In this paper I will consider a topic previously treated by T. R. Hofmann (1969). Hofmann proposes a solution in his article to the problem posed by the ambiguity of the English surface verbal form ‘have + past participle’ (i.e. ‘have – V – en’) in those dependent clauses whose verbs cannot exhibit either a present or simple past tense morpheme. Such clauses are the so-called ‘non-finite’ clauses: participles, gerunds, and infinitives of various types. I will examine and expand on Hofmann's solution, try to show its inadequacies, and then propose what I hope is a more promising alternative. In my proposal, the semantic tense values of clauses are assigned according to the distribution of tense markers in trees, subsequent to the application of certain syntactic transformations.

I have been greatly aided by the discussion of tense in chapters XXIII and XXIV of O. Jespersen (1964), to which I will be referring throughout the paper.

At the outset I want to emphasize that in my analysis, as in Hofmann's, syntactic tense markers occur not only in surface structure but also, with different and more regular distribution, in syntactic deep structures. That is, the deep structure existence of these syntactic tense markers is justified by the fact that we can more easily characterize their distribution in deep structure; yet, I will claim that these markers contribute to meaning only by virtue of their position in trees subsequent to the application of many transformational rules.