I have a question that, as the title suggests, relates to tense agreement between an -ing phrase and its subordinate clause.
Consider the sentence:
(1) John looks at the photo and remembers Maria telling him that she loved him
and the sentence:
(2) John looks at the photo and remembers Maria telling him that she loves him
Are they both grammatically correct [perhaps with (1) implying she doesn't love him anymore, whereas in (2) she still does], or is only (1) the grammatically correct one?
I have this instinctive feeling that only (1) is grammatically correct, but it would be a bit puzzling from a structural point of view, since we have a verb in present tense ("remembers") and an -ing clause. In other words, it's only a semantic element (the function of the verb "remember") that places the action in the past.
Any thoughts on the matter?
I thought to start a bounty, so let me clarify the question further.
If it is grammatical to say:
John hears Maria telling him she loves him
is it also grammatical to say:
John remembers Maria telling him she loves him
or would we have to use she loved him instead. And if this is the case, can there be non-semantic reasons justifying the choice? In other words, is there anything besides the semantic function of the verb remember, referring to an action that occurred in the past, which dictates the past tense?