The Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English · The Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English 61 are similar to SHP in the respect that they also

59

The Simple Present TenseUsed as Historical Present in English

Mariko Higuchi Kyushu Institute of Technology, Iizuka

O. Introduction

This article aims to show that the proper recognition of the intrinsic

nature of the simple present in English leads to the natural explanation

of the functional meaning and the mechanism of the simple present

tense used as the "historical present" (hereafter SHP) exemplified in

(1).

(1) This scruffy-looking student comes into my office yesterday and

says he wants a loan.

This use of the simple present tense has been considered exceptional in

at least two ways. One facet of such specialties is characterized in

terms of the aspectual property. Generally, a present is imperfective,

but Langacker(1991), for example, sees SHP as a special perfective

case. In his framework of Cognitive Grammar, what is described by a

verb is called a process. A process is an entity that can be conceptualized

in terms of passing of time. When it involves a change through time,

it is called perfective and otherwise it is imperfective. According to

him, a perfective process is bounded, contractible, replicable and

heterogeneous. Traditionally it is called an event. Perfectivity and

oo Mariko Higuchiimperfectivity are complementary to each other. An imperfective

process is generally called a state. What is described in the present is

'almost always imperfective as in He knows it. As Langacker(1991:

252) explains, a perfective present generally cannot arise because

describing a perfective in the present tense requires that the speaker

initiate his utterance simultaneously with the event's onset, before he

has a chance to identify its whole including its endpoint. And he

further notes that the verbs in generics(A beaver builds dams),

habituals (He runs every day), recipes (Yoza salt the onion), directions

(You turn right at the bank) actually are also imperfective, because it

is not the event per se that is described by the clauses, but the stable

role as part of the script of how the world is expected to work. This

claim implies that the function of tense is not to point to the location

of the event, but to show where the content of the clause applies to.

But in dealing with (1), he classifies it as perfective, giving a special

account for it, which seems rather farfetched and questionable, as we

will see in section 3. Presumably, this is because he sees SHP as

exceptional. I suspect that this is one of the reasons why SHP has not

been fully explained yet. The central purpose of this paper is to show

that the aspect involving SHP exemplified in (1) is also imperfective

and there is nothing special about SHP in this respect and to give a

fuller alternative analysis for this phenomenon. To achieve this purpose,

this article seeks the intrinsic nature of the simple present tense that

its core and peripheral usage and SHP all share. Also, photo captions,

historical summaries in the simple present will be analyzed, since they

The Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English 61

are similar to SHP in the respect that they also are concerned with the

real past events.

Another specialty or oddity often talked about SHP is that it

seemingly goes against the general rule that the present tense is about

a present situation. It certainly makes no sense to postulate that the

present tense is just both about the present and the past. Though

some people such as Wolfson(1981) say that the tense has no temporal

meaning, no one would deny that the central use of the present tense

basically involves something in the present. So what is necessary here

is to clarify the intrinsic meaning of the present in this central use

and how SHP retains it. In another words, in what sense SHP is about

the present, how the central meaning of the present can be applied to

the case of SHP'. Specifically, this article claims that, although the

event being referred to by the sentence above may have occurred

originally in the actual past, the sentence itself directly pertains to the

present image of the structural understanding of the event. And SHP

is in the frame-like context that makes the process involving it

understood as something in the past originally. In another words, SHP

involves a mental space within another. It is analogous to a picture in

the frame that one is leoking at now. Although the picture may be

about originally the real past event, this way, it can also be seen as

a present. In this sense also, SHP is not so special and the simple

present morpheme does the job as it usually does. It is the context

which might be cailed a bit special. The character of the context will

be touched upon in section 2.4 and 4.

62 Mariko HiguÅëhi I suspect that it is because SHP has been treated as something

exceptional as above that SHP has not been fully explicated, When we

look at a thing as exceptional, we often stop thinking further about it

and we tend to overlook something important about it. And quite

often, the intrinsic property of the matter can be found in these cases

that are seen rather peripheral and exceptional.

As it is weli-known, the standard account for the historical present

(hereafter HP) goes that it describes events in the past as if they were

occurring at the moment of speaking to achieve vividness. Obviously,

however, this explanation cannot be plausible, since one does not use

the simple present form to describe events unfolding right now at the

moment of speaking to begin with. In English, it is the progressive

form and not the simple one that is used to describe the action taking

place at the moment of speech. You do not say, "He takes a shower"

to describe the action occurring right now. Therefore it is quite

unreasonable to assume that the use of the simple present tense can

make it seem that the action is unfolding at the speaker's present.

The traditional explanation above may apply if it is limited to the

progressive HP without any problem, but for HP in the simple form,

it obviously does not work. One of the reasons this paper particularizes

SHP as a target subject here is that it is almost always SHP such as

(1) that is given as an example in the traditional account of HP

above, which is actually quite at odd with the fact above.

Langacker(1991) and Ushie(1993) claim that HP involves the shifting

of the deictic center. This can be seen as a little more sophisticated


version of the traditional account above. Though there may be some

truth in this, this account alone cannot explain, for example, why

yesterday, a deictic adverb which presupposes the original deictic

center, can co-occur with SHP as in (1). If the present form is used

because the speaker is in effect pretending that the events are taking

place at the time of speaking or their time orientation is set up at the

moment of the actual event's occurrence, the use of yesterday would

be unaccountable. We need one mental space within another to cope

with this, since we have the speaker's deictic center from which the

event is viewed as something that happened the previous day, which

corresponds to the adverb. This paper wi11 claim that one mental space

that constitutes the world of SHP and the outside world from which

the speaker can identify the event as the one that took place the

previous day are both part of the speaker's present where the deictic

center resides.

First of all, the discussion here will concentrate on the relationship

between the nature of the simple present tense and the aspectual

distinction shown above. Then analyzing some types of the simple

present examples, I will argue that the process described by SHP is

inevitably imperfective and about the present. Second, going through

some problems concerning the traditional account of SHP, we will

clarify how actually SHP works.

1. The imperfectivity and the simple present tense

In order to have a proper view of SHP, the aspectual distinction is

M Mariko Higuchiimportant. As Langacker' s Cognitive Grammar correctly characterizes,

conceptualizing a process requires the passing of time, while a noun is

irrelevant to it2. A perfective process involving a change through time

is depicted in Fig. 1. When we scan it sequentially as time goes from

tl to t4, we can recognize the change of location. A verb also can

describe a situation that does not involve a change through time.

When images scanned sequentially are virtually identical through time

as in Fig. 2, we categorize the process as imperfective. According to

Langacker(1987) , an imperfective process is unbounded within the scope

of predication, homogeneous and contractible because every component

image itself in the scanning is its whole and the same at any moment

in the time concerned. Typically, what we call statives such as is and

know in (3) are categorized imperfective.

oo oooo o

-----:------•--o---

-tlt2t3t4t-M t:':--:':-!:1t2t3t4t

Fig. 1 Fig. 2(2) The ball dropped. (3) The ball is there.

It fell over. He knows it. , (4) He runs everyday.

One should note that a process is not necessarily perfect.ive just

because the verb used is normally regarded as an action verb. When

we take a verb such as run without context for example, it typically


evokes some kind of movement. However, in actual use, for example,

He runs everyday can be said to describe a certain regularity of the

subject's daily practice which is stable through time, rather than a

change through time. Therefore, rzan could be an imperfective process.

If the line of small circles in Fig. 2 symbolizes the habitual and stable

situation, we can regard Fig. 2 as a figure demonstrating He runs

everyday.

An imperfective process can perhaps be comparable to the video

movie showing a static scene. The components of such a film are

actually a series of identical pictures each of which has the whole

image of the process. It takes only one component to represent the

whole and we can identify it in a point-like present moment. This is

not possible with a perfective process. To get a whole picture of a

perfective process that begins and ends requires a certain duration,

even if it is punctual like flash.Ithink this is the main reason why a

perfective present cannot arise. In order to be able to identify a

perfective process, it is necessary to wait till the process ends, which

will result in the past tense.

Of course, it is possible to capture a perfective process at a present

point, if we view it from the middle of it from the inner point of

view. That is the case with a progressive. But what can be captured

at a moment is by no means the whole picture, but it is necessarily

only one fragmentary component. The momentary fragment caught at

the present represents the event as such and when it is combined with

be as the main verb, which makes the resultative process imperfective.

os Mariko HiguchiTherefore the progressive is imperfective, too. As Langacker claims, a

progressive form is a devise to imperfectivize a perfective process. I

think it is because a perfective in English is incompatible with the

present that we need to imperfectivize it to capture at the present

moment. That is to say, we cannot but view the perfective process

from the middle of on-going process to capture it at the point-like

present. This is the primary reason you cannot say He talees a shower

now, referring to somebody's present action. For that purpose, we

normally use the progressive, He is taking a shower now. He takes a

shower now usually means somebody's habitual practice, which renders

an imperfective construal.

So far, we have seen the imperfectivity of the simple present through

rather typical cases. Before going into SHP and less central types of

the simple present, it should be worth while cursory looking at other

examples of the simple present. As you see, none of the followings

describes an actual event taking place at the present moment.

(5) Abeaver builds dams. (generics)(6) Andy walks to center stage and sits on the sofa. (stage direction)

(7) That night Cinderella goes to the ball in the clothes. (summary)

(8) First you slice potatoes and onions and sprinkle with cheese, salt,

and pepper. (recipe)(9) You go down this road as far as the market, and turn right.

(direction)

(10) He takesashower now. (habitual practice)

They are a quality or nature of things: how a story goes, how things


work, procedures of things and the systems in the world which, we

see, stay virtually the same for at least a certain period of time.

They are in the present because they apply at the present. For example,

a recipe consists of a series of instructions or a procedure that comprises

basically stable ideas about how we make a dish. Example (7) is a

part of how a story goes. The structure of the story itself does not

change once it is understood as it is. Once the structural content of

the Cinderella story per se is understood, that of a minute ago, a

couple of months ago and now are virtually the same. They take the

simple present form because the relation of things they describe holds

true at the present moment in the speaker's mind. Though these, of

course, do not exhaust the usage of the simple present tense, the

imperfectivity can be seen as the property that the form inevitably

bears3.

2. What SHP involves

2.1. AIternative imageries of an event

Now we have come to the point of examining a case of SHP such as

(11). We have seen that theoretically, it is only when the events are

imaged imperfectively that they can be realized in the simple present

tense. Nevertheless, it appears as if (11) received a perfective construal,

since it evokes the corresponding original action that must have taken

place in the past.

os Mariko Higuchi(11)( =(1)) This scruffy-looking student comes into my office yesterday

and says he wants a loan.

However, there is no reason we have to assume that the verbs in (11)

represent the original perfective actions directly, since it is the imagery

that matters here. Before the past event is put into words, it must be

recalled and mentally replayed. And the morphological form employed

for it corresponds to how it is imaged at that time in the mind. Of

course the recalled image could be in motion and perfective in our

mind more or less as it was perceived (which of course results in the

past tense). Yet there could also be alternative images for the same

action. It could be imaged imperfectively when it is recalled. For

example, you can draw a picture of somebody in motion. The picture

itself of course does not move, but you can picture the motion. Our

capacity of imagery makes it possible. As we will see next, a photo

caption can be in the simple present tense. I presume it is because an

static image of the photo itself mediates the event in question and the

description .

There are many cases that the originally the same thing can be

imaged differently. One example can be seen in one of the famous

ambiguous figures such as Wittgenstein's "duck-rabbit" (Fig. 3). As is

well known, it can be imaged as a duck or as a rabbit, although the

figure itself does not change. The tenses being employed to describe an

event are comparable to these images. When it is perfective and

dynamic, it is ended when it is put into words at the speaker's

present. So the past tense is chosen for it. When it is imperfective,


Fig. 3

the present can be chosen.

Of course, an imperfective image may not always be like a picture,

but perhaps a more abstract one. I would like to try to picture the

abstract image, using Fig. 1 again that can be seen as a movement of

a ball as time goes on. In this imagery, there actually is one ball

moving. Now, if we just subtly change the way to look at the same

figure, we can also see it as a picture of four balls that represent the

location at the respective time. It, as a whole, stays immobile in

front of us as it does. This alternative viewing could be illustrated

from a different angle as in Fig. 4 which is meant to depict Fig. 1

being unchanged through time. Each slice is meant to show the

identical copy of Fig. 1. Moreover, if we go on abstracting the

figure on each slice in Fig. 4 and regard each as a dot, it could be

schematized as Fig. 2. This paper claims that this type of schematization

involves when SHP occurs; we are sequentially scanning the resultative

schematic image which is imperfective.

70 Mariko Higuchi

oo o oooo-.--M.-----d--b•--d---"C

"- 1::/i-"ilE--"lllli'"""'llZ't -2t3t4t'-"t:":"'--!-:M-il':-m-ml)År1t2t3t4t

Fig• 1 Fig. 29•gt,o 9q pa

:Ii, il ii'i;: li l!'

---ee-----eee-e-"e

k•:o

liR

q ts %kg ll Fig. 4

t

The dynamic movement of the ball can only be captured with a lapse

of time. In order to show it as the way it is with the actual time

involvement, one would need a video set to store it and replay the

actual falling. Therefore, Fig. 1 in a way is a schematic illustration

of the trace of the ball's movement. This way can make the description

possible on paper. When it,is depicted as in Fig. 1, the actual time

has gone through a kind of abstraction. It is with this power of

imagery that we can visualize time which are inherently invisible as in

symbols tl, t2, t3 and t4 in the figure. In addition, we can even

conceptualize different time points simultaneously which cannot exist


at a tlme.

2.2. Analogy between photo captions and SHP

Now let us look at the underlined verbs in photo caption examples

(12) and (13) that explain the respective photos in the newspaper shown in

Figures 5, 6 and 7.

TOGETHER FOREVER

Fig.5

Asso[JAtadPTtss HUIHFqO.-SON

(The San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov.8,1994)

72 Mariko Higuchi cover the gra vc of 14-month-"tdAlex Sni ith and his brother, S-ynar-old iWrichael, tuho were hurted together vesterdayin PVest SPrings, S.C 77reir father, Pat,id Sntith rright), hreaks dotvn as he teat,es thc fttnerat seri,ice escorted bÅr, hts uncle, DougFig•6 ;i',V'Li,`,?b,`ueesi..

.S'mtth, Theboys' hodies tuern found tn a rar at thc bottttm of a takt' ntnn days aftt't th`'ir m"thi', tt'rn,rtd'd tht'tn abdtiftiJ`/ .SJtt.tK Jtt,"' chtt t/t,'tl u'tth titi'rr ,m`,tl,', St,,ty, ,.1 ,J


Fig.7

ASSOCIATED PRESSJoan Stei,ens, a Smith family f)iend, cleans thefomily plot in

Union, S.C.,yesterday. The boys zvill be buried there today



(12) Flowers and signs cover the grave of 14-month-old Alex Smith and

this brother, 3-year-old Michael, who were buried together yesterday

in West Springs, S. C. Their father, David Smith breaks down as he leaves the funeral service escorted by his uncle, Doug Smith,

and his step-mother, Susan Smith.

'(13) Joan Stevens, a Smith family friend, cleans the family plot in Union, SC. yesterday. The boys will be buried there today.

As you see, they are in the simple present tense despite the fact that

the processes involving these photos and captions must have occurred

in the past and are originally perfective. Those pictures themselves

show only a momentary fragment of the perfective processes. If you

see the moment as a representative of the whole action by neutralizing

the difference in the component states in the scanning, it would result

.in a progressive form. A photo caption can also be in the progressive

to correspond to a moment in the middle of the action. Also, you

--could see it symbolically as a schematic representation that comprises

the sequentially scanned images of the whole action itself, just as

when you diagram the movement of the ball as in Fig. 2, 3 and 4 in

the previous section. By diagramming the scanned images, you can see

.what actually takes time to see at a time by abstracting the time

away once and the resultative static relation itself does not involve a

change through time; hence it can be conceived as imperfective. I

presume this kind of schematization that has a highly abstract property

--renders the image of the action stability. The simple present tense is

used in examples (12) and (13) because they directly pertain to schematic

74 Mariko Higuchiand thus imperfective images.

Notice that in (12) describing Fig. 5, the verb, cover is in the present

because it is about the action depicted in the photo, Fig. 5. Whereas

were buried is in the past since this action is outside the photo,

though both covering and burying must have occurred sequentially on

the same day in the past. Note also the use of yesterday in (12) and

(13).

I claim this schematic image we can see through a photo can be

comparable to the image that mediates the actually perceived past

action and SHP. Structuring the actual past events as we recall them

involves schematization, which creates an imperfective image that can

exist at the present moment. Then this can be realized in the simple

present tense. Of course a certain condition is necessary for it to be

used as SHP. We will discuss it in relation to the function of the

frame in section 2,4 and 4 in detail. Meanwhile, I would like to go

into the schematic images involving the simple present tense a little

further with other examples.

2.3. Schematic image

A schema, as it is in the dictionary, is a general term exemplified

by a plan, a design, a program, a project, a method, means, a

system, a device, a strategy, an organized framework, an outline, a

graphic sketch, a combination of elements that are connected, adjusted

and integrated by design. They are the way things are and how things

work. They are somewhat abstract, rather than actual. They do not


directly describe actual situations. They are mostly described in the

simple present tense, as long as the speaker entertains them as valid

propositions at the time of speech. That is because they all evoke a

highly abstract property of the structure we can conceptualize in a

series of events. While they indirectly might evoke dynamic images,

directly, they pertain to structures of them that are somewhat stable

through time. It could be said that they themselves are imperfective.

2.3.1. Story summary

A plot of a story can be seen as an example of a schema. Stories

and novels themselves are mostly told in the past tense, since typically,

the narrators talk as if they were recalling events in the past. Let us

call this type narrative mode. On the other hand, the recapitulation of

the stories, the plot, outline or summary is often expressed in the

simple present tense as in (14), since it is the schematic structure of

events that exists at the speaker's present. Once the organization of a

story is understood, it can virtually stay imperfective as it is stored

in the brain. We may call this plot explaining mode.

(14) That night Cinderella goes to the ball in the clothes.

As there are narrative and plot explaining modes for fictional

events, there can possibly be two ways to describe a non-fictional one.

If the event is recalled as a moving image, since it has to end to be

described in the simple form, it would be realized in the past.

76 Mariko HiguchiWhen it is recalled schematically as a part of the structure of the

experience or the story, the image would exist imperfectively and get

embodied in the simple present.

2.3.2. Historical summary

Likewise, a historical summary as in (15) can be in the simple present.

(15) In 1940, Hitler invades Belgium. (Historical Summary)

Of course, Hitler's action is a specific and actual past event in our

reality. If the focus is on the dynamic action conceptualized through

time, it will of course be presented in the past tense, since it belongs

in the past, Presumably (15) is in the present tense because it directly

talks about the historical fact in the chronological table and the focus

is on its validity that applies now at the present. Note that this kind

can often be seen in the list of historical events in order on a table.

We can mentally visualize the chart which is stable through time. We

can find an order in a set of actions that we have experienced or

perceived. When we focus on that structural perspective and when we

think of them as a list of events in a chart, we can image them as

imperfective.

2.4. Frame: a condition for SHP

Though I have maintained that SHP itself directly pertains to the

present in the sense that it is the structure of an event which exists at

[[he Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English 77

the present and should not be seen as an exceptional use of the simple

present in that sense so far, it of course does not mean that a

sentence such as (16) is invariably acceptable. For (16) to be understood

as a schema that is valid now, a certain contextual condition is

necessary. Otherwise, the combination of the present tense and adverbs

such as yesterday would not be acceptable. Likewise, it would sound

too abrupt to start a conversation with a remark like (1). This brings

us to a question, where SHP occurs.

(16) cf. #He comes here yesterday.

Schiffrin (1981)says that the occurrence of HP is almost restricted to

the place where the speaker tells the story by relaying a series of

temporally-ordered events that are understood as having occurred prior

to the moment of speech through the discourse. In another words, HP

almost always comes after an introductory part in the past tense.

That is why the following HP can be understood as something in the

past. If an appropriate mental space is established, (16) can be acceptable,

too. This contextual effect can be compared to a kind of framing.

With the frame, the mental space which SHP belongs to can be

distinguished from the actual present reality space, though of course

what is inside the frame is also a part of the present situation.

Without the frame, (16) might invite a habitual interpretation as a

default case that pertains to the speaker's present world. Then it

would contradict with the use of yesterday. Though SHP also pertains

78 Mariko Higuchito the speaker's present world, which explains the use of the present

tense, the world of SHP is limited within the contextual frame, which

tells you that the world within is related to the past situation.

To summarize this section, SHP can be said to describe a schematic

and thus imperfective situation at the speaker' s present that results in

the use of the simple present tense. Thus, in this respect, SHP is not

exceptional. What is characteristic about SHP would rather be that it

can be understood to refer to the event in the past. And this is

possible because the contextual frame limits the world of SHP. Comparable

phenomena can be found in historical summaries and photo captions

which are also in the frames. To clarify more about SHP, in the next

section, we will examine the assumptions concerning the traditional

account of HP and the nature of the simple present, going through

more examples.

3. The present moment and the simple present tense

I suspect one of the reasons people have accepted the illusive idea

that HP describes the past event as if it were occurring at the moment

to achieve vividness is perhaps they have been misled to connect the

simple present tense and the event taking place at the moment of

speaking, perhaps due to many grammar books that tells you that the

present tense describes the event at the present. However, as shown

above, the function of the present tense is not to indicate the location

of the event but to show the content of the sentence is valid at the

present. The simple present is about the present, but it does not mean


that the event in the sentence should occur at the present. The simple

present depicts a situation that applies at the present.

3.1. Play-by-piay account

It is often said in grammar books that sports commentaries such as

(M describe the actions at the moment of speaking. One might say

that this is an example of the simple present describing the present

actlon .

(M McHale passes to Bird. Bird moves out to 3-point range. He shoots. He buries it!

However, as Langacker says, this should actually be considered as "a

case of a conventional fiction". Obviously, one cannot start the

sentence at the same time the action involving it starts. Therefore the

action and the articulation of the sentence describing it can never be

simultaneous. For, as Langacker notes, this kind of play-by-play

mode must be abandoned to describe an event that falls outside the

expected range of occurrence for the type of activity in question since

one would not say (18) but rather (19) (Langacker 1991:268), when the

$peaker observes an accidental event.

(18) #The scorebQard explodes!

(19) The scoreboard explQded!

I suppose we can say that the sports commentaries in the simple

presept tense such as (M, since they should stay within the announcer's

80 Mariko Higuchiexpected range, actually express a kind of scenario about how the

game goes that the announcer has in his or her mind. This scenario is

a sort of schema, It of course does not describe the action that is

occurring simultaneously,

A game may not go as the announcer's scenario does as things may

not go as a schedule does which is another kind of schema that exists

imperfectively at the present. The schedules are schedules and the

scenarios are scenarios. For example, according to Langacker, eO) is

actually observed immediately after the pass has been dropped, so in

fact the pass was not caught and the game was not tied. This should

not be regarded as the announcer's mistake. They only represent how

the speaker conceives the things go. The import of (20) would be

something close to (21). (20) is different from eO') in the way that it

sounds like a scenario that the speaker images schematically.

ceO) He catches that pass and the game is tied.

eO') If he catches that pass, the game is tied.

A similar thing could happen for a schedule or a generic as in the

train leaves at 7 and water boils when heated to 100 degrees centigrade.

You can say, "The train leaves at 7 but today it was late". And of

course, there can be a case that water may boil at 95 if the air

pressure is lower, but a generic is a generic. A schedule does not

designate an actual event at the moment and nor does a scenario.

Rather, it describes an abstract schema that exists as our reality at

the present.

'IIhe Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English 81

3.2. Problems in Langacker' s account of HP

Langacker basically accepts the traditional account for HP. That is

probably why cognitive tools are improperly applied for the phenomenon.

This section is meant to show that if the part dealing with HP is

revised, it will reinforce the validity of his Cognitive Grammar

framework .

3.2.1. Shifted deictic center

Langacker (1991) analyzes eO) with the context above as the case

that the deictic center is shifted to a location in non-reality. Similarly

he characterizes the historical present as a case the deictic center is

shifted to a past reality, and (21) within the future-time region. Due to

the semantic similarity between (21) and (22), he goes on to say that the

assumed vantage point of (23) is in the future(Langacker: 1994).

However, all of these as a whole should be regarded as the propositions

that holds true at the speaker's present reality. They are how things

go as the speaker sees the world.

(21) You miss this field and you lose your job.

(22) If you miss this field, you lose your job.

(23) The last ferry leaves in ten minutes•

The deictic center may indeed be shifted to another temporal point.

But could it change the relationship between the simple present and the

aspect? I think if the deictic center is shifted to the point in that the

middle of the action, it will result in the progressive. If it is shifted

82 Mariko Higuchito the point it ended, it would simply be described in the past tense.

What we should not forget is that if the event is taking place at the

moment of speaking, the speaker would not use the simple present to

describe it. This should be true, even if the speaker were prescient.

Therefore, the very idea of shifted deictic center per se would not

explain why 20),(21) and (23) are in the simple present. The deictic center

could be shifted to a dream world, but if the non modal present tense

is used for that world, it would mean that the dream world simply

has become the speaker's immediate reality, or it is described as if the

world were his reality. You could be in your office in a chair just

imaging yourself at a football stadium or you could actually be there

or watching TV or a video sometime ago at home. Wherever the

deictic center resides, as long as the non-modal present is used, it

simply means that the designated content applies at the present

moment where the deictic center is. And the tenses do not refer to the

time at which the event occurs. In this respect, 20), (21) and (23) are no"

different from the ordinary simple present such as He rans everyday

and She likes it. As Langacker himself characterizes the non-modal

present tense situates the designated process in immediate reality, with

which I completely agree. But his idea of "shifting deictic center"

seems rather irrelevant to the use of the simple present tense in the

examples above. It would be far more valid to analyze (20), (21) and (23)

simply as how the speaker views the structure of the world, as they

are a lot like recipes and stage directions in the simple present tense.

They represent how the speaker sees how things go. The similarity

'Ihe Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English 83

between (21) and (22), I suppose, comes from our interpretive capacity

that we have in understanding two simple sentenees like these juxtaposed

by and•

3.2.2. Vividne$s

Traditionally, it is believed that "vividness effect" is one of the

factors that motivates the use of the present in referring to the actual

past event. But the historical summaries and the photo captions in the

simple present do not seem necessarily more vivid than their past

counterparts. Moreover, if you examine some actual data with HP as

in (24), one can easily see that what is described in SHP is not always

particularly vivid nor dramatic, as Wolfson concludes. Also, Wolfson

(1979) even says that the most dramatic event is often recounted in

the past tense.

(24) Two years ago we were in Mexico, at Acapulco, andIcalled Mexico City and I asked for Juan. Now I' ve got to go

through operators and I make it person-to- erson. And themaid tells the operator in Spanish, and the operator tells me,

"He's not there."Isaid, "When will he be back?", and themaid and the operator are having this great big conversation.

Ikee getting the same answer. And finally the operator saysto me, "He's dead. He died. That's -- he's not here. Hedied." Well, I tell you, I was so upset. I said, "Thank you",

and I hung up. I must have made that person-to-person callthree times before the maid and the operator got together totry to explain that he was not there because he wasn't. But I

was so upset and Icouldn't find Maria's phone number in the

telephone book. (Wolfson 1979:171, bold and underline is

84 Mariko Higuchimine)

If the vividness effect does not account for the use of the simple

present to describe the past events, then, what motivates it? My

answer to this question involves the very nature of SHP. Presenting

schematic and structural images of the story can help the addressee to

grasp the picture of the story in a wider scope. Perhaps knowing how

the story goes or the outline would make it easier for the addressee to

understand the story. Complicated details or some background information

can be presented in the manner of summary, too. SHP may be vivid

since it may incorporate actions, but it can also be less dynamic and

less dramatic, since the image is abstract and static. In this respect,

the past tense could bring about more impact because it evokes an

actual dynamic action that unfolded through time in our reality as

Wolfson observes.

As we have seen, in order to account for SHP, it is necessary to

clarify the intrinsic nature of English tenses. The pivotal nature is

that the tenses in English do not function to specify the time the

action takes place. They only tell you whether the whole conceived

process resides at the present moment or prior to that. In order to

exist at the present moment, the entity described by the verb has to

be imperfective, since without the contractibility, the fully scanned

image of a verb cannot fit into the momentary point. Both SHP and

the past tense can involve the past actions because the perceived

actions should be once stored in the memory and retrieved presently to


be put into words. SHP describes the schematic image of the past that

exits at the present moment conceptualized as immediate reality,

sacrificing its dynamism. The past tense also describes the image

conceptualized at the present moment but as the one detached from the

present thus located in the past, even when the event occurred a

second ago. In the case of a perfective event, the speaker scans actual

change through time in the image in the brain; the past tense can

convey the dynamism of the action because of its distancing effect`.

4. The function of contextual frame for SHP

4.1. Compatibility of yesterdayand SHP

Let us now turn to another problem with the shifted deictic center

analysis that derives from the traditional view of HP.

(25) (=(1)) This scruffy-looking student comes into my office yesterday

and says he wants a loan.

If the simple present were used because the deictic center is shifted to

the past time point the action is taking place, then the use of yesterday

would be unexplainable, since the time actually referred to as "yesterday"

should be "now" if that were the case. As we have seen above if we

only see that the verb pertains to the schema inside the frame itself,

the problem would evaporate. The schema of the past event is just like

a photo describing an event which should necessarily have taken place

in the past. Likewise, the schematic image can exist in the present

world and at the same time it can be that of the past event. The

ss Mariko Higuchipoint is that the schema of the event exists in a limited way i.e. in

the frame. This is how the present tense can be compatible with

yesterday which presupposes the speaker's deictic center. The present

tense is used because the schematic image is present. And the adverb

can be used because the world inside the frame is understood as the

situation of the previous day and it is seen from the deictic center in

the outside world.

4.2. Contextual information as a frame builder

Let us see here briefly what built-in pragmatic information dces to

nouns. Normally, yesterday's frying Pan is odd because a noun such

as a pan is rather irrelevant to time, since a noun is conceptually

independent of time. However, if we find the pan is connected to an

event that happened the previous day, (suppose I am talking abeut a

panI burned yesterday,) there is no problem comprehending it. That

is why there is nothing wrong with yesterday's PaPer, since we know

a newspaper is usually delivered daily, while yesterday's Pen is strange

without its plausible context. We use such pragmatic information

producing and understanding phrases and sentences when they are used.

The similar mechanism applies to the difference between (26) and e7a) .

A generic truth should be valid both at the present and the past, but

it is no longer a generic truth if you limit its validity to a particular

time point. (27a) has no probiem because of the frame effect and the

pragmatic informatien that the incident which the photo (Fig. 8)

descril)es has happened the day before the day the paper is issued. We


understand the built-in temporal information inside the schema about

when the event took place and look at it from outside. Notice when

you change the position of yesterday in the same sentence as in e7b),

it is hardly acceptable. This is because the adverb which presupposes

speaker's real "right now" breaks into the schema that the verb phrase

constitutes. In contrast, if the tense is in the past as in e7c) , the

sentence is perfectly normal, since the frame is not involved with it.

(26) "Water boils at 100 degree yesterday.

e7a) Russian workers yesterday show the oil they shoveled from a small river, a tributary of the Kolva River.

(The San Diego Union Tribune, Oct. 23rd, 1994)

e7b) ??Russian workers show yesterday the oil they shoveled from a

small river.

Fig. 8

Oiey snevv: Russian worhers yesterday show the oil th ay shoveled from a .m.ziS,;,'v,g;2isa,lnilu,,tg,ryf.zfAh.e,•,K,.o3v,lt,R.tseft,?e,e.z's,ai,',p.e,"s,sb"in,"g,m,k,iii

is far worse than Previously esttmated. See sto7 y, A-14.

(The San Diego Union-Tribune, Oct.24,1994)

88 Mariko Higuchie7c) Russian workers showed yesterday the oil they shoveled from a

small river.

4.3. A temporal entity built in a schema

A temporal entity built-in a schema can be found not only in SHP

and the photo captions like e7a) but also in a scheduled future as in

e8a). Strictly speaking, e8a) should not be considered as a future

event, though often it is said so. A future event itself does not exist

in our reality, simply because it has not occurred yet. The reason the

simple present tense is used for a schedule or plan is that they exit as

schemata in our present reality. After all, e8b) without its context

could be construed as SHP or someone's habitual practice or schedule,

depending on its context. It is inherently vague without it, When we

interpret the sentence in actual use, we are processing it with given

information in the context. Sentences 28a), e8b) and e8c) share the

property that they never describe an event that is taking place at the

moment of speaking but their contents apply at the present. They all

recount a schematic and imperfective process that is conceived by the

speaker as his present reality.

e8a) He comes here tomorrow.e8b) He comes here.(28c) He comes here yesterday.

4.4. Actual vs. schematic

Gathering from the discussion so far, the simple present sentences

can be classified into two levels; a concrete level that pertains to so


called the actual stative situations as in (29) and a schematic level as in

(30). In both levels the content described applies at the present. What is

common between them is that their imperfectivity. And SHP belongs

to the latter.

(29) He isastudent. He knows it. Concrete level(30) generic, habitual, stage direction, recipe, SHP etc.

Schematic level

SHP may look special and even puzzling because it is strongly related

to the actual event in the past. However, as we have seen, it directly

describes an imperfective process at the speaker's present as most of

the other simple present examples do. At least in this respect, SHP is

not exceptional. The thing is the image locally exists as a part of the

speaker's reality in the frame of the schema at the present, rather

than as the speaker's whole present reality as shown in Fig. 9.

111 18 1995

o 'illiiZtiTggs,ii,i7 .g.///i7/illililiTili/l'//1/j'/11i/li/i'lj'i//i'/i`lll/i'llil/1111ilj';lill'li'illiii'i'-:'

-•-.:•:::•I•Gll:!:;.:1:/il!.:•:•:':::::""''

Fig. 9

90 Mariko HiguchiThe import is that in the speaker's reality, the date is Nov. 18th and

the picture in the frame depicts an event of the previous day. The

picture actually lies imperfectively in front of the speaker as a part of

the present reality. Likewise, the structure of the story can exist

imperfectively and be valid at the present. Within an appropriate

contextual frame, which distinguishes the actual situation and what is

inside, the structure can be of the past events without confusion.

5. Wolfson' s observation

Though we have limited the argument about SHP so far to reveal

the fallacy of the traditional account of HP, I presume it is worth

noting Wolfson's observations of HP that are compatible with what

we have discussed. Although her main idea that claims the present

tense lacks a semantic component is not acceptable, some of her

observations are insightful and noteworthy. She goes over a vast

amount of data and says CHP (Conversational Historical Present) is

limited to performed stories. She characterizes a performed story as a

story which the speaker dramatically structures through the use of

performance features such as 1) Direct speech, 2) Asides, 3) Repetitions,

4) Expressive Sounds, 5) Sound Effects, 6) Motions and Gestures

(1981:25). Thus the narrator plays the roles of the various participants

in recounting events, making them seem authentic by invoking the

words of others• I agree with her idea about where we can find CHP

mainly because I think CHP can be comparable to a stage direction in

a one-man stage play.


In order to reproduce what the speaker has perceived, he or she has

to structure the story as he remembers it, playing the role of the

participants with sufficient explanation at the same time. The difference

between an environment for CHP and a theatrical play is that the

speaker is not on the stage in the theater and usually does not have

the stage property nor sound effects equipment. Instead, the speaker

has to use his own words to explain the context with gestures including

facial expressions, voice tones and whatever else is available in the

situation. The speaker also has to explain who utters which remarks,

since otherwise it would be difficult for the hearer to understand the

story. Such contextual explanation is naturally told in the present

tense as ordinary stage directions are told in the present tense. Though

a stage direction and CHP are not only in the simple present form but

also in the present progressive or perfect forms, it only means that

the simple present functions to describe a schema of an event, the

present progressive, a situation in the middle of an action and the

present perfect, a situation as a result of an action, respectively. A

performed story can be seen as a narrated story with stage directions

scattered in it. Therefore, the past and the present tenses can naturally

alternate. It was unfortunate that Wolfson glued her attention so

much to alternation phenomena and overlooked the inherent function of

SHP which reflects the nature of the simple present tense.

Another important observation of hers is that the past tense precedes

HP to give the time reference. This time orientation is, of course,

what I call a function of framing. It is only natural because we never

92 Mariko Higuchican identify HP as HP otherwise. Perhaps the framing may not have

to be in actual words, but establishing the frame in some way or

other is inevitable to understand the examples such as (1).

6. Conclusion

As we have seen, the traditional account of HP does not explain the

property of SHP, though it may apply when HP is progressive. It is

the progressive HP that presents the past event as if it were occurring

at the present and not the simple present. Since the simple present

usually does not describe the event taking place now, it is odd to say

that it makes it seem so. The simple present intrinsically describes the

imperfective process. I hope I have shown that SHP describes the

imperfective image at the speaker's present as most of the simple

present examples do and in this respect, SHP is not exceptional. The

image is imperfective because it is schematic and structural, and it

exists in the contextual frame that distinguishes the world inside and

outside. That is why He comes here yesterday which is usually anomalous

can be acceptable as a SHP. For a overall perfective process to be put

into words, the image should be ended to be realized in the simple

past or combined with be and integrated into the progressive, or

abstracted into a schematic structure to be in the simple present.

"Notes"

1. Strictly speaking, I define the speaker' s present time concerned with

the use of the present tense in English as the instantaneous momentthe speaker conceptualizes a process. It is before he or she chooses the


words to express it and articulates it. In the case of an actual process,

we normally perceive it first and conceptualize it in our mind before

putting it into words.

2. The difference between a cat and a cat is there is that the latter

designates the cat's existence through time, while the former isirrelevant to time when we conceptualize them.

3. Naturally, one may pose a issue of performatives since they arealso in the simple present tense. Pending detailed discussion, at this

point, I regard them as propositions of agreement conceived at thepresent before they start being articulated. Legal briefs and rules are

also written in the simple present tense because their logic existsimperfectively in agreement among the people in question. Though, the

speech act, indeed, coincides the articulation, the action that aperformative sentence designates is not the speech act but the schema

to be agreed and confirmed. I leave a further discussion to anotheroccasion, since it requires the fuller study of the speech act that lies

outside the scope of this paper.

4. Weinrich (1964) intuitively characterizes that the past tense is "the

tense of narration" (erzalend. Tempus) and the present tense is "the

tense of explication" in examining the tenses in several Europeanlanguages, though he doesn't explain what he means by the words,"narration" and "explication" (besprechend. Tempus). This article can

be seen as an exploration of what these might mean, using thenecessary notions developed in the Cognitive Grammar to clarify them.

Reference

Declerck, Renaat (1994) A ComPrehensive DescriPtive Grammar of English. Kaitakusha.Higuchi, Mariko (1995) "Static Image and the Present Tense in English,"

The Bulletin of the Faculty of ComPuter Science and Systems Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology. No. 8. 67-100.

94 Mariko HiguchiImai et al. (1995) Essentials of Modern English Grammar. Kenkyusha.

Langacker, Ronald W.(1987) Feundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Granzmar, Vol.2: DescriPtive APPIication. Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1994) Generics and Habituals. Ms., University

of California, San Diego.

Schiffrin, Deborah (1981) "Tense Variation in Narrative," Language.

Vol. 57, No.1, 45-62.Ushie, Yukiko (1993) "Tekusuto ni okeru jjsei no shijikijun no ido in

tsuite," Hasegawa Kinsuke Kyol'u Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshu. 491-504.Wolfson, Nessa (1979) "The Conversational Historical Present Alternation,"

Language. Vol.55, No.1, 168-182.

Wolfson, Nessa (1982) The Conversational Historical Present in American English Narrative. Foris Publication.

Weinrich, Harald (1982) Iiseiron. Translated by Yutaka Wakisaka et

al. Kinokuniyashoten: Tokyo. (orig. published in Germany in1964 as

TemPus BesProchene und erzdlte Welt. by W. Kohlhammer GmbH.)

Documents

The Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English · The Simple Present Tense Used as Historical Present in English 61 are similar to SHP in the respect that they also