Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 223–256 | Cite as

Reference time and the English past tenses

Research Article

Abstract

We offer a formal account of the English past tenses. We see the perfect as having reference time at speech time and the preterite as having reference time at event time. We formalize four constraints on reference time, which we bundle together under the term ‘perspective’. Once these constraints are satisfied at the different reference times of the perfect and preterite, the contrasting functions of these tenses are explained. Thus we can account formally for the ‘definiteness effect’ and the ‘lifetime effect’ of the perfect, for the fact that the perfect seems to ‘explain’ something about the present, and that the perfect cannot presuppose a past time point. We explain why perfect and preterite can sometimes be interchangeable, and we offer a solution to the ’present perfect puzzle’. We explain the unacceptability of notorious examples of the perfect such as *Gutenberg has discovered the art of printing. We give greater definition to the familiar notions of ‘current relevance’ and ‘extended now’.

Keywords

Past tenses Perfect Preterite Reference time Lifetime effect Presuppositions Update 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Binnick R. (1991) Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryan W. (1936) The preterite and the perfect tense in present-day English. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 35: 363–338Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky N. (1970) Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In: Jakobson R., Kawamoto S. (eds) Studies in general and oriental linguistics. TEC Corporation, Tokyo, pp 52–91Google Scholar
  4. Comrie B. (1976) Aspect. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Curme G.O. (1935) A grammar of the English language, volume 2: Parts of Speech and Accidence. D.C. Heath, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Declerck R. (1991) Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. Routledge., LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Dietrich W. (1955) Erweiterte form, Präteritum und Perfektum im Englischen Eine Aspekt- und Tempusstudie. Hueber, MunichGoogle Scholar
  8. Dowty D. (1977) Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English continuative progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 45–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dowty D. (1979) Word meaning and montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Reidel, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases in English. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  11. Higginbotham J. (2009) Tense, aspect and indexicality. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Pancheva, 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: MIT.Google Scholar
  13. Inoue K. (1979) An analysis of the English present perfect. Linguistics, an Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 17: 561–589Google Scholar
  14. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiparsky, P. (2002). Event structure and the perfect. In D. I. Beaver, L. D. C. Martinez, B. Z. Clark, & S. Kaufmann (Eds.), The construction of meaning. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Klein W. (1992) The present perfect puzzle. Language 68(3): 525–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein W. (2000) An analysis of the German Perfekt. Language 76(2): 358–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCawley J.D. (1971) Tense and time reference in English. In: Fillmore C.J., Terence Langendoen D. (eds) Studies in linguistic semantics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 96–113Google Scholar
  19. McCoard R.W. (1978) The English perfect: Tense-choice and pragmatic inferences. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Michaelis L. (1994) The ambiguity of the English present perfect. Journal of Linguistics, 30: 111–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mittwoch A. (1988) Aspects of English aspect: On the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moens M., Steedman M. (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2): 15–28Google Scholar
  23. Musan R. (1997) Tense, predicates, and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantics 5: 271–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Musan R. (2002) The German perfect Its semantic composition and its interaction with temporal adverbials. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Pancheva R., von Stechow A. (2004) On the present perfect puzzle. In: Moulton K., Wolf M. (eds) Proceeding of the North East Linguistics Society (=NELS) 34. Amherst, GLSAGoogle Scholar
  26. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18): 601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pickbourn J. (1789). A dissertation on the English verb (Facsimile edition, 1968). Menston, Scolar PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Portner P. (2003) The (temporal) and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 459–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Portner, P. (2011). Perfect and progressive. InC.Maienborn,K. vonHeusinger,&P.Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jlmMTE0M/Portner-perfect-progressive-HSKdraft.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2011.
  30. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. London: Macmillan. (Repr. Dover, New York, 1980.)Google Scholar
  31. Rothmayr A. (2009) The structure of stative verbs. Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothstein B. (2008) The perfect time span: On the present perfect in German, Swedish, and English. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith C. (1997) The parameter of aspect (2nd ed). Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaden G. (2009) Present perfects compete. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(2): 115–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vendler Z. (1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. von Stechow A. (1999) Eine erweiterte Extended Now Theorie fü r Perfekt und Futur. Zeitschrift für Literatur und Linguistik 113: 86–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King’s College, LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Oxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations