The grammar of the english verb phrase part 40 potx

When a present perfect sentence receiving a constitution reading expresses the number of times a kind of situation has actualized in the pre-present, the situation referred to by the pre

2003 that I have been living here is odd because its default reading is ‘I haven’t

been living here long, in fact (only) since 2003’ rather than ‘I could have lived here before 2003 but have only lived here since 2003’

In sum, in the sentences that are unacceptable (in isolation), the phrases that are supposed to function as the value of a specificational sentence are unsuit-able values because they are not clearly contrastive This renders the sentences unacceptable However, this problem does not arise if the sentences are used

in a suitable context inviting a ‘contrary to expectation’ reading (which is a kind of contrastive interpretation), irrespective of whether it is the value con-stituent that is contrastive or the variable concon-stituent:

[It isn’t since I moved to Berlin,] it’s since the fall of the Berlin Wall that I have been

in contact with my cousins in the west (Since the fall of the Berlin Wall contrasts with since I moved to Berlin, which is echoic: someone has intimated that it is since

I moved to Berlin that I have been in contact with my cousins in the west.)

[“You have been working in this town since 2003?”⫺ No, I’ve been working in this town since 1998.] It’s since 2003 that I have beenliving here (Here the relevant contrast is to be found in the variable constituent.)

Two further things should be noted here:

(a) If the highlighted constituent of the cleft is a since-constituent, the

that-clause sometimes evokes a mixture of indefinite and continuative reading: [She was Ellen Leicester, and Mr Castonel ran away with her, and she died That was last spring,] and it’s since then that Mr Leicesterhas got so ill (www)

[Let me recap the everyday story of teacher training folk, just the edited highlights I’ll begin in the 1980s after the Robbins period (…)] It’s since then that much has gone wrong, since then that the confusionhas set in (www)

[Unfortunately, the American company I was working for, pulled all of their devel-opment out of the UK last year While I could have had a job with them in the USA, I didn’t really want to bring my children up over there, so I accepted redun-dancy.] It’s since then that I’ve discovered just how bad the IT sector is at the

moment (www) The formshas got, has set in and have discovered are indefinite perfects in the

sense that the literal meaning ofget (ill), set in and discover is inchoative: these

(more or less punctual) situations constitute the beginning of a longer period However, the above sentences foreground the full resultant states (of Mr Leicester being ill, of there being a state of confusion and of ‘my’ knowing how bad the IT sector is at the moment) rather than the initial point of these states only, so that the indefinite reading is rejected in favour of a continuative state interpretation (In the first example there is surely no possibility that Mr Leicester could be well at speech time, which there ought to be if the meaning were purely indefinite.)

(b) As noted in 5.20.2, cleft sentences alternate with other types of

specifica-tional structures, some of which consist of one clause only Thus, there is

no difference of interpretation between the following:

[“Who did this?”]⫺ “It was Maud who did this.”

[“Who did this?”]⫺ “Mauddid this.”

In the same way, there is no interpretational difference between the following:

It’s four weeks that she’s been missing now

She’s been missing forfourweeks now

Both sentences are interpreted in terms of a presupposition ‘She’s been missing

for x time’ (which receives a continuative reading) plus a specificational speech

act ‘x ⫽ four weeks’ (which reminds us of a constitution reading) The only

difference between the two examples is that in the cleft sentence the

presupposi-tion and the specificapresupposi-tion are encoded as two separate clauses, whereas they

are encoded within the same clause in the noncleft version

5.21.3 There is another special type of construction in which a constitution

reading is combined with a continuative reading

When a present perfect sentence receiving a constitution reading expresses

the number of times a (kind of) situation has actualized in the pre-present, the

situation referred to by the present perfect tense form is a ‘hypersituation’

consisting of several ‘subsituations’⫺ see 5.19.4 In that case it is possible that

the last of the subsituations is still in progress at t0

This is the third time I {have watched / *am watching / *watch / *have been

watching} this film [I like it.]

The cigarette I’m smoking now is the third I {have smoked / *am smoking /

*smoke / *have been smoking} today

This is the first cigarette I {have smoked / *am smoking / *smoke / *have been

smoking} (The set of subsituations here is a singleton The one subsituation in

question is actualizing at t0.)

It is telling that neither the present tense nor the progressive form can be used

in the relative clause of such examples, even though the last (or even only)

subsituation is interpreted as in progress at t0 This is because of the

quantifica-tional constitution interpretation:

(a) The speaker does not use the present tense because his primary concern is

not with the fact that a subsituation is actualizing at t0but rather with the

question of how many subsituations have actualized in the pre-present

That the time of the full situation whose situation time is located at the

end of the pre-present may include t0is not expressed by the perfect, which

only expresses that the situation time of the hypersituation is contained in

the pre-present (In this case ‘contain’ is interpreted as ‘coincide with’.) The present perfect says nothing about the possible continuation of the full hypersituation into the present In the above examples the idea that the last subsituation of the full hypersituation includes t0is evoked by the use ofThis is … or by The cigarette I’m smoking now is … )

(b) Because a quantificational constitution reading is always W-bounded (see 5.4.5 and 5.19.1), the progressive form (which triggers L-nonboundedness)

is incompatible with such a reading This is why we cannot say *This is the third cigarette I’ve been smoking today, even if the last subsituation is

in progress at t0⫺ see also 5.29.2⫺3

However, in the following paragraphs we will draw attention to an exception

to principle (a) An exception to principle (b) will be discussed in section 5.29.2⫺3

There is one apparent exception to rule (a): the present tense can be used if

it represents the post-present actualization of a situation as pre-determined by present circumstances (This use of the present tense has been discussed in 3.8⫺ 9.) The following example illustrates this:

This is the last visit I {am paying / *have paid / *have been paying} you [You will

never see me again.]

In this type of sentence the presently ongoing situation again forms part of a pre-present series However, the speaker no longer focuses on the idea of ‘pre-present series’ ⫺ the idea of how many times a situation has actualized in a period leading up to t0⫺ but is concerned with the post-present The predomi-nant idea is not that there have been similar situations before the present one but that there are not going to be any similar situations after this This means that the present tense form am paying refers to the future rather than to the

present: it is an instance of how a present tense can be used as a ‘futurish’ form

to refer to the post-present (see 2.9) The above example therefore expresses something like ‘I am not paying you any more visits’, which can come close in meaning to ‘I refuse to pay you any more visits’ This use of the present tense

is further illustrated by the following:

This is the best meal we’re giving you [So make the most of it.]

This is the worst meal we’re giving you [So don’t despair.]

In both cases the present tense refers to the post-present: ‘You will not be given

a {better / worse} meal than this’

There are two further pieces of evidence supporting this analysis Firstly, sentences like This is the first time I am paying you a visit can only be used if

the speaker is phoning the addressee, or writing a letter to him, since the ad-dressee cannot be with the speaker at speech time The following is a suitable context for the sentence to be used:

[I’m coming to see you tomorrow.] This is the first time I am paying you a visit, [so

I’m looking forward to meeting you.]

Secondly, replacing the progressive present tense by the nonprogressive present

is only possible if the situation in question forms part of a habitual routine:

This is the worst meal we give you

The use of give is only acceptable on an understanding that the meal-giving

forms part of a habitual routine, and ‘you’ really means ‘not only you but

anyone who is in your position’ This is the case, for example, in the

follow-ing context:

[Anyone who stays at this monastery for a week gets a good meal most days⫺ for

example, it’s roast duck on Saturdays and beef casserole on Sundays, but on

Mon-days it’s always boiled tripe, and here’s yours Don’t worry,] this is the worst meal

we give you.’

As noted in 3.8, forming part of a habitual routine is a typical instance of how

a post-present situation can be viewed as ‘pre-determined’ and can therefore

be referred to in the nonprogressive present tense.15

5.22 Summary of part V

5.22.1 We speak of an up-to-now reading if the full situation is taken to cover

the entire pre-present, i e if the full situation leads up to t0in such a way that

it does not include t0and that there is no significant interval between the end

of the full situation and t0

5.22.2 One type of up-to-now reading is the constitution reading Here the

speaker looks back on the pre-present to ‘measure it’ or to see how this period

has been filled ‘situationwise’ The speaker thus focuses on the situational

con-stitution of the pre-present zone and not only on the temporal location of a

situation on the time line On the constitution reading the pre-present may be

filled either by one full situation which actualizes throughout the pre-present

period (but without including t0) or by a number of full situations which

(pos-sibly in combination with gaps) form a ‘hypersituation’ which coincides with

the pre-present but does not include t0 In the latter case, the number of

consti-tuting subsituations may be zero, one or more.)

15 Things are different in the following sentence, where give is not used as a futurish

form (establishing a post-present domain) but as a ‘pseudo-absolute’ present tense form

expressing simultaneity in the post-present domain established by the head clause (see

9.17.3):

[You will get some food tonight.] This will be the first and only meal wegive you today.

5.22.3 There are three subtypes of constitution reading:

(a) The speaker may be concerned with the nature of the situation that is conceived of as having lasted throughout the pre-present without including

t0 (e g.What have you been doing?; Where have you been?) In that case

there is a nonquantificational constitution interpretation.

(b) The speaker may be concerned with the length of the pre-present and indicate this by a bounded present perfect sentence referring to a duration-specifying situation (e g Nearly a year has gone by since then) In that

case there is a duration-quantifying constitution interpretation.

(c) The speaker may also be concerned with how many times a specific situa-tion (or kind of situasitua-tion) has actualized in the course of the pre-present (e g.How many times have you met him in the past week?) In that case

there is a number-quantifying constitution interpretation.

In all three constitution readings, the time of the full situation coincides with the situation time (⫽ the time of the ‘predicated’ situation), which coincides with the pre-present zone, which does not include t0 This means that the full situation is always W-interpreted as bounded: in each case the right boundary

is the point of time immediately preceding t0

5.22.4 An up-to-now reading which is not a constitution reading is an un-marked up-to-now reading Sentences receiving this reading often have an ex-planatory-resultative function.

VI The relation between the W-readings and

(non)progressive aspect

5.23 (Non)progressive aspect and a continuative

nonhabitual reading

A continuative interpretation is by definition aprogressive interpretation (even

though stative verbs do not allow the use of the progressive form): the full

situation that started before t0includes t0, i e is still in progress at t0

It is therefore not surprising that, when the conditions for using the

pro-gressive form are satisfied (minimally: the verb phrase is compatible with the

progressive form and the reference is not to a permanent habit or

characteris-tic), a present perfect sentence referring to a single situation which is to be

interpreted as continuative normally uses the progressive form, though this

‘rule’ is less strict if a continuative interpretation is anyhow enforced by an

adverbial like ever since or for the past two hours This is illustrated by the

following examples:

John has been working on his dissertation for two hours.(continuative)

John has worked on his dissertation for two hours.(indefinite reading possible)

John has worked on his dissertation for the past two hours.(continuative)

In sum, if the speaker refers to a dynamic (⫽ nonstatic) situation and wants

to express progressive meaning ⫺ in this case: the idea that the pre-present

situation is still ongoing at t0 ⫺ he will normally use the progressive form

This is in keeping with the Gricean Maxims A speaker will not normally be

understood as wanting to represent a dynamic situation as still continuing at

t0if he uses a nonprogressive present perfect in a context where the progressive

form is grammatically possible In other words, if the progressive is

grammati-cally available and not used, the speaker is understood not to wish to convey

progressive meaning and thus not to wish to convey continuative meaning

5.24 (Non)progressive aspect and a continuative habitual

reading

5.24.1 It is typical of repetitive habits that, irrespective of the time zone in

which they are located, the progressive form represents them as temporary

habits, whereas the nonprogressive form represents them aspermanent

hab-its, i e as not restricted in time:

I’m writing poems these days.(temporary habit)

I write poems.(permanent habit)

In those days Shakespeare was writing sonnets rather than plays.(temporary habit)

In those days Shakespeare wrote sonnets rather than plays.(permanent habit: in the restricted period indicated by in those days it was a permanent characteristic of Shakespeare that he wrote sonnets rather than plays.)

The same is true when the present perfect is used on a continuative interpreta-tion (Remember that in the present section ⫺ section 5.24 ⫺ we are only concerned with the continuative interpretation.)

Ever since I was fifteen I have slept only five hours a night (The sentence asserts the continuative repetition of the situation of the speaker sleeping only five hours a night, which constitutes a continuative permanent habit.)

Ihave been sleeping ten hours a night since we have been on holiday (The continua-tive repetition of situations is taken to constitute a temporary habit.)

Jimmy, 41, a former pit worker at the Bevercotes colliery, in Ollerton Notting-hamshire, has looked in vain for work ever since (www) (Ever since enforces a continuative reading The progressive form is not used, because the speaker treats Jimmy’s looking for work as constituting a permanent habit rather than a temporary habit or a single nonhabitual situation.)

It is the same mixture of cunning and inspiration whichhas helped Morita’s business

career to prosper ever since (www)(similar)16

He has used his physical shortcomings to advantageous effect ever since (www) (Ever since enforces a continuative reading The reference is not to a single situation

of using physical shortcomings to advantageous effect but to repeated use of this device, which has become characteristic of the referent of the subject NP By using has used the speaker represents that characteristic as a permanent habit He could also have used has been using, which would have represented the habit as still tem-porary.)

We’ve only {been working /?worked} as waiters for four days, [so we haven’t

ac-quired a lot of experience yet]

[I’m ninety-two and] I {have had / ??have been having} long walks in the country

since I was four

I {have written / have been writing} books ever since I started working at the

univer-sity (In this case each subsituation is telic because the underlying proposition is ‘I write a book’ However, the habitual hypersituation as a whole is not telic, because

a habit is a state The use of the nonprogressive form therefore does not represent the situation as L-bounded and forms no obstacle to the continuative interpretation.)

16 One might object to our speaking of a habit here because the speaker does not attribute

a habit to the referents of the coordinate subject NP (He could hardly do so because these referents are inanimate.) However, this is beside the point What counts is that it has been characteristic of Morita’s business career that it has prospered ‘ever since’.