Perfect tense

Perfect tenseBy Marko MilenkoviIvana NediMilo KostiIntroductionIn the earlier grammar books, perfect was usually presented as a tense.In Quirk, it was changed to aspect, but Huddlestone and Pullum again included it into tense.This presentation will cover the analysis of past tense in the Cambrifge Grammar of the English LanguagePerfect tense

The secondary tense system contrasts the perfect, marked by have + past participle, and the non-perfect, which is unmarked. The perfect, marked analytically, and the preterite, marked inflectionally, are the two past tenses, and they both express the temporal relation of anteriority. He wrote it last week. PRETERITEHe believed she had written it last week

The perfect as a non-deictic past tense

Preterite is interpreted deictically, placing Tr as anterior to To / Td, And the perfect tense is normally non-deictic.He was believed to have written it the previous week. Tr < past ToHe is believed to have written it last week. Tr < present ToHe hopes to have written it by last week. Tr < future To The perfect tense itself expresses Tr < To, and the temporal identification of To is given by the larger context.

Compound tenses

When we combine the perfect with a primary tense, marked by the inflection of have, we have a compound tense expressing two temporal relations.1. At that time I had written two chapters. 2. Now I have written two chapters.The preterite perfect (1) is doubly anterior, locating the writing anterior to the intermediate time which is anterior to the time of speaking. The preterite indicates that T1r is anterior to T1o, which is identified deictically as the moment of speaking. The perfect indicates that T2r, the time of writing, is anterior to T2o, which is identified non-deictically as T1r.The present perfect (2) locates the writing anterior to the time of speaking. The perfect again locates the T2r, time of writing, anterior to T2o. This is not identified deictically as the time of speaking, but rather non-deictically as T1r, which the present tense locates as simultaneous with T1o.

Complex anteriority: continuative and non-continuative perfects

An important difference between the two past tenses is that perfect can locate Tr either as before To or extending to include it, while only the former is true for the preterite.NON-CONTINUATIVECONTINUATIVETr wholly before ToTr before and up to To1. a. He has told her last week.b. He has been here ever since. 2. a. He told her last week.b. *He was here ever since.The case where Tr begins before but extends forward to include To is called continuative. We see that in 1b. The deviance in 2b shows that preterite cannot be used for this meaning, only for the non-continuative one where Tr is wholly before To, as in the a examples. Continuative reading is also called complex anteriority, while non-continuative is called simple anteriority.

Non-continuative as default reading

The non-continuative reading of perfect is more frequent, and regarded to be the default one. The continuative reading almost always requires support by time adjuncts, such as since or for phrases.1. She has lived in Berlin ever since she married.CONTINUATIVE2. She has lived in Berlin. NON-CONTINUATIVEIn 1, the situation lasts from her marriage up to this point, and will presumably continue into the future, while in 2 the absence of the duration adjunct non-continuative reading is forced, the situation has taken place at some indefinite time in the past. The continuative reading has imperfective aspectuality, while the non-continuative reading has perfective aspectuality.

Present perfect vs. the simple preteritePresent perfect as a compound tense

When primary tense is combined with the perfect it doesn't give the temporal location of the situation itself, but of the To the situation (or its part) is anterior to. And with preterite, this yields double anteriority. 1. She went to work.[preterite non-perfect] 2. When he got up she had gone to work.[preterite perfect]In first instance (1.) her going to work is just anterior to now, while in (2.) it's anterior to a time (when he got up) that is itself anterior to now. With compound tense here we're able to relate the time of one situation to that of another. Let's consider the present tense now:

Present perfect as a compound tense

3. I promise to do it tomorrow.[present non-perfect] 4. I have promised to do it tomorrow.[present perfect]5. I promised to do it tomorrow.[preterite non-perfect]In (3.), the promise is simultaneous with now, and in (4.) it is located as anterior to now. In (5.), it is also located as anterior to now. The difference between (5.) and (4.) is that (5.) locates the promise directly anterior to now, whereas in (4.) the promise is anterior to a time which is simultaneous with now. Nevertheless, the temporal reference of the promise is the same. The difference is that present perfect is a compound tense that combines past and present, whereas the simple preterite is a simple tense, just past. In the simple preterite Td is involved only passively, as To in the anteriority relation Tr < To: here Td is not here referred to. In the present perfect, however, Td is actively involved: the primary tense is present expressing the relation Tr = To so that Td doesn't just identify To but is equated with Tr. and hence Td is referred to, just as in the basic use of the simple present. With the simple preterite the focus is on the past situation (or the past segment of it being talked about); with the present perfect the primary focus is on the present.

Past time adjuncts normally excluded from present perfect

The time span of present perfect begins in the past and extends up to now. The present perfect is not used in contexts where the "now" component is explicitly or implicitly excluded:1. I saw her last week / two minutes ago. [explicit exclusion of now]2. Who wrote 'Moby Dick'? [implicit exclusion of now]Time adjuncts like last week, etc. which refer to times wholly before now, are incompatible with the present perfect: we cannot replace saw by have seen in (1.).Example (2.) illustrates the case of past situation focus: the existence of 'Moby Dick', so the writing of it is taken for granted. Considering this, the particular feature of the past situation is the identity of the writer. When we compare this to Who has written this note?, which might be said in a context where the note has just been discovered, with the focus on its present existence.

The experiental perfect

Grammars usually distinguish four major uses of the present perfect: the continuative, the experimental (existentional) perfect, the resultative perfect, and the perfect of recent past. This can be thought of as the classification of the main ways in which the notion of the time-span up to now can be involved in the use and interpretation of the present perfect - or in different cases where the past situation may have current relevance.The continuative present perfect has been dealt with already, and can be reasonably sharply distinguished from the non-continuative: compatibility with such expressions as ever since gives a criterion. The three categories within the non-continuative are not mutually exclusive, but are useful nevertheless.

The experiental perfect

1. I've finally finished. We've now walked ten miles.

This use of present perfect is concerned with the situations that happen within the time-span up to now. The connection with now is most clear and direct when the completion of something takes place at (or virtually at) Td as in the example. The possibility of having adjuncts like now or at present shows that we have present time meaning and form. And despite that these have some resemblance to continuatives - the walking ten miles (period up to now), they cannot take continuative adjuncts like ever since (*We've now walked ten miles ever since we started) , and they are interpreted perfectively, not imperfectively.

The experiental perfect

2. This is/That was the best meal I've had all week.

The connection with now is also apparent here, illustrative of a common type involving superlatives or ordinal numerals (It's the first/third time you've said that today). There is actual or potential series of occurrences within the same time-span up to now (with first only one is actualized, but there could have been more). In this version of the sentence, the meal is presumably still going on, but it's still presented perfectively (since we can't say in this case I've been having).

The experiental perfect

3. His sister has been up Mont Blanc twice.The connection with now is less direct, she could have been climbing the mountain in quite a long time in the past. The focus, however, is not on the ascents happening at some particular time in the past, but on its mere existence within the time-span. The connection with now is the potential for occurrence or recurrence of the situation at any time within the time-span up to now. Thus this example implicates that his sister is still alive, while I haven't been to the market yet implicates that the possibility of my going to the market still exists.

Experiental perfects vs. simple preterities

Let's compare the following pairs:1. a. It is better than it has ever been.b. It's better than it was.2. a. Have you seen Jim?b. Did you see Jim?In (1a) the comparison is between its quality now and its quality at any time within the time-span - the potential for it to be of such and such a quality still exists, while in (1b) the comparison is between now and then; the past is contrasted with the present, the 'then' situation is over and excludes now.The example (2a) shows that there might be limitations to the time-span beyond those inherent in the situation itself. The inherent limit is that Jim must be alive, but in the understood interpretation we will probably think of much shorter time-span than this, we would think of the time of his current visit to our vicinity, today, the period since we were last together, or whatever it might be. It's not acceptable to answer yes to this question. One thing is certain, the time-span stretches up to now. But (2b) is very different. Assuming that we know Jim, and met him many times, we need to determine specifically what the person is asking. This time it is not the question of placing limits on the start of the time-span till now, but of finding which particular, definite past time he is asking about, but a time that is over, exclusive of now.

Past time adjuncts in experiential perfects

This use of the present perfect allows for the inclusion, under restrictive conditions, of a past time adjunct.1. a. He has got up at five o'clock.b. He got up at five o'clock.2. a. We've already discussed it yesterday.b. We discussed it yesterday.In (1a) "at five o'clock" is a crucial part of the potentially recurrent situation: the issue is that of his getting up at this early hour; there is no reference to any specific occasion. As there is in the simple preterite (1b). In (2a) the already indicates that we're concerned with the occurrence of the situation of our discussing it within a time-span up to now and cancels the normally excluding effect of yesterday evident in (2b).

The resultative perfect

1. She has broken her leg. He has closed the door They've gone away.2. She's been to the bank. She has run ten kilometers.3. I've tried to phone her, but she's not answering.The most evident cases of resultative perfect are illustrated in (1.), where the situation implies that there is a specific change of state. These cases are known more specifically as the perfect of the continuing result: the resultant state begins at the time of occurrence of the past situation itself and continues through into the present.The second examples (2.) are interpreted resultatively in a much vaguer sense. Be, as used here, means "go and return" in difference to the formerly mentioned go in they've gone. So, a resultative interpretation of She's been to the bank is thus not derivable directly from the meaning, but is heavily dependent on pragmatics - it can mean "she has some money" but can also be "The cheques are deposited". Similarly to this there is no state resulting inherently from running ten kilometers so an implication like "She is tired" or "She is hot" is heavily dependent on context.The third example (3.) illustrates the phenomenon of 'nil results', the failure to obtain the expected or intended result - in this example, that of making contact with her.

The perfect of recent past

1. Ive discovered how to mend the fuse. 2. She has recently / just been to Paris.One respect in which a past situation can be connected to now is that it is close in time to now. It does not necessarily have to be recent, but a correlation between present perfect and recency has to exist, while the simple preterite is indifferent to the distance between Tr and To.. Since recency is extremely important, we should look for it in the example [15i]. It has a continuing result interpretation, since the knowledge of mending the fuse still persists, regardless of the time it has been obtained. Adjuncts of recencyAs shown in [15ii], the present perfect admits adjuncts recently and just, as indicators of recency. However, they do not refer to definite time in the past, but to an indefinite time in the stretch back to To. ConclusionVebaSources