PERFECT TENSE

By Marko Milenkovi
Ivana Nedi
Milo Kosti

Introduction

In 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 Language

Perfect 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. PRETERITE
He 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 To
He is believed to have written it last week.
Tr < present To
He 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 T 2r, time of writing,
anterior to T2o. This is not identified deictically as the time of
speaking, but rather non-deictically as T 1r, which the present
tense locates as simultaneous with T1o.

Complex anteriority: continuative and noncontinuative 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-CONTINUATIVE CONTINUATIVE
Tr wholly before To Tr before and up to To
1. 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 noncontinuative 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.
CONTINUATIVE
2. She has lived in Berlin.
NON-CONTINUATIVE
In 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

preterite
Present 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 timespan. 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 recency
As 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.

Conclusion

Veba

Sources