Abstract

A theory of embedded tense that derives SOT effects from an SOT rule is compared with a theory that derives SOT effects without appealing to an SOT rule, and an argument is provided in favor of the former. The argument relies mostly on examples where a tense is embedded under future-in-the-past. Such an argument was originally presented in and later dismissed in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, ENS-Paris, 45–62, 2013a). An additional argument is provided in favor of supplementing the SOT rule with a ‘de re’ mechanism.