Relative and absolute tense

Relative tense and absolute tense are distinct possible uses of the grammatical category of tense. Absolute tense means the grammatical expression of time reference (usually past, present or future) relative to "now" – the moment of speaking. In the case of relative tense, the time reference is construed relative to a different point in time, the moment under discussion. In other words, the center of deixis is the moment of discourse or narration in the case of absolute tense, or a different moment in the case of relative tense.

A further distinction has also been made between "strict relative" tense, which merely expresses time reference relative to the moment under discussion, and "absolute-relative tense" (such as pluperfect), which places the moment under discussion in time relative to the present moment and places the action in time relative to the moment under discussion.

A relative past tense is sometimes called an anterior tense, while a relative future tense may be called a posterior tense.

Absolute tense

In the case of absolute tense, the grammatical expression of time reference is made relative to the present moment. It has been pointed out that the term is somewhat misleading, since this kind of time reference is not truly absolute, but is relative to the moment of speaking.

Most simple sentences in tensed languages exhibit absolute tense. For example, if Jane says "John went to the party", the use of the past tense (went) implies that the event (John's going) took place at a time which is in the past relative to the moment of Jane's uttering the sentence.

In some cases, the operation of sequence of tenses in indirect speech serves to preserve absolute tense. For example, if Jane says "I like chocolate", and Julie later reports that "Jane said that she liked chocolate", Julie's conversion of the present tense like into the past liked implies a reference to past time relative to the time at which Julie is speaking – the center of deixis is moved from the time of Jane's original utterance to that of Julie's current utterance. As will be seen below, however, this principle does not hold in all languages, and does not always apply even in English.

Relative tense

What is normally encompassed by the term "relative tense" is broken down by Bernard Comrie into strict relative tense and absolute-relative tense.

Strict relative tense

Comrie's strict relative tense expresses time reference relative to the moment under discussion, without indicating where that moment lies relative to the present time.

A verb form commonly offered as an example of such a relative tense is the imperfect of Classical Arabic. This indicates an ongoing state of affairs at the moment under discussion, which could be in the past, present or future relative to the moment of speaking. It can therefore be considered to be a relative present tense. (In modern Arabic it has developed into an absolute non-past tense.)

An example of a normally absolute tense being used relatively, in English, is provided by indirect speech placed in the future. If Tom says "John will say that he paid for the chocolate", the past tense paid refers to a past time relative to the moment of John's expected utterance, and not necessarily to a past time relative to the moment of Tom's present utterance. The same is found in some languages even in past indirect speech (where English tends to preserve absolute tense or use absolute-relative tense, as described in the previous and following sections). In Russian, for example, the sentence "Jane said that she liked chocolate" would take the form "Jane said that she likes chocolate" (see Indirect speech → Russian), where "likes" refers to the present at the time of Jane's reported utterance, and not necessarily the present at the time of the report.

Absolute-relative tense

Comrie's absolute-relative tense combines the functions of absolute and strict relative tense. It reflects both the position in time of the moment under discussion relative to the moment of speaking, and the position of the time of reference relative to the moment under discussion.

Common tenses of this type are the pluperfect and the future perfect. These both place the time of reference in the past relative to the moment under discussion, but they place the moment under discussion in the past and in the future, respectively, relative to the time of speaking. For example, "John had left" implies that the moment under consideration is in the past relative to the time of speaking, and that John's leaving occurred before that moment. "John will have left" is similar, except that the moment under consideration is in the future relative to the time of speaking. In the case of the future-in-the-past, the moment under consideration is in the past, but the time of reference is in the future relative to that moment: "John would later return to the party" (although the modal auxiliary would can also have other meanings).

Absolute-relative tense is used in indirect speech in some instances. If Julie says "Jane said that John had left", the use of had left places John's leaving in the past relative to the moment under consideration, namely the time of Jane's reported utterance. Similarly, "Jane said that John would leave" places John's leaving in the future relative to the time of Jane's utterance. (This does not apply in all languages or even in all cases in English; see the preceding sections.)

In some treatments, the terms anterior tense and posterior tense are used for relative past and future. A few authors (e.g. Joan Bybee) use the term anterior for the English perfect. However, while the perfect is anterior in tense, it also includes the aspectual distinction of being relevant to the time in question, and is therefore more than a simple tense.

In English

	Past reference time	Present reference time	Future reference time
Event before reference time (anterior)	I had written	I have written	I will have written
Event at reference time (simultaneous)	I wrote	I write/am writing	I write/will write
Event after reference time (posterior)	I would write	I will write	I will write

English can refer both to a reference time (past, present, or future) in which a situation takes place, and the time of a particular event relative to the reference time (before, at, or after).

Consider, for example, the following sentences:

• When I got home yesterday, John arrived and met me (past reference, simultaneous event).
• When I got home yesterday, John had already arrived (past reference, anterior event).
• When I got home yesterday, John called and said he would arrive soon (past reference, posterior event).

In a present frame of reference, the same sentences appear as follows:

• Whenever I get home, John arrives and meets me (present reference, simultaneous event).
• Whenever I get home, usually John has already arrived (present reference, anterior event).
• Whenever I get home, John usually calls and says he will arrive soon (present reference, posterior event).

The equivalent in a future frame of reference is as follows:

• When I get home tomorrow, John will arrive and meet me (future reference, simultaneous event).
• When I get home tomorrow, John will have already arrived (future reference, anterior event).
• When I get home tomorrow, John will probably call and say he will arrive soon (future reference, posterior event).

"Will" as an indicator of absolute time

Note that the future construction will arrive does not directly fit into the above system. What is important about it is that the event described occurs at an absolute time in the future, not whether it occurs simultaneous with or after another event. For this reason, the construction with will can be used even in a past frame of reference to indicate an event that is unambiguously in the absolute future. For example, "When I got home yesterday, John called and said he will arrive next week" is possible, and emphasizes that the arrival is in the future (relative to the present time) even if the frame of reference is in the past. ("... said he would arrive next week" is also possible.)

Note also that in certain circumstances, the present tense form can be used to express a future event. This generally occurs only when a future frame of reference is being established, not when the reference time is already established and the relative time of the event is being expressed. For example, all of the following are possible:

• "I will leave tomorrow"
• "I leave tomorrow"
• "I am leaving tomorrow"

In a subordinate clause introduced by when, if or whether, only the simple present tense form is possible even when referring to a future event (as in "When I get home tomorrow" but not "*When I will get home tomorrow" or "*When I am getting home tomorrow"). On the other hand, in the main clause following a subordinate when clause, after the frame of reference is already established, will usually must be used. ("When I get home tomorrow, John will arrive and meet me" but not "*When I get home tomorrow, John arrives and meets me".)

Time reference in conditional sentences

The referencing of time is very different in conditional sentences, e.g.:

• If I win the lottery tomorrow, I will buy all my friends Lamborghinis. (normal conditional, future reference)
• If I won the lottery tomorrow, I would buy all my friends Lamborghinis. (future contrary-to-fact conditional)

The second sentence has the apparently contradictory combination of the past tense form and explicitly future reference ("tomorrow"). In this case, the switch from present to past tense form does not affect the actual time reference of the sentence, but changes it to have a contrary-to-fact meaning, i.e. it adds the additional sense of "I probably won't win the lottery tomorrow".

With present reference, the tense form use is similar:

• If he buys a Lamborghini, he also gets a Porsche free. (normal conditional, present reference)
• If he bought a Lamborghini, he would also get a Porsche free. (present contrary-to-fact conditional)

In this case, the contrary-to-fact implication is stronger, specifically, he isn't (rather than probably isn't) buying a Lamborghini.

Finally, with past reference, all tense forms need to be moved farther into the past:

• If he bought a Lamborghini, he also got a Porsche free. (normal conditional, past reference)
• If he had bought a Lamborghini, he would also have gotten a Porsche free. (past contrary-to-fact conditional)

The sense of the first sentence is "I don't know if this thing happened, but if it did, then this other thing also happened." The second has the sense "This thing definitely didn't happen. But if it had happened, then this other thing would also have happened."