Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 459–510 | Cite as

The (Temporal) Semantics and (Modal) Pragmatics of the Perfect

  • Paul Portner
Article

Abstract

The English perfect involves two fundamental components of meaning: a truth-conditional one involving temporal notions and a current relevance presupposition best expressed in terms drawn from the analysis of modality. The proposal made here draws much for the Extended Now theory (McCoard 1978 and others), but improves on it by showing that many aspects of the perfect's meaning may be factored out into independent semantic or pragmatic principles.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Fundamental Component Pragmatic Principle Current Relevance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abusch, D. 1988, ‘Sequence of Tense, Intensionality, and Scope’, in The Proceedings of WCCFL 7, CSLI, Stanford, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulou, E., S. Iatridou, and R. Izvorski: 1997, ‘On the Morpho-Syntax of the Perfect and How it Relates to its Meaning’, paper presented at NELS 28.Google Scholar
  3. Asher, N.: 1993, Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht and Boston.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, E.: 1986, ‘The Algebra of Events’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, Georg: 1970, ‘The English “perfect” Reconsidered’, Journal of Linguistics 6, 189–198.Google Scholar
  6. Bäuerle, R. and A. von Stechow: 1980, ‘Finite and Non-Finite Temporal Constructions in German’, in C. Rohrer (ed.), Time, Tense, and Quantifiers: Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification, Max Niemayer Verlag, Teubingen:, pp. 375–421.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, M.: 1977, ‘A Guide to the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English’, Logique et Analyse 20, 137–163.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, M. and B. Partee: 1978, ‘Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English’, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  9. Brennan, V.: 1997, ‘Modalities’, manuscript, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  10. Brinton, Laurel J.: 1988, The Development of English Aspectual Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Büring, D.: 1997, ‘The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy’, Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2), 175–194.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.: 1970, ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation’, in R. Jakobson and S. Kawamoto (eds.), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, TEC Corporation, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  13. Comrie, B.: 1976, Aspect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 81–95.Google Scholar
  15. Diesing, M.: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Dietrich, W.: 1955, Erweiterte Form, Präteritum und Perfektum im Englischen. Eine Aspekt-und Tempusstudie, Max Hueber Verlag, Munich.Google Scholar
  17. Dowty, D.: 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  18. Dowty, D.: 1986, ‘The Effects of Aspectual Class on the Temporal Structure of Discourse: Semantics or Pragmatics?’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 37–61.Google Scholar
  19. Fintel, K. von: 1994, ‘Restrictions on Quantifier Domains’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  20. Giorgi, A. and F. Pianesi: 1998, Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Glasbey, S: 1998, ‘Progressives, States, and Backgrounding’, in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht:, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar
  22. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1975, ‘Modality and Conversational Information’, Theoretical Linguistics 2, 61–112.Google Scholar
  23. Groenendijk, J., M. Stokhof., and F. Veltman: 1996, ‘Coreference and Modality’, in S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  24. Heim, I.: 1982, ‘The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  25. Hinrichs, E.: 1982, ‘Temporal Anaphora in Discourses of English’, paper presented at the Ohio State University Conference on the Semantics of Tense and Aspect in Discourse, May 16–17, 1982.Google Scholar
  26. Hitzeman, J.: 1997, ‘Semantic Partition and the Ambiguity of Sentences Containing Temporal Adverbials’, Natural Language Semantics 5, 87–100.Google Scholar
  27. Iatridou, S., E. Anagnostopoulou, and R. Izvorski: 2001, ‘Observations about the Form and Meaning of the Perfect’, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, pp. 189–238.Google Scholar
  28. Inoue, Kyoko: 1979, ‘An Analysis of the English Present Perfect’, Linguistics 17, 561–589.Google Scholar
  29. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  30. Klein, W.: 1992. ‘The Present Perfect Puzzle’, Language 68, 525–552.Google Scholar
  31. Klein, W.: 1994, Time in Language, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  32. Kratzer, A.: 1977, ‘What “must” and “can” Must and Can Mean’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337–355.Google Scholar
  33. Kratzer, A.: 1981, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in H. J. Eikmeyer and H. Reiser (eds.), Worlds, Words, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 38–74.Google Scholar
  34. Kratzer, A.: 1991, ‘Modality’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 639–650.Google Scholar
  35. Kuhn, S. and P. Portner: 1997, ‘Tense and Time’, to appear in Gabbay and Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV, 2nd edn., D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  36. Labov, W.: 1972, ‘The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax’, in W. Labov (ed.), Language in the Inner City, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, D.: 1973, ‘Causation’, The Journal of Philosophy 70, 556–567.Google Scholar
  38. McCawley, J.: 1971, ‘Tense and Time Reference in English’, in Fillmore and Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 96–113.Google Scholar
  39. McCoard, R.: 1978, The English Perfect: Tense-Choice and Pragmatic Inferences, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. McNally, L.: 1987, ‘On Recent Formal Analyses of Topic’, in J. Ginzburg (ed.), The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation: Selected Papers, CSLI/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 149–162.Google Scholar
  41. Michaelis, L.: 1998, Aspectual Grammar and Past Time Reference, Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar
  42. Mittwoch, A.: 1988, ‘Aspects of English Aspect: On the Interaction of Perfect, Progressive, and Durational Phrases’, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 203–254.Google Scholar
  43. Moens, M. and M. Steedman: 1988, ‘Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference’, Computational Linguistics 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
  44. Montague, R.: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in R. H. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy, Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  45. Ogihara, T.: 1989, ‘Temporal Reference in English and Japanese’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  46. Parsons, T.: 1990, Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  47. Partee, B.: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243–286.Google Scholar
  48. Portner, P. and K. Yabushita: 1998, ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Topic Phrases’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2), 117–157.Google Scholar
  49. Reichenbach, H.: 1947, Elements of Symbolic Logic, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Roberts, C.: 1996, ‘Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics’, in Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  51. Singh, M.: 1998, ‘The Semantics of the Perfective Aspect’, Natural Language Semantics 6, 171–199.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, C.: 1992, The Parameter of Aspect, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, C.: 1999, ‘Activities: States or Events?’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 479–508.Google Scholar
  54. Spejewski, B.: 1996, ‘Temporal Subordination and the English Perfect’, in The Proceedings of SALT VI, CLC Publications, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  55. Spejewski, B.: 1997, ‘The Perfect as Temporal Subordination’, manuscript, the University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  56. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1995, Relevance: Communication and Culture, 2nd edn., Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  57. von Stechow, A.: 1995, ‘On the Proper Treatment of Tense’, in The Proceedings of SALT V, CLC Publications, Ithaca, New York, pp. 362–386.Google Scholar
  58. Stump, G.: 1985, The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  59. Vlach, F.: 1993, ‘Temporal Adverbials, Tenses, and the Perfect’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 231–283.Google Scholar
  60. Yeh, M.: 1996, ‘An Analysis of the Experiential GUO EXP in Mandarin: A Temporal Quantifier’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 151–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Portner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations