Verb in dictionary form at the end of sentence in novels

zuotengdazuo · 19 Mar 2020

1. 障害物を避けながら裏道を走り続けるうちに、目の前には大通りが近づいてくる。突然、パトカーの音が大きくなる。
2. 飛び込んだ四車線道路の真後ろに、サイレンを鳴らすパトカーがいた。パトカーにぴったりとお尻を追われる格好になってしまう。

Hi. Please have a look at the sentences. I have noticed that in the narrative part of novels, many sentences end with verbs in dictionary form when their た forms are also possible alternatively. I think the reason is dictionary form makes the narrative more vivid as if the readers are experiencing the events or happenings. So this kind of usage has an "on-going action" nuance. (i.e. The Main Street is coming closer. The siren is getting louder. They are in the process of becoming chased by patrol cars)
Does my observation make sense? If not, why is dictionary form used in this kind of situation? I know dictionary form is usually used to talk about future in conversations.
Thank you.

SomeCallMeChris · 19 Mar 2020

zuotengdazuo said:
Does my observation make sense? If not, why is dictionary form used in this kind of situation?

Yes, it makes sense. It's often used for this reason. Especially if the tense of the sentences changes without the scene changing in time, or the point-of-view character changing.

It can also be used to set the time of the scene. Events being narrated at the time of the narrator's point of view in non-past form, and events prior to that being narrated in past form.

Also, it can switch with character point of view, giving a sense of thoughtfulness and reflection to the past-tense characters, and a sense of immediacy and "living in the moment" to the non-past tense characters. (In all or almost all examples I've seen of this, past tense is the primary narrator, and non-past tense is side characters).

I can't think of any other use right now, but I'm not sure there aren't other uses.

zuotengdazuo · 19 Mar 2020

Thank you, Chris.

SomeCallMeChris said:
, it can switch with character point of view,

By the way, what do you mean by the above?

SomeCallMeChris · 19 Mar 2020

If the narrator is a character in the story, sometimes who is narrating can change. To be correct in describing that, I should have said "switch with a change in the point of view character." When making such a switch, the writing style can change, and sometimes that includes the tense of the sentences.

It's not very common, and it involves all aspects of the writing style, but I've seen it a few times.

You could also do the same thing switching from third-person narration to first-person narration; I'm not sure I've seen that in Japanese, but there's no reason you couldn't.

zuotengdazuo · 20 Mar 2020

Thank you again.

SomeCallMeChris said:
"switch with a change in the point of view character."

Sorry, I still don't quite understand the phrase "switch with a change in the point of view character". But I think you are referring to the switching between different characters. Each character has his/her own point of view and style of speaking. The primary narrator tends to use past tense while side characters non-past tense.
Do I get your idea?

SomeCallMeChris · 20 Mar 2020

Yes, that's the idea.

Of course, the author doesn't have to change tense when switching between characters; just, sometimes they do.

zuotengdazuo · 1 Apr 2020

Hi, Chris. Having read your explanations again, I still have some questions about the tense used at the end of the sentence in the narrative par of novels. Can I ask further?
For example,
As shown above, the tenses used at the end of the sentence in the narrative par of novels are inconsistent (some are ル form and some are タ form). I wonder why we can mix tenses like this. I know the main clause adopts absolute tense while the relative clause relative tense. Are all the present forms used for vividness and the past forms are the default tenses in narrative part?
Thank you.

SomeCallMeChris · 1 Apr 2020

Hmmm, that's really without any obvious sense to it, at least to me.

zuotengdazuo said:
I wonder why we can mix tenses like this.

It's allowed in both English and Japanese to use the "historical present" to narrate past events. It's just that in English we generally only switch tenses for large blocks. In Japanese you can switch every other sentence if you want.

史的現在 - Wikipedia

ja.wikipedia.org

Historical present - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some reasons people have given for doing this kind of rapid switching include,
- Immediacy, as in English and as you suggested.
- Present for background information, past for emphasis.
- To avoid too much repetition (e.g., change up the sound of a series of sentences that otherwise would all end 「であった」 or 「といった」)

This example doesn't seem to me to be immediacy; if it's past-for-emphasis, the author makes some (in my opinion) strange choices.

It's a little unsatisfying of an answer, but I think it might simply be avoiding ending to many sentences in た in a row.

There is apparently some discussion of this point in "A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar" under "Tense Switching", but I only have the Basic volume.

Maybe I should get the other two. Hmm.

mdchachi · 1 Apr 2020

SomeCallMeChris said:
There is apparently some discussion of this point in "A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar" under "Tense Switching", but I only have the Basic volume.

Here is what it says
Usually a series of past events are narrated in past tenses. But primarily in written Japanese discourse that narrates a past event, past tenses often switch to nonpast tenses...the English native reader [would] expect the author to use nothing but past tense. Logically speaking the author could have written every sentence in the past tense...to put it in general terms, the tense switching is a strategy available to the writer to differentiate a stage and a set of chronological events that occur within that stage. The stage is certainly important in that it defines a space in which a drama develops, but it is less important than the drama itself. So, important,dramatic information is described in the past tense, whereas relatively unimportant circumstantial information is described in the nonpast tense. The use of nonpast tenses has an effect of creating a vivid sense of immediateness for the reader.

Principle of Tense Switching
A part of a past event (often a state rather than an action) can be described using the nonpast tense, if the writer perceives it to be relatively unimportant circumstancial information that has no direct bearing upon the major story line.

zuotengdazuo · 2 Apr 2020

Thank you both.

mdchachi said:
Principle of Tense Switching
A part of a past event (often a state rather than an action) can be described using the nonpast tense, if the writer perceives it to be relatively unimportant circumstancial information that has no direct bearing upon the major story line.

SomeCallMeChris said:
Some reasons people have given for doing this kind of rapid switching include,
- Immediacy, as in English and as you suggested.
- Present for background information, past for emphasis.
- To avoid too much repetition (e.g., change up the sound of a series of sentences that otherwise would all end 「であった」 or 「といった」)

So if we attach のだ to the end of the sentence, does the principles of tense switching quoted above still apply to the verb before のだ? For example,
十香の姿は......やはり、ない。
そう。先ほど、士道が数分席を外している間に、十香の姿が消えていたのだ。

The のだ doesn't affect the choice of tense of 消える. Even if there is no のだ, the writer would still use ていた form, right?

SomeCallMeChris · 2 Apr 2020

I'm not sure this is an example of tense-switching. 「十香の姿が消えていたのだ」expresses that 十香 not only has vanished, but also is still vanished, at the time of the sentence.

As such, I see 「十香の姿はない。十香の姿が消えていた。」 as being consistent in tense to begin with.

That said, I think that in principle what you say is correct. Adding のだ will only add explanatory tone, and any meaning or implication of the tense of the base sentence should be the same with or without のだ。

zuotengdazuo · 2 Apr 2020

Thank you very much.

SomeCallMeChris said:
I'm not sure this is an example of tense-switching. 「十香の姿が消えていたのだ」expresses that 十香 not only has vanished, but also is still vanished, at the time of the sentence.

Does all cases of ～ていた at the end of the sentence in narrative part in novels connote this meaning? I.e. not only the action has happened, but also the state caused by the action still exists at the time of the sentence?
I think so because I think, since past events are usually narrated in past form (～た form), the ～た form should be adopted throughout the novel, theoretically. So as long as we don't switch tenses, i.e. from ～た form to ～る form, the above mentioned connotation should hold true.

Besides, I'm not sure if tense-switching can change the meaning or implication of the tense of the base sentence. It seems changing the ～た form into ～る form only either adds the immediacy or renders the original sentence into relatively unimportant circumstancial information.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

SomeCallMeChris · 3 Apr 2020

zuotengdazuo said:
Does all cases of ～ていた at the end of the sentence in narrative part in novels connote this meaning? I.e. not only the action has happened, but also the state caused by the action still exists at the time of the sentence?

No, this is because the meaning of 姿が消えていた is a persisting change in state, the same as any other time the past tense is used to indicate a present state. If it were 十香が走っていた then it would be describing an ongoing action and so it would be a change in tense.

zuotengdazuo said:
It seems changing the ～た form into ～る form only either adds the immediacy or renders the original sentence into relatively unimportant circumstancial information.

When I said "meaning or implication" I was trying to be broad enough to those things. But no, I'm not aware of any more significance to tense-switching than we've already discussed.

zuotengdazuo · 3 Apr 2020

Thank you, Chris.

SomeCallMeChris said:
If it were 十香が走っていた then it would be describing an ongoing action and so it would be a change in tense.

I don't know we can even change 十香が走っている into 十香が走っていた. So there is no default tense in the narrative part of novels? And 十香が走っていた can also be used for immediacy?

SomeCallMeChris · 5 Apr 2020

zuotengdazuo said:
So there is no default tense in the narrative part of novels?

You could say that, I suppose. It's certainly very flexible.

zuotengdazuo said:
And 十香が走っていた can also be used for immediacy?

For emphasis, you mean?

Surely 走っている would be more immediate.

走っていた could be actually past (in a passage being narrated in the past tense) or be emphasis/importance (if tense switching in the manner we've been discussing).

In any case, for active verbs, ～ている・～ていた both express that it was an ongoing action at the time, but otherwise have much the same significance as the plain past and present.

zuotengdazuo · 5 Apr 2020

Thank you again.

SomeCallMeChris said:
the past tense is used to indicate a present state

Could you come up with a sentence which uses past tense to indicate a present state? (such a sentence as can be used in the narrative part of novels)

SomeCallMeChris · 5 Apr 2020

I suppose 「髪が長く伸びた」is a classic example of verb in the past that expresses a present state.

伸びる describes elongating; hair that has in the past elongated (grown) quite a lot is now in the state of being long, so the past tense describes the present state.

In any case, you already have an entire thread devoted to the topic that has many examples,

Why is ていた form used to talk about present states?

Thank you very much. 🙏 So to summarize, in the pattern “relative clause (action 1)+noun+main clause(action 2)”, if the ていた form of action 1 is used, then it means action 1 is in the past relative to the main verb (action 2), just for the same reason why 後で always follows た form, right...

jref.com

Toritoribe · 5 Apr 2020

zuotengdazuo said:
Does all cases of ～ていた at the end of the sentence in narrative part in novels connote this meaning? I.e. not only the action has happened, but also the state caused by the action still exists at the time of the sentence?

In addition to Chris-san's explanation, the meaning differs depending on the context. As I mentioned somewhere previously, ～ていた can express that the state is over at the time.
e.g.
駅前には去年までビルが建っていた（＝今は建っていない）。
(cf. 駅前には今もビルが建っていた。)

十香の姿が......目の前に、ある。
そう。先ほど、士道が教室に入ってきたときには、十香の姿は確かに消えていたのだ。

zuotengdazuo · 21 May 2020

Hi. Sorry for bringing up this old topic. But I have further questions about this.

Toritoribe said:
駅前には去年までビルが建っていた（＝今は建っていない）。

This sentence suggests the building has already been built and is standing there. (The construction of the building already finished some time before and is now in a state of being there)

Toritoribe said:
(cf. 駅前には今もビルが建っていた。)

This sentence means the building is still under construction now (it is still being built) and it is the same as 駅前には今もビルが建っている。

Do I get it right?

I asked this because I am a bit confused with the structure 今～ていた. Besides, I have just come across this sentence:
心臓が締め付けられるように痛む。だがそれは、狂三の美しい貌と大胆な行動によるものではなくーー純粋な恐怖によるものだった。
そう。士道は今ーー狂三に、精霊に恐怖していた。
Is the above example the same usage as 駅前には今もビルが建っていた。?
If it is, then I think in both 狂三 and ビルが建っていた examples, the ていたs are a change of tense (changed from ている), and the ていたs are for emphasis.
Am I on the right track?

Toritoribe · 21 May 2020

zuotengdazuo said:
This sentence suggests the building has already been built and is standing there. (The construction of the building already finished some time before and is now in a state of being there)

This sentence means the building is still under construction now (it is still being built) and it is the same as 駅前には今もビルが建っている。

Do I get it right?

No and no. 建つ is a punctual verb, not durative.

zuotengdazuo said:
I asked this because I am a bit confused with the structure 今～ていた. Besides, I have just come across this sentence:
心臓が締め付けられるように痛む。だがそれは、狂三の美しい貌と大胆な行動によるものではなくーー純粋な恐怖によるものだった。
そう。士道は今ーー狂三に、精霊に恐怖していた。
Is the above example the same usage as 駅前には今もビルが建っていた。?
If it is, then I think in both 狂三 and ビルが建っていた examples, the ていたs are a change of tense (changed from ている), and the ていたs are for emphasis.
Am I on the right track?

No. 恐怖していた is just the past form in narrative part, while 建っていた is 発見.

zuotengdazuo · 21 May 2020

Thank you. I see.

Toritoribe said:
建つ is a punctual verb, not durative.

Toritoribe said:
駅前には去年までビルが建っていた（＝今は建っていない）。

So does the above sentence mean "there was a building in front of the station until last year, but now it is gone"?

Toritoribe · 21 May 2020

Yes, that's right. I meant "but now it is gone" is already implied in 去年までビルが建っていた by the parentheses and equal sign. It's the same also in the English sentence "there was a building until last year", right?

mdchachi · 22 May 2020

Toritoribe said:
Yes, that's right. I meant "but now it is gone" is already implied in 去年までビルが建っていた by the parentheses and equal sign. It's the same also in the English sentence "there was a building until last year", right?

That's not equivalent. If you said "Until last year the building was being built" it would mean it was under construction and now it's complete. If you said "Until last year the building was standing" then the implication is that it's gone now.

Toritoribe · 22 May 2020

The Japanese sentence 去年までビルが建っていた only means "there was a building until last year/until last year the building was standing". That's why it implies "it's gone now". "Until last year the building was being built" is 去年までビルを建てていた in Japanese.

mdchachi · 22 May 2020

Toritoribe said:
The Japanese sentence 去年までビルが建っていた only means "there was a building until last year/until last year the building was standing". That's why it implies "it's gone now". "Until last year the building was being built" is 去年までビルを建てていた in Japanese.

Right. I think that's the crux of the confusion. The difference between 建っていた and 建てていた is very subtle. At least to non-native speakers.

Verb in dictionary form at the end of sentence in novels

Sempai

先輩

Sempai

先輩

Sempai

先輩

Sempai

先輩

Moderator

Sempai

先輩

Sempai

先輩

Sempai

先輩

Sempai

先輩

松葉解禁

Sempai

松葉解禁

Sempai

松葉解禁

Moderator

松葉解禁

Moderator

Similar threads