Abstract
In the preceding chapter it was argued that perfect constructions have a uniform compositional semantics. It is well-known, however, that these constructions can exhibit a wide range of readings or meaning effects. In this chapter it will be argued that the variability of readings does not contradict the assumption of a uniform semantics. In fact, it will be shown that the particular semantics of the construction, taken together with some additional but independently motivated pragmatic principles, predicts that the construction displays the specific meaning effects it does.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The examples are taken from Klein (1994) and Klein (1997), respectively.
Cf. Herweg (1990:203).
Cf. Ehrich (1992:90f).
These examples are briefly discussed in Declerck (1991:344f), for example. The observation seems to go back to Curme (1931) and Jespersen (1931).
For (b) cf. Ehrich (1992), for (c) and (d) cf. Ehrich and Vater (1989).
The account of Grewendorf (1995) is related to this type of approach insofar as it also assumes a kind of extended now. Since it contains an aspectual component, however, it will be dealt with as a complexity account.
The principle is related to Klein’s (1994:207) PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLE CONTRAST: “The assertion, which extends over the focused part of the lexical content, must allow for a reasonable contrast.”
This may not be the most adequate analysis, though. There is evidence that the present tense, which is clearly morphosyntactically present in future tense constructions, has to be taken seriously on the semantic level, too. For some details, see Musan (1999) on werden.
The idea that topic times — or, in her account, “Betrachtzeiten” — can be provided by a variety of factors has also been exploited by Fabricius-Hansen (1986).
A more detailed account of both phenomena can be found in Musan (1995: Ch.II) and in Musan (1997). The idea that tense times — or, in their terms, “Betrachtzeiten” — can be provided by the time of existence of individuals denoted by noun phrases in the clause was also mentioned by Ehrich and Vater (1989).
For a more detailed discussion of the issue of informativeness as applied to present tense and past tense clauses, see Musan (1997).
The schema presented here differs somewhat from the one presented in Grice (1975, 50). For instance, some steps of derivation concerning the transmission of information between speaker and hearer are left out, and I am adding steps that concern the consideration of alternative expressions and informativity.
A similar account is pursued by Waugh (1987) for French and by Dentier (1997) for the historical development of the present perfect in German. Moreover, also Marillier (1997: section 3.1.1.) hints at a non-arbitrary connection between topical status of times and the presence and reference of temporal adverbials. According to him, a temporal adverbial shows “welche von beiden Prädikationen (i.e. the one of the VP-situation or the one of the post-state, R.M.) informativ die wichtigere ist.”
In principle, Klein (1992b) seems to be perfectly aware of the fact that in (German) perfect constructions, the interpretation of the overt morphological tenses does not correspond to the generalization that tenses locate topic times: “Das deutsche System der Tempusmarkierung ist einigermaßen verwickelt. (…) Für TT< [TT vor TU] gibt es das Präteritum (schlief) wie auch das Perfekt (hat geschlafen), die beide besondere Gebrauchsbedingungen haben. Wie dies im einzelnen aussieht, ist, vorsichtig ausgedrückt, nicht vollständig anzugeben...” (cf. Klein) (1992b: 112).
Perhaps this is not so far away from what Klein (1994: Ch.10) has in mind.
Fabricius-Hansen (1986: Ch.4, 5, especially p336) develops some hypotheses on this issue, and Ehrich and Vater (1989) also hint at some principle like this.
Hence, the overlap in applicability explains why the loss of the past tense in southern varieties of German was possible. It does not explain what the trigger of this loss may have been, though. In fact, the loss appears to be a Sprachbund phenomenon, as northern varieties of Italian exhibit it, too (Manfred Krifka, pc).
This observation is not new. Hill (1958:212, cited after McCoard) (1978:46f) states for the English present perfect in sentences like I’ve lived here: “Primary stress on have breaks any connection with action going on at the present time.” Note, though, that this is certainly an overgeneralization — for as in German, in English the stress on the auxiliary can trigger other effects, too.
Examples from Ehrich (1992).
Interestingly, such contrasts occur mainly with explicit adverbials, but not with implicitly provided topic times (cf. Klein) (1994).
The examples are from Herweg (1990:203).
Also Enrich and Vater (1989) and Enrich (1992) point out that concrete present perfect constructions can have more or less different interpretations depending on the Aktionsart of the verb.
Example (b) is taken from Enrich (1992), (c) and (d) are from Enrich and Vater (1989).
Note that not all predicates carry such lifetime presuppositions. For more details, see Musan (1995, 1997).
This pair of sentences is briefly discussed by Declerck (1991:344f). The crucial observation goes apparently back to work by Curme (1931) and Jespersen (1931).
Also Klein (1994:226f, fn.3) hints at the relevance of the connection between the topic time and the time of existence of Einstein for this case.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Musan, R. (2002). The Meaning Effects of the Present Perfect. In: Musan, R. (eds) The German Perfect. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 78. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0552-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0552-4_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0822-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0552-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive