Linguistics and Philosophy

, 31:323 | Cite as

The English Resultative perfect and its relationship to the Experiential perfect and the simple past tense

  • Anita Mittwoch
Research Article


A sentence in the Resultative perfect licenses two inferences: (a) the occurrence of an event (b) the state caused by this event obtains at evaluation time. In this paper I show that this use of the perfect is subject to a large number of distributional restrictions that all serve to highlight the result inference at the expense of the event inference. Nevertheless, only the event inference determines the truth conditions of this use of the perfect, the result inference being a unique type of conventional implicature. I argue furthermore that, since the result state is singular, the event that causes it must also be singular, whereas the Experiential perfect is purely quantificational. But in out-of-the-blue contexts the past tense is also normally interpreted as singular. This leads to a certain amount of competition between the Resultative perfect and the past tense, and it is this competition, I suggest, that maintains the conventional (non-truth conditional) result state inference.


Resultative perfect Experiential perfect Target state Conventional implicature Specificity Specific event Singular event Past tense Perfect 


  1. Abbott B. (2004) Definiteness and indefiniteness. In: Horn L.R., Ward G.(eds) Handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 122–149Google Scholar
  2. Bach K. (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brugger, G. (1997). Event time properties. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, pp. 51–63.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (1990) Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Comrie B. (1976) Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Comrie B. (1985) Tense. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl O. (1985) Tense and aspect systems. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson D. (1980) Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Declerck R. (1991) Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Demidarche H., Uribe-Etxebarria M. (2004) The syntax of time adverbs. In: Guéron J., Lecarme J.(eds) The syntax of time. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietrich G. (1955) Erweiterte Form, Präteritum und Perfektum im Englischen: Eine Aspekt- und Tempusstudie. Heuber, MunichGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin W.W. (1889) Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Grice H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., Morgan J.(eds) Speech acts. Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3). Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  14. Harris J. (1984) Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics, 20: 303–329Google Scholar
  15. Horn, L. (2002). Assertoric inertia. In Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, Part 2 (pp. 55–82).Google Scholar
  16. Huddleston R., Pullum G.K. (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Izvorski, R. (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 189–238). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprinted from Perfect explorations, by A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert, & A. von Stechow, Eds., 2003. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  18. Inoue, K. (1978). How many senses does the present perfect have? In Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 167–178).Google Scholar
  19. Jäger G., Blütner R. (2003) Competition and interpretation: The German adverb wieder. In: Lang E., Maienborn C., Fabricius-Hansen C.(eds) Modifying adjuncts. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 393–416Google Scholar
  20. Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. Republished Norton Library 1965.Google Scholar
  21. Kadmon N. (2000) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell, Malden, Mass and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Kagan O. (2007a) On the semantics of structural case. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  23. Kagan, O. (2007b). Specificity and the speaker’s worldview. Paper presented at the workshop “Funny Indefinites: Different kinds of Specificity across Languages”. ZAS Berlin.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1994) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz, G. (2003). A modal analysis of the English present perfect puzzle. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIII (pp. 145–161).Google Scholar
  26. Kiparsky P. (2002) Event structure and the perfect. In: Beaver D.I., Casillas Martinez L.D., Clark B.Z., Kaufmann S.(eds) The construction of meaning. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 113–136Google Scholar
  27. Klein W. (1994) Time in language. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Semantics and Lingustic Theory VIII (pp. 92–110).Google Scholar
  29. Landman F. (2000) Events and plurality. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  30. Leech G. (1971) Meaning and the English verb. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Leuschner, B. (1977). Die Zeitenfolge im Rahmen einer kommunikativen Grammatik: Anmerkungen zu einem Phantom. Kongresbericht der 7. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik.Google Scholar
  32. Levin B., Rappaport Hovav M. (1991) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41: 123–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levinson S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle, Ch. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (Eds.) Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: de Gruyter. Reprinted in G. Link (1998) Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy (Chapter 1). Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Ludlow P., Neale S. (1991) Indefinite descriptions: In defence of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14: 171–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lyons C. (2000) Definiteness. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. McCawley J.D. (1971) Tense and time reference in English. In: Langendoen D.T., Fillmore C.J.(eds) Studies in linguistic semantics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 97–113Google Scholar
  38. McCawley J.D. (1981) Notes on the English present perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1: 81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCoard R.W. (1978) The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. Marin, R., & McNally, L. (2008). Nontelic change of state verbs. Ms. CNRS/U. Lille3 and Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  41. Michaelis L. (1994) The English present perfect. Journal of Linguistics, 30: 111–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mittwoch A. (1995) The English perfect, past perfect and future perfect in a neo-Reichenbachian framework. In: Bertinetto P.M., Bianchi V., Dahl Ö.(eds) Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Typological perspectives (Vol. 2). Rosenberg and Sellier, Torino, pp 255–267Google Scholar
  43. Mittwoch A. (2008) Tenses for the living and the dead: Lifetime inferences reconsidered. In: Rothstein S.(eds) Crosslinguistic and theoretical approaches to the semantics of aspect. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1167–1187Google Scholar
  44. Musan R. (1997) Tense, predicates and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantics, 5: 1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ogihara, T. (1989). Temporal reference in English and Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  46. Pancheva R. (2003) The aspectual makeup of perfect participles and the interpretation of the perfect. In: Alexiadou A., Rathert M., Stechow A.(eds) Perfect explorations. Mouton, Berlin, pp 277–306Google Scholar
  47. Pancheva R., von Stechow A. (2004) On the present perfect puzzle. Proceedings of NELS, 34: 469–484Google Scholar
  48. Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  49. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy, 70: 601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Portner P. (2003) The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26: 459–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Potts C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Reichenbach H. (1947) Elements of symbolic logic. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Rothstein S. (2004) Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Blackwell, Malden and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Slobin D.I. (1994) Discourse origins of the present perfect. In: Pagliuca W.(eds) Perspectives on grammaticalization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 119–133Google Scholar
  55. Smith C. (1991) The parameter of aspect. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  56. Vendler Z. (1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NYGoogle Scholar
  57. Vikner S. (1985) Reichenbach revisited: One, two or three temporal relations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 19: 81–98Google Scholar
  58. von Heusinger K. (2002) Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 19: 245–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. von Stechow, A. (2002). Perfect of result. Ms.Google Scholar
  60. von Stechow A. (2003) How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Jäger and Blütner’s antidecomposition. In: Lang E., Maienborn C., Fabricius-Hansen C. (eds) Modifying adjuncts. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 417–451Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations