The grammar of the english verb phrase part 87 pps

A relative past tense form is generally incompatible with a time-specifying adverbial because it implies that the temporal location of the situation time is to be inferred from the relat

I watched TVall afternoon.

*Bill arrivedall afternoon.

12.4 (Non)inclusive heterogeneous time-specifying

adverbials

12.4.1 Within the class of heterogeneous time-specifying adverbials, which

can only indicate a period as a whole, there is a formal distinction between

prepositional phrases introduced by within or in (in the sense of within) and

other adverbials As noted in 1.46.1, (with)in-adverbials, which we can refer

to as inclusive adverbials, can only be added to a clause with a ‘telic VP’

(see 1.39) Compare:

I have received three threatening letters.(receive three letters is a telic VP)

I have received three threatening letters {in / within} the last four weeks.(inclusive

adverbial)

I have been working very hard.(work hard is an atelic VP)

*I have been working very hard {in / within} the last four weeks (inclusive

adver-bial)

I have been working very hardfor the last four weeks (noninclusive adverbial)

12.4.2 Not every temporal adverbial introduced by in is an inclusive

adver-bial Time-specifying adverbials likein the past, in 1999, etc are not inclusive.

Neither isin a few days in I’m leaving in a few days We can only speak of an

inclusive meaning if thein-adverbial measures the duration of the period

con-taining the time(s) of actualization of the situation(s) referred to and (at the

same time) measures either the length (duration) of one bounded situation or

the number of subsituations making up a bounded repetitive hypersituation:

I met him twice in a few days.(inclusive)

I’ll see him in a week.(noninclusive because in a week does not measure the duration

of a bounded situation)

I’ve visited him three times in one week.(inclusive)

He wrote that novel in less than two weeks.(inclusive)

I’ve written several novels in the past (not inclusive because in the past does not

measure the length of the repetitive hypersituation)

II Temporal adverbials and the choice between

past tense and present perfect

Now that several types of temporal adverbials have been identified, we can examine which types are (in)compatible with either the present perfect or the past tense It should be clear that in doing so we will not be concerned with the relative past tense A relative past tense form is generally incompatible with

a time-specifying adverbial because it implies that the temporal location of the situation time is to be inferred from the relation of T-simultaneity (⫽ coinci-dence) with the binding time (see 8.17.2) As noted in 8.26.1, a situation time cannot derive its temporal specification from two different mechanisms⫺ the use of a tense form expressing coincidence and the presence of a time-specifying adverbial ⫺ at once, even if the times they refer to coincide with one another Hence the difference of interpretation betweenJim whispered that he was still thirsty (where was is naturally interpreted as expressing simultaneity) and Jim whispered that he was still thirsty at three o’clock (where Jim’s being thirsty

can only be interpreted as anterior to his whispering, which means thatwas is

now an absolute tense form)

12.5 Nondeictic adverbials

Nondeictic adverbials, by virtue of being unanchored, are compatible both with the past tense (e g.I got up at two a.m.) and with the present perfect (on an indefinite,

often repetitive reading, e g [You don’t believe I’ve ever got up at two a.m.? I can assure you.] Ihave got up at two a.m [Several times.]).

In 12.1.1, a nondeictic Adv-time-adverbial has been defined as an adverbial specifying an Adv-time which is not related to a temporal ‘anchor’ and which

is therefore automatically ‘zone-independent’, as in the following examples:

He got up at five o’clock.(nondeictic Adv-time: at five o’clock is naturally under-stood as belonging to a particular day, but the day in question is not anchored to a given orientation time.)

I’ve heard that nameat some time or other (nondeictic: the Adv-time specified by

at some time or other is not linked to a given temporal anchor.)

Nondeictic time-specifying adverbials never specify a period including t0 be-cause an interpretation involving reference to t0is automatically a deictic inter-pretation However, this does not mean that nondeictic time-specifying adver-bials cannot combine with a present perfect In fact, it follows from their being

unanchored that they can combine with any tense (except the present tense),

because they do not help to specify the temporal location of the situation time

[I think] I’ve met himat some time or other.

[You don’t believe] I’ve ever got upat two a.m.? [I can assure you,] Ihavegot up

at two a.m [Several times.]

The present perfect is possible in these sentences because the situation times

are clearly conceived of as lying within a period leading up to t0 (In both

examples this period is likely to be the speaker’s lifetime.) What is uppermost

in the speaker’s mind is not the time when a specific situation actualized but

thefact that a particular kind of situation has actualized (once or several times)

in a period up to t0 To see this better, compare:

(1) John left the office at five o’clock

(2) [“John has never left the office at five o’clock.”⫺ “That’s not true!] John has

left the office at five o’clock [Many times I saw him.”]

In (1), at five o’clock indicates a deictic (anchored) time interval because it is

interpreted in relation to a particular time (day) that is assumed to be

identifi-able from the context or is ‘given’ by virtue of its including t0 In (2), in

con-trast,at five o’clock is not a deictic indication of time because it is not

interpre-ted in relation to a particular day referred to in the context or any other given

time Whereas (1) states that five o’clock was the time when John left the office

on a particular day, (2) states that the situation of John leaving the office at

five o’clock has actualized at least once in the pre-present (i e within an

un-specified period leading up to t0) In other words, whereas (1) locates the

semel-factive situation of John’s leaving the office at a particular past time, (2)

ex-presses that the situation of John leaving the office at five has actualized on at

least one (unspecified, indefinite) day in a period up to t0 In (2) the adverbial

at five o’clock thus belongs to the description of the situation itself, whereas

in (1) it denotes the past Adv-time specifying (i e ‘containing’ ⫺ see 2.23.1)

the situation time of the situation

This semantic difference between (1) and (2) has a syntactic correlate in the

fact that at five o’clock is a necessary adverbial adjunct in (2) whereas it is an

optional one in (1) (unless it is the only constituent there that expresses new

information) This appears from the fact thatat five o’clock can be fronted in

(1) but not in (2):

At five o’clock John left the office

*At five o’clock Johnhasleft the office

When present perfect sentences of the kind exemplified by (2) are used without

a context such as given in (2), they usually involve a repetitive time adverbial:

John has often gone swimmingat six o’clock in the morning.

Many a time, passengers have been terrifiedwhen their plane began to lose height.

I have occasionally leftbefore Tom (did).

However, the sense of repetition does not come exclusively from the adverbial Even if the latter is dropped (in which casehave normally receives the nuclear

accent because the sentence contradicts a claim to the contrary), there is a sense

of (at least potential) repetition The following sentences suggest paraphrases like ‘It has happened on occasion that ’ or ‘It has happened at least once that ’:

Johnhasgone swimming at six o’clock in the morning

Ihaveleft before Tom (did)

Passengershavebeen terrified when their plane began to lose height

It is precisely the lack of information concerning the temporal location of the situation time(s) that produces this potentially repetitive reading Sentences like those above express no more than that, in a period up to now, there has been one or more instances of a situation of the type ‘swimming at 6 a.m.’, or

‘leaving before Tom’, etc No information is given concerning the precise tem-poral location of these instances, nor about their frequency

12.6 Past-zone adverbials

Past-zone adverbials are only compatible with the past tense, not with the present perfect (not even when there is a clear idea of present relevance or resultativeness) For example: [I know what it means to be in the army.] I {served / *have served} during the Falklands war.

12.6.1 A time-specifying adverbial specifying a time in thepast zone (i e a bygone time which is seen as disconnected from the present time-sphere) can combine with the past tense, but not with the present perfect

I {went / *have gone} to London yesterday

(speaking in the evening) The plumber {came / *has come} this {morning /

afternoon}

A ‘bifunctional adverbial’ (which specifies both duration and time⫺ see 2.22.3) may similarly be a past zone adverbial:

[“When were you at university?”] ⫺ “We {were / *have been} at university from

1986 to 1990.”(Note that, because the adverbial provides the new information asked for, it is taken to specify the full period, so that the situation time is taken to be the

time of the full situation This reading is due to the Gricean Maxim of Quantity,

which stipulates that all relevant information must be given The relevant

informa-tion (⫽ the informainforma-tion asked for) is the time of the full situainforma-tion.)

[“From 1986 to 1990 I was in India What were you two doing during that time?”]⫺

“We {were / *have been} atuniversityfrom 1986 to 1990.”(Because the adverbial

represents given information ⫺ the new information (⫽ information asked for) being

what the addressees did in that period ⫺ the Adv-time coincides with the situation

time, but the situation time may be only part of the time of the full situation The

reply is perfectly true if the addressees attended university from 1985 to 1991.)

Note that from 1986 to 1990 can easily be fronted in the second example

(where it represents given information), but not in the first (where it represents

new information)

12.6.2 Perhaps it needs stressing that the rule that the past tense has to be

used with adverbials specifying a past Adv-time applies even if there is a clear

idea of present relevance or resultativeness

[I know what it means to be in the army.] I {served / *have served} during the

Gulf war.

“[Can we enter the building?]”⫺ “Yes, the janitor {has opened the door / opened

the doora minute ago / *has opened the door a minute ago}.”

This illustrates the fundamental claim (made in section 2.3.1) that the basic

meaning of a tense is to locate a situation in time in a particular way The use

of a tense is wholly determined by its semantics (⫽ temporal structure), which

has to fit in with the temporal information given by the time-specifying

adver-bial or by the context

12.7 Noninclusive heterogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials

Noninclusive heterogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials normally combine with the present perfect only: I {*was / have been} fascinated by insects from childhood.

12.7.1 When a noninclusive heterogeneous time-specifying adverbial indicates

apre-present zone(i e a bygone period which leads up to t0), it is as a rule

the present perfect that is used:

From the beginning of May until now I have been ill.(continuative reading)

From the beginning of May until now I have been ill three times.(‘quantificational

constitution’ reading ⫺ see 5.4.7)

At least a dozen accidents have happened here over the past four years. (quantifica-tional constitution reading)

So far nothing much has been done about the problem.(indefinite reading)

12.7.2 It should be noted, however, that not every noninclusive heterogeneous adverbial that is used (or can be used) as a pre-present-zone adverbial allows any of the three W-readings For example, some pre-present-zone adverbials (e g from childhood) are only compatible with a continuative reading

Com-pare:

I have been fascinated by insects from childhood.(continuative reading)

*I’ve been in France exactly six times from childhood.(From childhood clashes with the quantificational constitution reading imposed by six times.)

*I have seen a dragonfly from childhood (The continuative reading and an up-to-now reading are pragmatically excluded; from childhood does not allow an indefi-nite reading.)

The reason why from childhood only allows a continuative reading is that

it is a ‘situation-unbounding’ adverbial This means that it functions as a bifunctional duration adverbial referring to a period whose endpoint is expli-citly left vague, which means that it precludes the situation from being repre-sented as bounded Obviously, a nonbounded pre-present situation cannot come to an end before t0

12.7.3 Since-adverbials can be used as noninclusive heterogeneous

pre-pres-ent-zone adverbials, as inI’ve never seen him again since (then) Because since

can be used in various ways (viz as a preposition, adverb or conjunction) and because the choice of tenses is complex in sentences containing a since-clause, since-adverbials will be treated extensively in a separate section, viz 12.11

below For the moment we will restrict ourselves to saying that the present perfect is the unmarked tense in clauses containing a since-adverbial which

identifies a period up to t0:

He [went to his study after dinner and] has been working ever since.(continuative reading)

[Four years ago he was on an airplane that had to make an emergency landing in a field.] He has not travelled by air since.(indefinite reading)

Since then he has travelled by train (continuative habit or indefinite single-situa-tion reading)

I’ve been in China no less than eleven times since 1996.(constitution reading)

12.7.4 The choice of tense ⫺ preterite versus present perfect ⫺ in clauses containinguntil now is discussed in 12.13.3⫺7 below.

12.8 Noninclusive homogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials

Noninclusive homogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials mostly (and those of the type

for the {past / last} two weeks exclusively) combine with the present perfect, but the

past tense is sometimes used, though not normally in Br E., to imply a break between the past and the present

This class consists of a limited number of adverbials, the most important of

which arein the past, just, lately, recently and prepositional phrases of the type

for the {past / last} two weeks The latter combine with the present perfect

only (at least if they indicate a period up to now),2 while the former mostly

combine with the present perfect, but the past tense can be used in order to

focus on a period which is treated as a past (i e closed off) period in spite of

its leading up to, or almost up to, t0 Sincerecently, lately and just are discussed

in detail in 12.17 below, we will restrict ourselves here to illustrating this rule

with examples ofin the past This adverbial normally collocates with the

pres-ent perfect when it indicates an indefinite period-up-to now:

Planning permissionhas been given in the past for the conversion of the two ward

blocks into residential accommodation (LOB)

Washington is today closer to Moscow than any city in Europe has been in the

past (LOB)

Trinidad, Australia and Canada might all be expected to make a greater contribution

than theyhave done in the past (LOB)

Ihave many times in the past seen squirrels in the woods across the railway, [but

they have always been grey] (LOB)

In the past few weeks therehas been a prolonged discussion between Ministries as

to whether the cuts should apply uniformly across the board (LOB)

In fact such Yugoslav activity has been particularly intensified in the past year or

so (LOB)

Occasional examples in the past tense can be found, provided there is some

kind of break between the past and the present:

Syndicalism (…) grew in the cities, not in the country areas, andwas closely

associ-ated with anarchism in the past before the Falangists and Catholics made it

‘respect-able’ in its current form of national verticalism (LOB)

2 For example:

In other words, they should carry on as they have been doing for the last 10 years.

(LOB)

The stores had been hit by the same strike wave thathas paralysed the port of

Tako-radi for the past week (LOB)