performance may also be involved: it is true that the zero-tense of the narrative mode is the preterite, but the statement cannot be reversed. The transition to direct speech involves another major problem. To argue, as Weinrich does on p. 35 of the new edition, that the use of group I tenses in dialogue confirms his theory since in dialogue we discuss the world, is again, of course, to be caught in a vicious circle, for one of the