Could someone please explain why don't we use Past Perfect twice in this sentence?
I thought it was supposed to be "had come up" and "had mugged" because both of those actions happened before "she told", as tense coordination suggests.
Both those verbs are in the past perfect.
Let's start with this rewording of the sentence:
...[a man in a black mask had come up to her] and [he had mugged her]...
Here, the conjunction "and" joins two complete clauses with a subject and verb phrase. But rather than repeat the subject, we can leave it out:
...a man in a black mask [had come up to her] and [had mugged her]...
In this version, "and" joins just the two verb phrases. But we're repeating "had", and we can leave the second one out as well:
...a man in a black mask had [come up to her] and [mugged her]...
This is the original version, where "and" joins just the two past participial phrases "come up to her" and "mugged her". That's to say, "mugged" isn't simple past here, but a past participle.
The "had" applies to both "come up" and "mugged", so both verbs are in the past perfect, not simple past.
We can convince ourselves this is true if we replace "mug" with an irregular verb where the past participle form is different from the simple past form.
A man had [come up to her] and [given her a rose].
Since "given" can only be a past participle, we know that "give" is in the past perfect, not simple past.
EF: The past perfect refers to a time earlier than before now. It is used to make it clear that one event happened before another in the past. It does not matter which event is mentioned first - the tense makes it clear which one happened first.
In the early stages of working with the past perfect, applying a rule that describes our understanding of temporal events is very useful. The most important thing to remember, however, is that time and tense are two distinct concepts. Tense does not define time; it is a grammatical convention that allows the narrator to describe the time in a story (more about Tense and Time at English Club).
In the example sentence,
there are three separate references of time:
Whether event B is interpreted as a perfectly proper past perfect expression where mugged shares the had with come by means of the conjunction (and), or a simple past with an elided (he) mugged to imply indignation toward the violence of the mugging event, is a matter that must be decided by the readers' experience and understanding of what sounds right to them.
Could someone please explain why don't we use Past Perfect twice in this sentence?
One answer, as it is explained elsewhere, is that using the second had would be redundant (or less concise, perhaps) because of how the sentence is constructed: had (come up, mugged).
A second answer that addresses the inference of:
I thought it was supposed to be had come up and had mugged because both of those actions happened before she told, as tense coordination suggests.
Tense is used to express temporal coordination. Number 2, above, is an expression of a distinct time in relation to the time reference of number 3. It functions separately from the subsequent events because the act of telling the narrator, in this example, is logically understood to happen after the time of number 3 (i.e., it is illogical not to understand that telling the story must happen after the events of the story, so additional temporal clues are not necessary to maintain clarity).
As such, all of the tenses of grammar that exist for our narrator in time, number 1, also exist for the time, number 2, when our she tells the narrator about the events.
To simplify this point, instead of presenting a mixed tense for A and B, consider:
The narrator sets the anteriority in the past perfect, and describes the events A and B in the simple past. Logically, it is not normal for the narrator to have been told of the events prior to them happening. When the logic is clear, like it is here, the storyteller has much freedom for creativity. Because the sequence of events are not difficult to follow, experienced readers probably would not have difficulty understanding the timeline.
In this example, the choice of construction, for some, can serve to facilitate the recession of the told action, in favor of bringing the plot action forward to emphasize its relative importance over the exposition. In the original example, the choice is more limited because the mixed tense may not really be mixed depending on who is reading it. In every instance, these subtle variations are tools that writers may employ to guide readers to interpret their meaning in the way they intend. Once the story is in front of the readers, only the readers can decide what the text means to them.
See more about:
ELL answer Past Simple or Past Perfect Perfect
Cambridge Dictionary: Grammar Time and Tense
