Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:02:59.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ambiguity of the English present perfect1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Laura A. Michaelis
Laura A. Michaelis
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study examines grammatical and discourse-pragmatic reflexes of the existential and resultative readings of the English present perfect. I present both negative and positive arguments in favor of the claim that the present perfect is ambiguous (rather than vague) with respect to these readings. In particular, I argue that the resultative present-perfect represents a formal idiom: a morphosyntactic form characterized by idiosyncratic constraints upon grammar, meaning and use. Certain constraints upon the resultative present-perfect, in particular that which prevents it from denoting a pragmatically presupposed event proposition, can be MOTIVATED with respect to a discourse-pragmatic opposition involving the preterite. However, such constraints cannot be PREDICTED from functional oppositions or any general semantic principles. Finally, I suggest that mastery of aspectual grammar crucially entails knowledge of such idiomatic form-meaning pairings.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 111 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, L. (1981). The ‘perfect’ as a universal and as a language-specific category. In Hopper, P. (ed.) Tense aspect. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 227–264.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, G. (1970). The English ‘perfect’ reconsidered. Journal of Linguistics 6. 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnick, R. (1991). Time and the verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. (1988). The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, R. (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1987). The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1–33.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1986). Tense and discourse location in situation semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 37–61.Google Scholar
Dinsmore, J. (1981). Tense choice and time specification in English. Linguistics 19. 474–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinsmore, J. (1991) Partitioned representations: a study in mental representation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1986). The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse:CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, T. (1987). Why manner modification is exceptional. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L. & Filip, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc. 77–87.Google Scholar
Fenn, P. (1987). A semantic and pragmatic examination of the English perfect. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.Kay, P. & O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constrictions: the case of Let alone. Language 64. 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1992a). On the inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive. Cognitive Linguistics 3. 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1992b). Argument structure constructions. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Heny, F. (1982). Tense, aspect and time adverbials. II. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 109–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herweg, M. (1991). Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and states. Linguistics 29. 969–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, E. (1986). Temporal anaphora in discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1990). As time goes by: tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. (1979). An analysis of the English present perfect. Linguistics 17. 561–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Rohrer, C. (1983). Tense in texts. In Bäuerle, R., Egli, U. & von Stechow, A. (eds.) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1992). The present-perfect puzzle. Language 68. 525–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1991). Sentential-focus structures as grammatical constructions. Paper presented at the 1991 Winter Meeting of the LSA.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1992). The post-focal comme-N construction in spoken French. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C., Thompson, S. & Thompson, R. M. (1982). The discourse motivation for perfect aspect: the Mandarin particle le. In Hopper, P. (ed.) Tense aspect. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. (1971). Tense and time reference in English. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt Rinehart. 97–113.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1981). Notes on the English perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1. 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoard, R. (1978). The English perfect: tense choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (1993). Toward a grammar of aspect: the case of the English perfect construction. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (1988). Aspects of English aspect: on the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 203–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norvig, P. (1988). Interpretation under ambiguity. In Hall, K. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc. 188–201.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 243–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. (1967). Past, present and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Richards, B. (1982). Tense, aspect and time adverbials. I. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 59–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (1990). Talking perfectly: discourse-pragmatic origins of the present perfect. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Cognition and grammar. In Rudzka-Östyn, B. (ed.) Topics in cognitive grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 165–205.Google Scholar
Visser, F. (1966). An historical syntax of the English language (part 2). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. & Sadock, J. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, P. (ed.) Syntax and semantics, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. 1–36.Google Scholar