The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English [Reprint 2011 ed.] 9783110810264, 9783110146868

Citation preview

The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English

W DE G

Topics in English Linguistics 21 Editor

Herman Wekker

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English

Johan Elsness

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1997

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Elsness, Johan, 1947— The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English / Johan Elsness. p. cm. - (Topics in English linguistics ; 21) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-014686-X (cloth : acid-free paper) 1. English language-Tense. I. Title. II. Series. PE1301.E45 1996 425-dc20 96-21755 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Elsness, Johan: The perfect and preterite in contemporary and earlier English / Johan Elsness. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1997 (Topics in English linguistics ; 21) ISBN 3-11-014686-X NE: G T

© Copyright 1997 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Ratzlow-Druck, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

For Turid

Not marble, nor the gilded monuments Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme; But you shall shine more bright in these contents Than unswept stone, besmear'd with sluttish time. When wasteful war shall statues overturn, And broils root out the work of masonry, Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn The living record of your memory. 'Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room, Even in the eyes of all posterity That wears this world out to the ending doom. So, till the judgement that yourself arise, You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes. William Shakespeare, Sonnet LV

What's in a name? that which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet. William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Acknowledgements This book is a revised version of the dissertation I submitted for my doctoral degree at the University of Oslo. A great deal of my work on the perfect and the preterite was carried out while I had a three-year research grant from the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities, which enabled me to take leave of absence from my job at the University of Oslo. The Research Council offered travel grants, too. I should like to thank Sidney Greenbaum and the other people at the English Department of University College London for letting me come and look at the files of the Survey of English Usage. Also, on a couple of occasions I was a visiting scholar in the Department of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences at Brown University in the US, where I greatly enjoyed working in an atmosphere dominated by such people as W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kucera. Special thanks are due to three of my friends and colleagues here at the Department of British and American Studies at the University of Oslo: Michael Benskin and Arthur O. Sandved both read and commented upon a draft version of Chapter 4, the historical chapter; and Stig Johansson read and discussed with me a pre-final version of all the other chapters. I should also like to thank the two opponents at the defence of my dissertation, Niels DavidsenNielsen and Leiv Egil Breivik, for rewarding discussions and useful advice, both during the defence and afterwards. Last but certainly not least I should like to thank my family: Turid in particular for giving me time and for offering just the right mixture of patience and encouragement; Turid, Frode and Eir for reminding me that there is more to a perfect life than a perfect verb form. Johan

Elsness

Contents

Acknowledgements Terms used of the corpora examined and their subdivisions

ix . . . .

xvii

Chapter 1. Introduction

1

Chapter 2. Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

5

2.1. 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.1.4.

Introduction The function of the preterite The function of the present perfect Verb forms and other elements in the expression of temporal reference Time-up-to-zero in English and some other languages . .

11 13

2.2. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3.

Categorial classification Tense Aspect The present perfect as distinct from the other perfect forms

14 15 16 18

2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3.

Specification Some typical present perfect specifiers Some typical preterite specifiers Some specifiers which may combine with either the present perfect or the preterite Deictic specifiers Specifiers expressing absolute time Non-locational specifiers Apparently non-temporal specifiers Some specifiers which may combine with either the present perfect or the simple present tense The present perfect with past-time specification The preterite with zero specification The present perfect with present-time specification . . .

20 20 21

2.3.3.1. 2.3.3.2. 2.3.3.3. 2.3.3.4. 2.3.4. 2.3.5. 2.3.6. 2.3.7.

5 6 9

21 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27

xii 2.4.

Contents The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite Definite versus indefinite time Anchors and discourse topics Unique reference and minimal sentences

27 27 31 39

2.5.1. 2.5.2.

Different thematic functions of the present perfect and the preterite Given and new, presupposition and assertion Grounding

45 45 47

2.6. 2.6.1. 2.6.2.

Aspectual character Aspectual character in present perfect constructions Aspectual character in preterite constructions

50 53 54

2.7. 2.7.1. 2.7.2. 2.7.2.1. 2.7.2.2.

Tense logic Reichenbach Standard tense logic Sentences and propositions, time and tense The logical analysis of tense

2.8.

Comparison with other theories of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite Current-relevance theories Why the present perfect often conveys connotations of current relevance Theories distinguishing between several present perfect types

74

Summary

76

2.4.1. 2.4.2. 2.4.3. 2.5.

2.8.1. 2.8.2. 2.8.3. 2.9.

. . .

54 55 57 59 61 66 67 70

Chapter 3. The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

. .

79

3.1.

Introduction

79

3.2. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.3.1. 3.2.3.2. 3.3.

The present perfect and the preterite in LOB and BUC . . Frequency of the preterite Frequency of the present perfect The present perfect and the preterite of eight verbs . . . Informational and fictional text categories compared . . . LOB and BUC compared Contextual analysis of the present perfect and the preterite in CONTCORP

79 81 83 89 93 93 94

Contents 3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.3.3. 3.3.4. 3.3.5. 3.3.6. 3.3.6.1. 3.3.6.2. 3.3.6.3. 3.3.6.4. 3.3.6.5. 3.3.6.6. 3.3.6.7. 3.3.6.8. 3.3.7. 3.3.8. 3.3.8.1. 3.3.8.2. 3.3.9. 3.3.10. 3.3.10.1. 3.3.10.2. 3.3.10.3. 3.3.10.4. 3.3.10.5. 3.3.10.6. 3.3.11. 3.3.11.1. 3.3.11.2. 3.3.11.3. 3.3.12. 3.3.12.1. 3.3.12.2. 3.3.12.3. 3.3.12.4. 3.3.13. 3.3.13.1. 3.3.13.2.

Composition of CONTCORP Form of quotations from CONTCORP Principles of classification Overall frequencies Verb forms according to text category Specification and verb form Deictic adverbials Relative adverbials Clock-and-calendar adverbials Temporal clauses Adverbials of frequency/length Temporal specification expressed by subject Temporal specification expressed by object Temporal specification expressed by other constituent Given versus new time Temporal location The present perfect with past-time specification The preterite referring to time not clearly separate from deictic zero-point Conditioning factors in combination The preterite referring to new time in clauses without expressed temporal specification Temporal specification in wider linguistic context . . Temporal anchoring implicit in context Reference to preceding linguistic context Past time compared with present time Unique past time The preterite with no apparent anchoring Verb forms in some textual subdivisions Novels Radio news bulletins News magazines and newspapers Verb forms according to clause type Main clauses Object ί/ζαί-clauses Relative clauses WAen-clauses Verb forms according to some clause-level parameters Aspectual character Clause structure

xiii

. .

96 99 100 103 106 Ill 114 116 118 119 121 123 124 124 125 128 130

the 132 135

. .

. .

139 139 140 142 143 145 146 153 154 156 159 165 167 175 179 185 190 190 195

xiv

Contents

3.3.13.3. 3.3.13.4. 3.3.13.5. 3.3.13.6.

Realisation type of subject Negation Interrogation Negation, interrogation and realisation type of subject in combination 3.3.13.7. Voice

197 201 204

3.4. 3.4.1. 3.4.2. 3.4.3. 3.4.4. 3.4.5. 3.4.6.

The elicitation test Time located wholly in the past Time extending up to the deictic zero-point Current relevance? Special adverbs Unique past-time reference Significance of test results

215 216 220 222 223 225 227

3.5

Summary

229

207 208

Chapter 4. The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

237

4.1.

Introduction

237

4.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.2.4. 4.2.5. 4.2.6. 4.2.7.

Previous work Why historical language studies? The origin of the perfect construction When is BE/HAVE+past participle a perfect? Latin influence? Did the present perfect emerge as a replacement for ge-1 . Relationship between BE and HAVE perfects Sketch of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite from Old English to present-day English . . An example from Wulfstan Contextual analysis of the present perfect and the preterite in the history of English Composition of HISTCORP Constructions with BE/HAVE and past participle not analysed as perfects Some early constructions analysed as perfects Overall frequencies Distribution of HAVE and BE perfects Verb forms according to text category Specification and verb form

237 237 239 241 244 245 246

4.2.8. 4.3. 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.3.3. 4.3.4. 4.3.5. 4.3.6. 4.3.7.

247 252 253 254 257 260 263 271 272 277

Contents 4.3.8. 4.3.9. 4.3.9.1. 4.3.9.2. 4.3.10. 4.3.11. 4.3.12. 4.3.12.1. 4.3.12.2. 4.3.12.3. 4.3.12.4. 4.3.13. 4.3.13.1. 4.3.13.2. 4.3.13.3. 4.3.13.4. 4.3.13.5. 4.4.

xv

Given versus new time Temporal location The present perfect with past-time specification The preterite referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point Conditioning factors in combination The expression of new time Verb forms according to clause type Main clauses Object ί/ιαί-clauses Relative clauses When-clauses Verb forms according to some clause-level parameters . . Aspectual character Clause structure Realisation type of subject Negation Voice

282 286 289 294 296 303 305 305 308 310 314 316 317 322 327 332 335

Summary of historical investigation and attempted explanation

339

Chapter 5. Summary and conclusion

349

Notes

363

References

381

Appendix I. Symbols used in quotations from text categories in CONTCORP made up of transcripts of spoken sources

400

Appendix II. Composition of CONTCORP

402

Appendix III. Composition of HISTCORP

414

Index of authors

428

Index of subjects

431

Terms used of the corpora examined and their

subdivisions

CONTCORP the corpus of contemporary English compiled for this study BRPRINT the subdivision of CONTCORP representing printed British English (in Chapter 4 referred to as "CONTBrE") AMPRINT the subdivision of CONTCORP representing (printed) American English (in Chapter 4 referred to as "CONTAmE") NONPRINT the subdivision of CONTCORP representing non-printed British English HISTCORP the corpus of earlier English compiled for this study LOB the Lancaster/Oslo-Bergen Corpus of British English BUC the Brown University Corpus of American English

1. Introduction

John Lyons writes: As for tense, it is significant that no one has yet succeeded in giving a satisfactory account of the meaning of the tenses (traditionally identified by means of such terms as 'past', 'present', 'future') in English or any well-studied language. (Lyons 1981a: 159)

Talmy Givón is of much the same opinion: Of all grammatical sub-systems, tense-aspect-modality is probably the most complex and frustrating to the linguist. (Givón 1984: 269)

Of the particular category "perfect" Givón adds: Of all tense-aspects in human language, the so-called perfect is by far the most complex. (Givón 1984: 278)

These quotations are probably still representative of a fairly widely-held view among contemporary linguists. There seems to be ample reason, therefore, to have a closer look at the operation of the perfect in English. In this book the focus will be on the present perfect, and on the relationship between that verb form and its chief rival, the preterite. A number of languages have two competing verb forms whose chief function is to express past time: one inflectional form generally known as the preterite (cf. English did), and one periphrastic form called the (present) perfect, consisting of a present-tense form of an auxiliary corresponding to either HAVE or BE followed by the pase participle (cf. English have done). The distribution of these two verb forms varies significantly even among closely related languages, and it has also been shown to undergo profound changes over time in several languages. In most cases it is the present perfect that has gained ground at the expense of the preterite. That is what has happened in French and German, for example. In English, too, the frequency of the present perfect has generally been held to increase consistently from its earliest beginnings in Old English through Middle English until the beginning of the Modern English period at least, and the frequency of the preterite1 to decrease. Few of the writers dealing with the history of English have much to say about the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite over the last few centuries.

2

Introduction

Most of them seem to assume that the frequency of the present perfect has continued to increase,2 even though it is clear enough that English has not reached the stage of French, German and many other languages, where the present perfect is now in a position of clear predominance over the preterite. Quite a few writers do comment on the tendency for present-day American English to use the preterite in some cases where British English would have the present perfect (see especially Defromont 1973 and Vanneck 1958), without committing themselves as to whether this may be indicative of the further development of the two verb forms in the English language as a whole. Rainer's (1989) concern is with late Middle English and early Modern English, a period for which she records a continued increase in the frequency of the present perfect. However, in a brief comparison with present-day English she reports a clear decrease in the frequency of this verb form since early Modern English, although the present-day material she refers to is too limited to warrant any firm conclusion. Instead she calls for further research (Rainer 1989: 57-59). Most theories dealing with the two verb forms in present-day English see the present perfect as in some way being more closely linked with present time than the preterite. This is sometimes related to the structure of the present perfect, the present-tense auxiliary being associated with present time, the past participle with past time. The present-time meaning of the present perfect is often specified as "current relevance" or, more precisely, as "resultativeness", as when "She's broken her leg." is said to explain why someone cannot come to a party. This is then claimed to be what distinguishes the present perfect from the preterite. That was the prevailing view in what can now be called traditional grammar, and it is also a view that has many adherents among more modern linguists. Other theories concentrate on the purely temporal meaning of the two verb forms, contending for example that in English the preterite expresses what is sometimes called "definite" past time and the present perfect "indefinite" past time. This difference between the two verb forms is reflected in the way they allow or disallow past-time specification: "I did it yesterday." is fully acceptable, *"I've done it yesterday." is not. The distribution of the present perfect and the preterite can thus be regarded as a challenging area of English linguistics, from both a theoretical and a more practical viewpoint, in diachronic as well as synchronic terms. The present book is an attempt to meet some of those challenges. We shall do that by first considering some of the well-known differences between the two verb forms in present-day English and then trying to develop

Introduction

3

a theory to account for those differences. This will be the task facing us in Chapter 2, where we shall rely heavily on some of the previous literature relevant to our topic. In Chapter 2 we shall also see how our own theory explains some of the differences between the present perfect and the preterite that other theories have viewed as fundamental. In Chapter 3 we shall have a detailed look at the use of the present perfect and the preterite in present-day English. Our investigation will consist of three parts: (i) we shall begin by trying to form a view of the frequencies of the two verb forms in the various text categories of the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English (LOB) and the Brown University Corpus of American English (BUC), both made up of texts printed in the year 1961; (ii) we shall continue by examining the distribution of past-referring verb forms exhibiting at least one of the features "perfect" and "preterite", especially the present perfect and the preterite, in a corpus of contemporary English assembled especially for this study (CONTCORP); and (iii) we shall finally consider the results of an elicitation test carried out with British and American informants. Our main aim in Chapter 3 will be to gain more insight into the details of the use of these verb forms in present-day English. We shall examine the use of the present perfect and the preterite against a number of contextual and other parameters in various text categories, representing spoken and written English, British and American English. One of the questions that will concern us is whether there are any consistent differences between British and American English. Although the most central differences between the two verb forms are well known and extensively discussed in the existing literature, systematic investigation of usage is needed for at least three main reasons: (i)

The information that is available is largely concerned with distinctions between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Relatively little is known about the further details of how frequent each form is in various contexts (linguistic and non-linguistic). (ii) Apart from those central differences, there are several points where the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite is far from clearcut and where no general consensus about their use can be claimed to exist. (iii) There is always a danger that linguistic treatments which are not based on systematic usage investigation will concentrate on uses which fit in with the theory favoured by the linguist and disregard others.

Chapter 4 will be devoted to earlier English. We shall first survey some of the existing literature on the development of the present perfect and the preterite

4

Introduction

in English, and then examine their distribution in a corpus of historical English (HISTCORP) compiled for this study. This corpus extends all the way back to Old English. To put diachronic changes in relief, the texts are as far as possible concentrated in fifty-year periods distributed over intervals of 200 years, i.e. the latest section of HISTCORP consists of texts from AD 17501800, the section before that of texts from AD 1550-1600 etc. One particular aim will be to find out whether the development of these verb forms in English follows the same lines as in a number of other languages, where the frequency of the present perfect shows a consistent increase, mainly at the expense of the preterite, all the way up to the present day. In Chapter 5 we shall sum up our findings and see whether, or to what extent, the tentative theory developed in Chapter 2 on the basis of the well-known, most central differences between the present perfect and the preterite will have to be modified to take account of the findings reported in Chapters 3 and 4. In the present study an attempt will be made to bridge the gap between the more empirical and the more rationalistic traditions that can be identified in linguistics as in many other disciplines. The writer's attitude is that a linguistic theory is of interest only if it is capable of accounting for the hard facts of language usage and that an important part of the linguist's job must therefore be to ascertain what those facts are; and that, conversely, recording language usage is of limited interest unless a theory is developed that will explain the recorded facts and thus help to shed light on our general understanding of language. My aim in examining the corpus material was to analyse, describe and explain the facts of English usage in as neutral a manner as possible, without being prejudiced by any particular linguistic theory. However, it has to be acknowledged that there is no such thing as a neutral taxonomy; in the words of Whitaker (1974), . . . what constitutes data is in large part determined by what one takes to be a theory. Nonetheless, some of the data are presumed to be clearly related to observable phenomena and can be agreed upon by a majority of linguists even though they may disagree about theory. (Whitaker 1974: 75)

The parameters that were selected for examination in the corpus investigation, and also the sentences included in the elicitation test, bear witness to an assumption that the kind of temporal reference the verb form expresses and the way this reference depends on adverbial and other specification are central to the essential difference between the present perfect and the preterite in English.

2. Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

2.1. Introduction Our aim in this chapter will be to develop a theory of the opposition between present perfect and preterite verb forms in present-day English on the basis of the well-known, central differences in their meaning and use. We shall do so by first having a preliminary look at the use of the two verb forms (sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2), focusing on the question of what conditions must be satisfied for these verb forms to be used acceptably and meaningfully in the first place. We shall then consider how the present perfect and the preterite should be placed in respect of two of the most important verbal categories, tense and aspect (section 2.2 with subsections), and survey some of the most typical adverbial specifiers each verb form combines with (section 2.3 with subsections), before we turn to a more detailed look at the basic opposition between the two forms (section 2.4 with subsections). We shall argue that the essential difference between them can best be defined in terms of the way in which they express temporal reference in combination with temporal adverbials and other contextual features, and discuss some of the previous attempts that have been made to explain the basic difference in similar terms. We shall go on to consider various subsidiary differences between the present perfect and the preterite, to do with thematic functions (section 2.5 with subsections) and aspectual character (section 2.6 with subsections). Next (section 2.7 with subsections), we shall survey some of the attempts that have been made to account for the difference between the present perfect and the preterite within the field of tense logic and discuss how the formal apparatus employed in recent tense-logical approaches can be exploited to shed light on that difference. Finally (section 2.8 with subsections), we shall compare the theory we have developed with some of the most widely-held alternative theories, especially those focusing on the notion of current relevance. Throughout this chapter the discussion will be based on what may be called the canonical meanings and uses of the present perfect and the preterite. Some of their more special meanings and uses will be taken up when we come to

6

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

have a look at the collected data in Chapter 3. As in the rest of this study, we shall further concentrate on their temporal meanings; modal meanings, for example, will receive little or no attention.

2.1.1. The function of the preterite The study of tense and related matters can be, and has been, approached from a number of different angles. Here we shall take as our starting-point one fundamental aspect of language: the relationship holding between a linguistic form and the meaning that form is used to express. It seems appropriate that before embarking on any detailed discussion of the many subtle distinctions of temporal reference that may be associated with the category of tense, one should confront the basic question of what conditions must be satisfied for a given tense to express temporal reference in the first place. That question has often been left unanswered, and indeed unasked, sometimes on the assumption that no particular problems are involved, the simple function of tense being to place the verbal situation in time relative to the moment of utterance. In the most straightforward traditional grammars of English a minimum of three tenses are distinguished: past, present and future, as in (2:1) (2:2) (2:3)

John was drunk. John is drunk. John will be drunk.

with the basic meanings of the three tenses said to be that the verbal situation is located before, at or after the moment of utterance, respectively. At least the binary opposition between the verb forms in (2:1) and (2:2) is still commonly recognised as a difference of tense. If we focus on sentence (2:1), what meaning does the preterite tense in that sentence convey? The obvious answer is that it places the verbal situation in the past, i.e. at a time prior to the moment of utterance. The preterite verb form, and hence the whole sentence in which it occurs, is thus indexical (cf. Bar-Hillel 1954) or deictic (a term apparently first used in its modern sense by Peirce - cf. Peirce 1940): it depends for the determination of its meaning on certain features of the context in which the sentence is uttered. Since it is here a question of temporal meaning, the essential contextual feature on which the sentence depends is the time at which it is uttered. This is the index or reference point on which its meaning hinges.

Introduction

7

That tense is a deictic category is commonly recognised. What is often overlooked is that a sentence like (2:1) does not usually mean simply that John was drunk at some time or other in the past, but rather that he was drunk at some particular past time. The preterite tense can thus be said to have a twofold meaning: it means (i) that the verbal situation is located in the past, and (ii) usually also that the speaker (encoder) has in mind a particular past time and further assumes that the addressee (decoder) should be able to infer what this time is. Since pastness is itself a deictic notion, the information required by (i) is provided by the moment of utterance, i.e. the deictic zero-point. In the most typical, but in most texts probably not the most frequent, case a temporal adverbial will satisfy the contextual requirement imposed by (ii): (2:4)

John was drunk last night.

We shall refer to temporal adverbials and other elements performing this function as anchors. Often the necessary information about the temporal location of the verbal situation is expressed or implied by the wider linguistic context, or it can be inferred from the situational (i.e. extra-linguistic) context. Potentially, anything within what is assumed to be the encoder's and the decoder's shared knowledge of the (real or imagined) world can be drawn upon for such information. If no information of this kind is expressed or implied, the communication will often fail. Within the framework of truth-conditional semantics it can then be maintained that it is impossible to decide whether the meaning expressed by a sentence such as (2:1) is true or false: one cannot tell whether it is true or false that John was drunk at a particular time in the past so long as one does not know when that time was. Hence the meaning expressed by the sentence is not a proposition, but rather what Lyons (1981b) calls a "propositional content". The sentence can still be said to have an intensional meaning, a sense, but it cannot express an extensional meaning, if we take the extensional meaning of sentences to be propositions. 3 This means that a full account of the meaning of the preterite, and of tense as such, cannot be confined to semantics but has to bring in elements from pragmatics, as the line of division between the two disciplines is often drawn. 4 Thus, what the preterite tense most typically does is not to establish the temporal location of the verbal situation but merely to reflect the fact that this location is prior to the deictic zero-point. Instead the temporal location will often be established by some other means, by what we are calling an anchor,

8

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

expressed or implied by the wider linguistic context, or by the situational context. Of course, the preterite tense is still deictic, since it does signal that the temporal location is past. However, since it is a question of reflecting rather than establishing position relative to the deictic zero-point, we may call this weak deixis. Many temporal adverbials, on the other hand, express what will then be strong deixis, i.e. they do establish the temporal location independently of any contextual features apart from the deictic zero-point itself. This is seen in (2:4), where the adverbial last night expresses strong deixis, while the preterite verb expresses weak deixis, reflecting the fact that the temporal location established by the anchor is prior to zero. In this respect the use of a preterite verb form is closely similar to the most typical use of 3rd-person personal pronouns: a sentence like (2:5)

He is drunk.

depends on either the linguistic or the situational context providing a clue to the identity of the referent of the subject pronoun; otherwise it will be impossible to tell whether what the sentence says is true or false, and the sentence does not express a proposition. By itself the pronoun indicates that the intended referent is a single male human being (as this pronoun is most commonly used). That is what Lyons calls the "descriptive content" of the pronoun. The crucial fact from our point of view is that the pronoun further signals that the reference is to a particular male human being, and that the encoder assumes that it should be possible for the decoder to identify this referent, on the basis of information provided by either the linguistic or the situational context. Likewise a preterite verb form typically signals (i) that the temporal reference is to past time - that is the descriptive content of the preterite tense and (ii) that it is assumed somehow to be possible to identify this past time. Our discussion so far has been concerned with the preterite tense. As regards the present tense, the deictic zero-point will normally be available as a potential anchor, so long as that tense denotes present time, punctual or extended. Hence the present tense does not place the same requirements on its context as the preterite. A sentence like (2:2) "John is drunk." can express a meaning with a determinable truth-value, i.e. a proposition, without any adverbial or other anchor being provided by the context, if only the deictic zero-point is known, which may then function as the anchor of the tense. However, one may also have (2:6)

John is drunk tonight.

Introduction

9

with tonight acting as anchor. As for the so-called future tense, exemplified by (2:3) "John will be drunk.", this can be used both with and without a future-time anchor: besides (2:7)

I will do it.

one may have (2:8)

I will do it tomorrow.

i.e. this verb form can express both anchored and unanchored future time. This ambiguity is present even in (2:7): that sentence may be used in a situation where either the linguistic or the situational context contains an appropriate anchor, or it may be used without any anchor. Thus the preterite is alone among the three basic verb forms traditionally recognised as tenses in normally requiring a contextual anchor beyond that of the deictic zero-point. The tense system of English as drawn up in traditional grammars is thus asymmetrical, leaving a gap for the function of unanchored past time.

2.1.2. The function of the present perfect The function of the present perfect verb form may be seen as being to fill the gap resulting from the fact that as a rule the preterite can express only anchored past time. Whereas a sentence like (2:1) "John was drunk." normally requires a past-time anchor for the preterite verb form to attach itself to, the sentence (2:9)

John has been drunk.

is perfectly acceptable by itself. Indeed, it becomes unacceptable if combined with an adverbial which refers unequivocally to past time separate from the deictic zero-point: (2:10)

*John has been drunk yesterday.

What sentence (2:9) says is that it is true of one or more unidentified times (periods, in this case) prior to the deictic zero-point that John was drunk at that time/those times, so that the sentence can be used without any further contextual support to express this meaning as long as it is known that the time(s) referred to precede(s) the deictic zero-point. For obvious pragmatic reasons, the possible temporal range of (2:9) will extend no further into the

10

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

past than to John's birth at the very earliest, and in many, one would guess most, cases there will be other contextual signals suggesting a much narrower temporal range. What we have said implies that the truth-conditions of a sentence like (2:9) do not depend on the temporal location of the situation referred to, so long as that location is prior to the deictic zero-point. It was suggested above that the kind of deixis expressed by a preterite verb form might be referred to as weak deixis. According to this terminology a present perfect verb form will express strong deixis, since it does establish the temporal reference by itself. This reference may in turn serve as the anchor of a subsequent preterite form: (2:11)

John has been fired. It took him completely by surprise.

A comparison was drawn above between the preterite tense and 3rd-person personal pronouns. The function of a present perfect verb form rather invites comparison with indefinite pronouns of the set someone, somebody, something: just as (2:9) "John has been drunk." means that it is true of (at least) one occasion prior to the deictic zero-point that John was drunk on that occasion (those occasions), no matter where this occasion is (these occasions are) located within the overall time sphere extending up to zero, so the sentence (2:12)

Somebody knows the answer.

means that it is true of (at least) one person that he or she (or they) know(s) the answer at the moment of utterance, without saying anything about the identity of this person or suggesting that his of her identity should be inferable from the wider context. Quite the contrary: the point about using a pronoun like somebody will often be precisely that one does not want to draw attention to the identity of the referent, for example because it is unknown or because it is considered irrelevant. The speaker may have a particular person in mind, in which case the reference will be specific indefinite, but if so, he sees no reason to try to make the identity of this person known to the addressee. Similar comments can be made about the temporal meaning of the present perfect. Besides placing a past situation within a temporal range extending all the way up to the deictic zero-point, present perfect clauses may of course have the function of indicating that the verbal situation itself extends up to zero: (2:13)

/'ve lived here ever since I was born.

In either case the present perfect is associated with a period extending from some (known or unknown) time in the past up to the deictic zero-point.

Introduction

11

The verbal situation may itself fill this period, or it may extend over one or more points or periods located within such a period. What distinguishes the present perfect from the preterite has often been claimed to be that the present perfect conveys resultative connotations, or more vaguely signals that a past event is held to be currently relevant; cf. (2:14)

Mary can't come to the party, because she has broken her leg.

Even though it may well be true that a past event referred to by a present perfect verb form will often be associated with current relevance, this factor can easily be seen to be overruled by the time-referential factor outlined above: the notion of current relevance is just as strong in (2:15)

Mary can't come to the party, because she broke her leg last Sunday.

as in (2:14), the only difference being that in (2:15) the verb in the subordinate clause is accompanied by a specifier of time-wholly-in-the-past, forcing the choice of a preterite verb. The question of current relevance and its impact on the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite will be addressed in more detail below (section 2.8 with subsections; see especially 2.8.2).

2.1.3. Verb forms and other elements in the expression of temporal reference It follows from our discussion of the meanings of the preterite and the present perfect that it would be misleading to say that it is the verb form by itself that expresses the temporal reference. Verb form and specifier, including zero specification, should rather be seen as expressing time together, each temporal meaning being conveyed by a certain verb form in combination with a particular type of specifier (expressed or implied).5 However, since human language is a functional and learnable system, it is not surprising that the various temporal meanings that can be associated with a given verb form display a certain coherence and homogeneity. That is the basis for much of the discussion in this book. It should also be pointed out that the temporal reference as expressed by the verb form with or without the support of adverbial or other specification need not be identical with the full temporal extension of the situation referred to. That is seen very clearly in present perfect constructions denoting time

12

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

extending up to the deictic zero-point, for instance in a comparison of the following two sentences: (2:16) (2:17)

/'ve lived here all my life, so this is the first time I move. /'ve lived here all my life and wouldn't dream of moving.

In (2:16) context seems to make it clear that the situation denoted by LIVE ends at the deictic zero-point, in (2:17) that it continues into the future. In both cases we would nevertheless say that the temporal reference expressed by the first clause only extends up to zero. Some people would hold that the semantic meaning of the present perfect clause is the same in both cases and that the different readings depend on pragmatic inferences drawn from information provided by the wider context. It is also evident that the relationship between the time denoted by any specifier and the time actually referred to by the clause may vary a great deal: depending on the type of predicate, complete coincidence may be the exception rather than the rule. (2:18) is an extreme example of lack of such coincidence, with the predicate denoting a momentary situation and the adverbial specifier denoting a full century: (2:18)

She was born in the 19th century.

That the relationship between a verb form and the associated anchor, whether expressed by a temporal adverbial or not, need not even be one of partial overlap is seen very clearly in the case of sequences of reference times, particularly common in past-time, narrative contexts: (2:19)

He flung the door open, rushed in, snatched the money, and disappeared out the other door.

Here each verb form but the last can be seen as providing the anchor for the next one, and yet it is clear that the situations referred to form a sequence, without even partial overlap, each situation being located at a later time than the completion of the preceding one. Partee (1984) sees the existence of such sequences as an argument against the claim made in Partee (1973) about the preterite being analogous to pronouns. Instead Partee (1984: 256) makes the weaker claim that tenses can be characterised as generally anaphoric, or more broadly as context-dependent. That weaker claim is in broad agreement with the view of the preterite taken in this study (see further below, section 2.4.1).

Introduction

13

2.1.4. Time-up-to-zero in English and some other languages As we have seen, English does not distinguish systematically between verbal situations which last from a given point of time in the past exactly up to the deictic zero-point and situations which continue into the future: the present perfect is used in both cases, typically specified by for instance a since-phrase or -clause. Such a distinction is made, however, in several other, related languages.6 Both French and German, and to some extent also Swedish, use the simple present tense in references to situations which extend from a point in the past through the present into the future.7 At least in French and German this applies equally to constructions with clock-and-calendar specifiers and to constructions with deictic specifiers: (2:20)

II habite en France depuis 1987/depuis huit ans. 'He lives in France since 1987/since eight years.'

(2:21)

Er lebt seit 1987/seit acht Jahren in Deutschland. 'He lives since 1987/since eight years in Germany.'

(2:22)

Han bor sedan 1987 i Sverige. 'He lives since 1987 in Sweden.'

Swedish, especially, may also have the present perfect: (2:23)

Han har bott i Sverige sedan 1987/i âtta ¿ir. 'He has lived in Sweden since 1987/for eight years.'

Norwegian (and also Danish) follows English in employing the present perfect in such cases: (2:24)

Han har bodd i Norge siden 1987/i âtte âr. 'He has lived in Norway since 1987/for eight years.'

Norwegian usage is not quite settled, however. The simple present tense is occasionally found, especially in enumerations: (2:25)

11970 fikk han jobb i Forsvaret. Siden 1987 er han ansatt i skolen. 'In 1970 he got a job in the military. Since 1987 he is employed in the school.'

Of course, even English, and also Danish and Norwegian, use the present tense in references to similar periods of time if the initial point of the period is undetermined:

14

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

(2:26)

He lives in Britain.

(2:27)

Han bor i Norge. 'He lives in Norway.'

On the other hand, all the languages referred to use the present perfect if the verbal situation ends (has ended) at the deictic zero-point; cf. (2:28)

Il a habité en France depuis 1987. 'He has lived in France since 1987.'

(2:29)

Er hat seit 1987 in Deutschland gelebt. 'He has since 1987 in Germany lived.'

It is noteworthy that the case where all six languages agree in employing the present perfect may be said to be the most typical case for the use of the present perfect in English, the verbal situation extending up to the deictic zero-point and thus being co-extensive with the temporal range associated with the present perfect. Conversely, the case where all six languages use the simple present tense is identical with what is evidently the most central use of that tense: to refer to a situation which obtains at the deictic zero-point and which spreads both ways into the past and into the future without any terminal points being indicated (cases where the present tense refers to just the deictic zero-point are rare by comparison). As regards the case where the situation extends from a specific time in the past and continues into the future, the two languages which most consistently use the present tense, French and German, are also languages where the present perfect performs many of the functions reserved for the preterite in English (and to a large extent the Scandinavian languages), combining with past-time anchors. It thus seems to be a general phenomenon that the present perfect is more closely associated with past time in French and German, which explains why in those languages the present perfect is not generally used in references to situations which continue through the present into the future.

2.2. Categorial classification It will be useful to consider the present perfect and the preterite in the light of the two linguistic categories most commonly referred to in discussions of how the English verb expresses time: tense and aspect.

Categorial classification

15

2.2.1. Tense The concept of tense has a very long tradition behind it in the history of linguistics, going back to the ancient Greek philosophers and beyond. Aristotle was apparently the first Greek to operate with tense distinctions (cf. Lyons 1968: 11), but Panini and other early Indian grammarians also recognised tense. The word tense is derived from Latin tempus, which is a translation of the Greek word for "time", χρόνος. The etymological origin of the term points to one of its essential characteristics: while a large number of different definitions have been suggested, there is general agreement that the linguistic category of tense is somehow related to the universal, language-independent concept of time. In contemporary linguistics the term "tense" is generally used in a narrower sense than in traditional grammar. The definition offered in Lyons (1977) is representative of this modern use: Tense, in those languages which have tense, is part of the deictic frame of temporal reference: it grammaticalizes the relationship which holds between the time of the situation that is being described and the temporal zero-point of the deictic context. (Lyons 1977: 678)

There are three points to be noted about this definition: it describes tense as a deictic category; it makes it clear that tense involves grammaticalisation rather than lexicalisation; and it does not say anything about tense being associated with any particular syntactic constituent. By defining tense as a deictic category, Lyons distinguishes tense from aspect.8 We shall return to the definition of aspect below; here we may simply note that, as generally defined, aspect is not a deictic category. By stating that tense expresses grammaticalised time reference, Lyons distinguishes tense from, for instance, temporal adverbials. Aspect is grammaticalised but not deictic, temporal adverbials may be deictic but are not grammaticalised, while tense is both grammaticalised and deictic. As regards the fact that Lyons' definition does not confine tense to any particular syntactic constituent, it may be noted that he makes the point that "tense, like person, is commonly, though not universally, realized in the morphological variations of the verb in languages", adding, however, that semantically "tense is a category of the sentence (and of such clauses within a sentence as may be regarded as desentential in the full sense . . . )" (Lyons 1977: 678). In the case of English it is evident that the kind of deictic, grammaticalised time reference outlined by Lyons' definition of tense is expressed by the verb

16

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

phrase. It is also apparent that the distinction between the preterite and the present tense is a distinction of tense: although both these verb forms may be employed to express a number of different meanings, the basic semantic difference between them is related to the different kinds of time they typically express relative to the deictic zero-point, and hence they are deictic forms, i.e. tenses. What is debatable is whether the term "tense", applied with reference to present-day English, should be reserved for just these two inflectional forms. As we have seen, periphrastic forms were also generally treated as tenses in traditional grammars of English. Today, however, it has become more common to recognise only the present and the preterite as tenses. If other tenses are referred to at all, the present and the preterite are often singled out as the two "primary" tenses, or they are said to be more basic than the periphrastic forms. The primary status of the present and the preterite is recognised by Chomsky and many other transformationalists in their rules for deriving surface verb phrases. In the deep structure envisaged in Chomsky (1957: 39) "C" is the only obligatory constituent of "Aux", "C" in turn being rewritten as either "present", in the form of the appropriate ending or lack of ending, or "past": Verb Aux + V Aux —> C (M) (have + en) (be + ing) (be + en) Γ S in the context NPsing sir C < 0 in the context NPpl ( past The special status assigned to the present and the preterite in both transformational and other approaches reflects the fact that these are formed by inflection rather than by the use of auxiliaries, and further that one or the other of these two forms can be associated with every finite verb phrase, no matter what other elements it contains.9 One of the questions we shall have to consider is whether the modern use of the term "tense", as outlined by Lyons' definition, would also accommodate the other verb form at the focus of attention in this study, the present perfect. Before we do that, we shall have a closer look at the category of aspect and its relevance to English.

2.2.2. Aspect A fairly recent coinage in English, the term "aspect" is a translation of Russian vid (in Latin transliteration), first used to refer to the perfect!ve/imperfective

Categorial classification

17

opposition which plays such an important part in Russian and other Slavonic languages (cf. Lyons 1968: 313). In contemporary linguistic literature the term is used in a wider but closely related sense. Lyons says of the term "aspect" that "Usually, though not invariably, it is extended to cover a variety of other oppositions," - other than the perfective/imperfective opposition, that is - "in so far as they are grammaticalized in the structure of particular languages - oppositions based upon the notions of duration, instantaneity, frequency, initiation, completion, etc." (Lyons 1977: 705). Hockett (1958: 237) speaks more vaguely of aspect being concerned with the "temporal distribution or contour" of the verbal situation, while Comrie, referring to Holt (1943), states that "aspects are different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation" (Comrie 1976: 3). What these and most other definitions have in common is (i) that they take aspect to be a non-deictic category, and thus distinguished from tense, and (ii) that they treat aspect as a category confined to instances of grammaticalisation; the German term "Aktionsarten" is sometimes used to refer to similar oppositions expressed through lexicalisation.10 The most obviously aspectual distinction in English is that between progressive and non-progressive verb forms, which at least in its most central uses can be explained in terms of the fundamental aspectual concept of perfectivity. Apparently, aspect in this sense has little or nothing to do with the English perfect, which is basically concerned with the temporal location of a verbal situation rather than with its internal temporal constituency or structure. Lyons discusses the possibility of calling the perfect a secondary or relative tense (Lyons 1968: 316), while Comrie says that if the perfect is an aspect, "it is an aspect in a rather different sense from the other aspects treated so far" (Comrie 1976: 52). However, there is an obvious connection between temporal location and some of the notions usually classified as aspectual, as pointed out in Lyons (1977). Lyons states that . . . it is often very difficult to draw a distinction between secondary tense and aspect. Anteriority is not always distinguishable from completion or termination; and it is for this reason that linguists are still undecided as to whether the so-called perfect and pluperfect in English ( . . . ) are to be distinguished from the corresponding non-perfect forms in terms of tense or in terms of aspect ( . . . ) . . . . it must be recognized that at this point there is not, and cannot be, in universal grammar any sharp distinction between tense and aspect, . . . . (Lyons 1977: 689-690)

18

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The connection between temporal location and aspect becomes especially clear if aspect is defined the way it is by Anderson (1973a): Aspect, I suggest, is concerned with the relation of an event or state to a particular reference point: it is located before (retrospective), after (prospective), around (progressive) or simply at (AORIST) a particular point in time. . . . 'Tense markers', on the other hand, combine with temporal adverbials in establishing the reference points ('axes of orientation'); they locate in time a point with respect to which the events or states can be located. In this sense, the aspects are 'relative' or 'secondary' tenses. (Anderson 1973a: 39—40J

What is important to maintain is that there is no immediate connection between the present perfect in present-day English and the fundamental aspectual concept of perfectivity (we shall return to this question when we come to consider aspectual character below, section 2.6 with subsections). In spite of this the category of the English perfect is sometimes referred to by the term "perfective aspect" (e.g. in Quirk et al. 1972, 1985 and in Johansson Lysvâg 1986). Whether the perfect should be recognised as an aspect will depend on the kind of definition of that category that one chooses to operate with. If a definition similar to that proposed by Anderson is adopted, the perfect becomes a straightforward aspectual category, although it should be borne in mind that Lyons' description is closer to the mainstream of contemporary thinking - and writing - about aspect.

2.2.3. The present perfect as distinct from the other perfect forms Both Lyons and Anderson speak of perfect constructions in general and not particularly of the present perfect. What is common to all perfect forms, i.e. the pluperfect (or past/preterite perfect) as well as modal and non-finite perfect constructions besides the present perfect, is that they express anteriority relative to the kind of time expressed by the corresponding non-perfect forms. Since anteriority is not a deictic relationship, the perfect as such, i.e. the construction "HAVE + en", cannot be placed in the category of tense, so long as tense is defined as a deictic category. However, when anteriority is orientated towards the present, as it typically is in the case of the present perfect, it becomes identical with pastness and thus a deictic relationship. There may then seem to be scant reason for refusing to recognise the present perfect as a tense.

Categorial classification

19

To admit the present perfect into the category of tense while excluding all the other perfect forms might seem to be to draw an arbitrary line of division through the group of perfect constructions. However, that the present perfect differs in important respects from the other perfect forms is in any case a frequently noted fact. The differences are manifested first and foremost in the kind of specification that the various perfect forms require, allow or reject: while (2:30)

*John has finished his book yesterday.

will usually be classified as unacceptable, all of the following are perfectly fine: (2:31) (2:32) (2:33) (2:34)

I saw John yesterday. He had finished his book the day before. John may have finished his book yesterday. Having finished his book the day before, John decided to take the day off yesterday. I believe John to have finished his book yesterday.

Thus the pluperfect and the other perfect constructions of this set accept temporal specification in much the same way as the preterite does, besides functioning to express unanchored time, like the present perfect. It is clear, therefore, that there are important differences between the present perfect and the other perfect forms in the way they express temporal reference. However, because of the obvious parallels between them, above all on the formal level, but also in that they all express anteriority, the normal thing has been to treat the perfect as a unitary expression of non-deictic time reference, which in its realisations in the language may or may not combine with the deictic category of tense, e.g. with the present tense to form the present perfect or with the preterite to form the pluperfect. If, instead of adopting such a compositional analysis, one considers each perfect construction as an independent form in its own right, there would seem to be no very good reason for not recognising the present perfect as a tense.11 Unlike the other perfect forms, but like for instance the preterite, it expresses what can be looked upon as deictic time reference, and it also satisfies the other criteria contained in Lyons' and most other definitions of tense. On the view taken in this study the only essential difference between the present perfect and the preterite concerns anchoring, but that is something Lyons' and other common definitions of tense do not say anything about. The conclusion we have been led towards is thus that the present perfect but not the other perfect forms should be recognised as a tense.

20

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

If one adopted a definition of the category of aspect that included anteriority (such as Anderson's definition), these other perfect forms might instead be described as aspects. Since pastness is a special case of anteriority and there would be a similar relationship between the other deictic notions (such as presentness, futurity) and notions that would also have to be classified as aspectual (such as contemporaneity, posteriority), the tenses would then become a subclass of the aspects. It is doubtful whether anything is gained by adopting such a wide definition of the category of aspect.12

2.3. Specification We shall take a more systematic look at some of the most typical adverbial specifiers that occur with the present perfect and the preterite, in what may still be termed the canonical use of those verb forms, without making any attempt to exhaust the list of such specifiers. As a general observation one can say that each verb form may take any specifier that does not conflict with its basic temporal meaning. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that the temporal meaning of a verb form equals the sum of the meanings of the specifiers with which it combines. It would also be misleading to view the verb form alone, appearing without any specification, expressed or implied, as capable of expressing the full range of temporal meanings that may be associated with that verb form (see above, section 2.1.3).

2.3.1. Some typical present perfect specifiers The temporal range of present perfect verb forms extending from the past all the way up to the deictic zero-point, typical present perfect specifiers are expressions with since (including smce-clauses), so far, up to now, hitherto: (2:35) (2:36)

John has been drunk ever since he came here. /'ve written five letters so far/up to now.

Specifiers like yet, already are also usually associated with the present perfect: (2:37)

Have you done it yet/already?

Specification

21

In American English, however, there is sometimes claimed to be a tendency to use the preterite with yet and already Ρ The question of verbal usage in British and American English with these specifiers will come up in the elicitation test to be presented in Chapter 3 (see section 3.4.4).

2.3.2. Some typical preterite specifiers Specifiers which denote past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point do not normally co-occur with the present perfect but combine freely with the preterite: (2:38)

2.3.3.

John was drunk last night/yesterday/last week.

Some specifiers which may combine with either the present perfect or the preterite

2.3.3.1. Deictic specifiers In this set we find a fairly large group of specifiers like this morning, this week, today. (2:39) (2:40)

John has been drunk this morning. John was drunk this morning.

The difference between (2:39) and (2:40) is often claimed to be that (2:39) will be used if the deictic zero-point is still within the time-sphere denoted by this morning, while (2:40) will be preferred later in the day, when this morning denotes time separate from the deictic zero-point. Such an explanation of the difference between sentences of this type may seem to run into trouble over a straightforward sentence pair like (2:41) (2:42)

John has been drunk today. John was drunk today.

Presumably, the specifier today will be used only at times which are themselves included in the denotation of the specifier. Hence the present perfect might be thought to be the only acceptable verb form. And yet (2:42) is perfectly normal. What may happen in such cases is that an additional anchor may be involved, expressed or implied by the wider linguistic or by the situational

22

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

context, which restricts the reference time to a past portion of the overall period denoted by today. This would be the case if (2:42) was said by husband to wife over supper and John was somebody the husband regularly met at work. It is likewise possible, of course, for a sentence like (2:40) to be uttered while it is still "this morning", provided another anchor is expressed or implied that restricts the reference to a previous section of the time denoted by this morning. Besides, it remains to be seen whether the preference for the present perfect in cases where the situation can be located at any time up to the deictic zero-point is really so clear, in British and American English, as some of the literature will have us believe. That is the sort of question that will concern us in Chapter 3. A further set of deictic specifiers which commonly occur in both present perfect and preterite constructions is made up of adverbs like just, recently, lately. The combination of verb form and specifier in a sentence like (2:43)

John has just left.

may seem to contradict the claim that the present perfect can only take specifiers which do not conflict with its basic temporal range of past time extending all the way up to the deictic zero-point. Apparently, the function of the adverb in (2:43) is to locate the verbal situation prior to, and hence separate from, the moment of utterance, albeit at a time very close to zero. The claim about possible present perfect specifiers can still be maintained, however, if the adverb in such cases is seen as primarily indicating not that the temporal range of the present perfect verb form does not extend up to zero but rather that it does not extend very far into the past. In any case it is a fact that the present perfect is used with some specifiers, such as just, which denote a very vague past time. With specifiers of this set there has often been claimed to be a stronger tendency to use the present perfect in British than in American English, which more often prefers the preterite, in line with what is assumed to be a general difference in the present perfect/preterite distribution between the two varieties. This is a question we shall bear in mind when we come to look at the assembled data in Chapter 3.

2.3.3.2. Specifiers expressing absolute time The adverbials considered so far have all been deictic or relative. Adverbials denoting absolute time may have similar functions. For example,

Specification

(2:44)

23

John has been drunk in 1995.

is all right so long as it is still 1995 at the moment of utterance, because in that case the specifier will not conflict with the temporal range associated with the present perfect. However, (2:45)

John was drunk in 1995.

will normally be selected if the sentence is uttered after the end of 1995, or if it is uttered in 1995 and there are further contextual signals restricting the reference to an earlier period of that year.

2.3.3.3. Non-locational specifiers Up to now we have looked only at locational specifiers, i.e. specifiers which serve to locate the associated verbal situation in time, either relative to the deictic zero-point or other reference points, or in absolute terms. Temporal specifiers may also be non-locational, for example if they denote frequency or length of time. The distinction between locational and non-locational specifiers is not clear-cut. For example, /or-phrases are basically non-locational, denoting length of time. In combination with the present perfect, however, /or-phrases are often interpreted locationally, to refer to a period of the specified length extending up to the deictic zero-point: (2:46)

John has been drunk for two days.

(2:46) and similar constructions are open to various temporal readings, but Dowty (1979: 343) is probably right in his claim that unless there are contextual signals to the contrary, the/or-phrase will be interpreted deictically, to refer to the period just prior to the deictic zero-point. Dowty's further claim that if the for-phrase is initial, this is the only possible reading, is probably also in agreement with the intuitions of most speakers: (2:47)

For two days, John has been drunk.

Frequency specifiers are more straightforward examples of non-locational specifiers: (2:48)

John has been drunk several times.

24

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

These combine freely with the present perfect and will then be taken to mean that verbal situations of the denoted frequency are distributed over a range extending up to the deictic zero-point. Sometimes the initial point of the period will be indicated: (2:49) (2:50)

John has been drunk for two days/several times this month. John has been drunk for two days/several times since he came here.

In combination with the preterite these specifiers will refer to situations of the specified number or length located within a past period that is separate from the deictic zero-point. As with any other preterite construction, the past period normally requires an anchor: (2:51)

John was drunk for two days/several times last month.

Adverbs of the set never, ever, always also combine freely with either the present perfect or the preterite. It is noteworthy that in such combinations the preterite as well as the present perfect may express reference to time-up-tozero: (2:52) (2:53) (2:54)

It's the most interesting book /('ve) ever read. /('ve) never read a more interesting book. /'ve always known/always knew that I would make it.

To what extent adverbials of these sets favour the present perfect or the preterite, in British and American English, is one of the questions that will be taken up in Chapter 3 (sections 3.3.8.2 and 3.4.4), and also when we come to have a look at the historical corpus in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.9.2).

2.3.3.4. Apparently non-temporal specifiers Apparently non-temporal adverbials may convey temporal connotations determined by context, and then serve as anchors. Consider: (2:55) (2:56) (2:57) (2:58)

She broke her leg in a car-crash. She broke her leg in the car-crash. She has broken her leg in a car-crash. ?She has broken her leg in the car-crash.

Because of the definite form, the prepositional phrase in the car-crash will be associated with a particular (past) time. Hence it can function as a preterite anchor but not easily combine with the present perfect. The indefinite in a car-crash, on the other hand, will denote circumstance with no clear temporal

Specification

25

connotations and can therefore occur with both the present perfect and the preterite.14

2.3.4. Some specifiers which may combine with either the present perfect or the simple present tense Constructions with the present perfect and with present-tense verbs can sometimes be very close in meaning, to the extent that the present tense combines with typical present perfect specifiers: (2:59) (2:60) (2:61) (2:62)

John has come already. John is here already. Has John come yet? Is John here yet?

And the present progressive: (2:63) (2:64)

Everything has gone well so far. Everything is going well so far.

For further discussion of constructions where the present perfect and the present tense are near-synonymous, see below, section 2.8.2.

2.3.5. The present perfect with past-time specification There are some apparent exceptions to the general rule that the present perfect does not combine with specifiers which denote time located wholly in the past, at some distance from the deictic zero-point. (2:65) and (2:66) are from Quirk et al. (1985: 195, note a): (2:65)

A: Have you ever seen Macbeth on the stage? B: Yes, /'ve seen it ages ago, when I was a child.

Quirk et al. suggest that B's use of the present perfect in (2:65) may be explained as a performance error, but find it more difficult to account for the present perfect in (2:66)

They asked me about something /'ve said years ago.

Quirk et al. do not say whether these examples are from their own corpus investigations. In any case it is not very surprising that especially in speech the present perfect will sometimes occur where the preterite might be expected,

26

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

since the two verb forms are so close in their functions. It is noteworthy that in both (2:65) and (2:66) the specifier denotes highly indefinite past time, which makes the use of the present perfect less objectionable. The combination of the present perfect with a past-time specifier in (2:67) is more straightforward: (2:67)

A man out of work for three years is eight times less likely to find a job than someone who has lost his job only three months ago. [The Observer 08.06.86]

Here the temporal reference is generic rather than deictic, and the present perfect accepts a past-time specifier in much the same way as the other perfect forms, which also often express non-deictic anteriority.

2.3.6. The preterite with zero specification Even if the preterite seems normally to require a past-time anchor, this anchor need not be expressed linguistically, in either the immediate or the more distant context. An example is furnished by constructions where an unspecified preterite refers to the immediate past; cf. (2:68) (2:69)

My watch-strap snapped. The candlestick overturned.

In (2:68) and (2:69) the reference may well be to the immediate past as established by the situational context. The use of the present perfect in these sentences would throw the reported events into an indefinite, and therefore possibly quite distant, past. In other cases an unspecified preterite expresses a clear contrast with the present situation: (2:70) (2:71)

She's not so active as she was. (From Quirk et al. 1985: 185, note a) He's much better off financially than he was.

In both these sentences was can be replaced by the expression used to be, whose chief function is precisely to signal contrast with the present. This meaning is characteristic of the preterite in other constructions too: (2:72)

I didn't know you were interested in philosophy.

suggests that the speaker now does realise that the addressee is interested in philosophy, although the sentence may well have ironic overtones.

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

27

See further the section on unique past-time reference (below, 2.4.3).

2.3.7. The present perfect with present-time specification While the preterite may signal contrast with the present, the present perfect is often used to contrast the past with the more distant past. This implication is sometimes underlined by the presence of a present-time specifier: (2:73)

Now John has repaid all his debts.

2.4. The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite We have defined the essential meaning of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in time-referential terms, saying that the preterite is typically selected in cases where the verbal situation is located wholly in the past and there is a past-time anchor with which the situation is associated, while the present perfect is used of unanchored past situations and of situations which extend from the past up to the deictic zero-point or are not clearly separated from that point.

2.4.1. Definite versus indefinite time The similarity between the functions of preterite verb forms and of 3rd-person personal pronouns has already been touched upon. This similarity is emphasised by Partee (1973) and also by McCawley (1971), while Allen (1966) makes a similar point by comparing the preterite to definite and the present perfect to indefinite nomináis; a similar comparison is made by Leech (1969, 1971), Quirk et al. (1972, 1985) and a number of other linguists and grammarians, who refer to the definite/indefinite opposition as the essential, or at least one important, difference between the preterite and the present perfect.15 Some linguists operating within a T-G framework argue for a view of tense akin to that underlying the definite-past theories just referred to. Anderson (1973a) suggests that tense markers - of which the English preterite ending is one - may be seen as "merely a reflexion of the specification of the (actual

28

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

or implied) temporal adverbial", adding that he wants to indicate "that there is no reason to suppose that tense is present as such (as a feature of the verb) in underlying (semantic) representations" (Anderson 1973a: 40). Kiparsky (1968a) makes a similar point but argues historically. On the basis of a detailed study of the use of tense - and also mood - in various early Indo-European languages, such as Vedic Sanskrit, Greek, Old Irish and Old Norse, Kiparsky reaches the conclusion that the tenses and moods of the Indo-European languages, which today typically take the form of verbal endings, i.e. features, are derived from separate deep-structure constituents, comparable to adverbials. According to Kiparsky, these constituents were later copied on to the verbs, first optionally, then obligatorily. One major critic of all definite-past theories offered to explain the use of the preterite is McCoard (1978), who rejects the comparison of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite to that between indefinite and definite nomináis for two main reasons (McCoard 1978: 75ff.): (i) the reference of the present perfect can be just as definite as that of the preterite can ever be - as evidence McCoard adduces examples where the present perfect denotes what we are calling time-up-to-zero; and (ii) the concept of defini teness, as typically applied to nomináis, does not in any case fit the normal use of the preterite. As regards the first objection, it is obvious that if one brings in constructions where the present perfect denotes time-up-to-zero, these will usually correspond to definite rather than indefinite nomináis. But then the comparison between the present perfect and the preterite is not very interesting if the reference is to time-up-to-zero, since as a rule only the present perfect is available in such cases. The claim that the preterite differs from the present perfect in having a function similar to that of personal pronouns or of definite noun-headed nomináis is a claim about their distribution when the reference is to time-wholly-in-the-past. McCoard's second objection carries more weight. For a reference to be called definite, he requires "that the referent(s) be one or more discreet [sic] entities with relatively clear boundaries. Furthermore, definite reference requires that the entities referred to be 'known' to the interlocutors, in the sense of being unambiguously fixed within the context of communication." (McCoard 1978: 76) It is immediately clear that if definite reference is so defined as to include a requirement that the referent(s) should be as clearly delimited as the typical referent(s) of a noun phrase, then any theory claiming that preterite verb forms, in contradistinction to present perfect forms, express definite reference can be dismissed out of hand, because any such theory will have to ignore

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

29

a crucial ontological difference between the entities typically referred to by noun phrases and the temporal reference of verb forms. The most characteristic reference of noun phrases is to what Lyons and others call "first-order entities", i.e. physical objects - persons, animals and things - which, as Lyons puts it, under normal conditions "are relatively constant as to their perceptual properties" (Lyons 1977: 443). In most cases such first-order entities are easy to define and delimit. When an indefinite noun form is replaced by either a definite noun-headed nominal or a pronoun, the relationship between the referents of the first and of the second noun phrase is usually one of straightforward identity. When we say either the man or he to refer to somebody who on first mention was referred to by the indefinite noun phrase a man, we are normally referring to identically the same person, neither more nor less. Things can get more complicated when we use a noun phrase to refer to a second-order entity, i.e. en event, process or state of affairs, or a third-order entity, such as a proposition, but in general it holds good that the decision as to whether two noun phrases - be they noun-headed or pronominal - refer to the same entity or to two different entities is normally straightforward. Not so with the temporal reference of verbs. Although the meaning of verbs is closely associated with second-order entities, their temporal reference is of a different nature, and as we have seen, the relationship between the temporal reference of the verb phrase (i.e. of the tense in the case of preterite verb forms) and that of the anchor need not be, and usually is not, one of identity. The relationship is more often characterised by varying degrees of overlap, and sometimes not even that, between less than exactly defined points or periods of time. In our normal use of the language we do not require that the temporal reference of verb phrases should be as clearly delimited as the referents of noun phrases usually are, which is a consequence of the fact that points and periods of time are perceived to be more fluid and less easily definable than the typical referents of noun phrases. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that not all noun phrases denote first-order entities and that those which do not frequently have a reference more similar to the temporal reference of verb phrases. Indeed, a nominal may be used to refer to the reference time of a verb phrase and its anchor, as in the following example: (2:74)

I lived in London for a couple of years in my youth. That time was the best of my life.

It nevertheless remains true that there is a fundamental ontological difference between the reference times of verbs and the typical reference of noun

30

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

phrases. However, McCoard misses the point of the definite-past theories, whose main concern is with the functional distribution of present perfect and preterite verb forms. What these theories claim is that the preterite but not the present perfect (unless denoting time-up-to-zero) functions in linguistic and situational contexts in a way which in important respects is similar to the function of 3rd-person personal pronouns and other definite nomináis. Definite-past theories are thus concerned with the triadic relationship between linguistic form, context and referent rather than exclusively with the nature of the latter. According to e.g. Bar-Hillel (1954) and Stalnaker (1970), this triadic relationship is fundamental to the way language expresses meaning. Hence definite-past theories address themselves more to the second than to the first part of McCoard's definition of definiteness, i.e. to the part saying that "definite reference requires that the entities referred to be 'known' to the interlocutors, in the sense of being unambiguously fixed within the context of communication." Many would maintain that this is the essential characteristic of definite (nominal) reference. Givón (1984: 399) offers the following formulation: "Speakers code a referential nominal as definite if they think that they are entitled to assume that the hearer can - by whatever means - assign it unique reference." Halliday (1985) is more specific and also points to an important difference between nomináis with the and nomináis with other definite determiners: Like the personals, and the other demonstratives, the has a specifying function; it signals 'you know which one(s) I mean'. But there is an important difference. The other items not only signal that the identity is known, or knowable; they state explicitly how the identity is to be established. So my house = 'you know which: the one belonging to me' this house = 'you know which: the one near me' but the house = 'you know which - the information is there somewhere if you look for it' In other words, the merely announces that the identity is specific; it does not specify it. The information is available elsewhere. (Halliday 1985: 292-293)

Halliday's description of the function of the nominal determiner the is sufficiently vague to fit the most typical use of the preterite tense too, with the qualification that the preterite tense signals not only that "the identity is specific" but also that the temporal location is prior to the deictic zeropoint, while the definite nominal marker imposes no similar restrictions on

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

31

the noun in present-day English, where this marker has an invariable form (cf. the gender distinctions expressed by the articles in many other languages, and also in earlier English, where the definite article not only signals that the reference is definite but also indicates the gender of the noun). Strawson (1950, 1971) expresses basically the same view of the definite and indefinite articles: We use 'the' either when a previous reference has been made, and when 'the' signalizes that the same reference is being made; or when, in the absence of a previous indefinite reference, the context (including the hearer's assumed knowledge) is expected to enable the hearer to tell what reference is being made. We use 'a' either when these conditions are not fulfilled, or when, although a definite reference could be made, we wish to keep dark the identity of the individual to whom, or to which, we are referring. (Strawson 1971: 25)

What Strawson has to say about the and a would also be a fairly accurate description of the most typical uses of the preterite and present perfect verb forms, respectively (so long as the reference is to time-wholly-in-the-past).

2.4.2. Anchors and discourse topics So far we have concentrated almost exclusively on constructions where any necessary anchors appear in the immediate linguistic context, usually in the form of temporal adverbials. We need to look at a more varied collection of examples, particularly at some of the forms anchors may take other than that of temporal adverbials. One example where the past-time anchor is not a temporal adverbial is (2:75)

Did you see the Monet exhibition?16

Here the verbal object can be said to provide the anchor for the preterite tense. Constructions where the anchor is expressed by the subject have been more extensively discussed in the literature. There is often claimed to be a pretty straightforward difference of meaning between the members of a pair like (2:76) (2:77)

John has always worked very hard. John always worked very hard.

(2:76) will tend to be used in contexts where it is still possible for John to work hard, i.e. where he is still alive at the very least, while (2:77) will

32

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

be preferred if John's opportunities of working hard belong exclusively to the past. This distinction is readily explainable from the different temporal ranges associated with the present perfect and the preterite. In the case of (2:77) the encoder assumes that the decoder knows that the period during which it was possible for John to work hard belongs exclusively to the past, and this shared knowledge is a sufficient anchor for the use of the preterite. With (2:76) and (2:77) the verbal situation is durative - whether it be conceived as a single state (of John being hard-working) or as a series of iterated activities - to the degree that John's working hard may be held to be co-extensive with his opportunities to work hard, i.e. the verbal situation may be thought of as filling up the entire temporal range associated with the present perfect or the preterite verb form. However, an unspecified preterite can be used also in constructions where the intended reference is clearly to what is merely a limited section of the overall temporal range delimited by the anchor, as witness (2:75) "Did you see the Monet exhibition?". What is the best analysis of the preterite in such cases will be discussed in some detail below (section 2.7.2.2). The most celebrated pair of examples of this kind is probably (2:78) (2:79)

Einstein has visited Princeton. Einstein visited Princeton.

These are among the examples Chomsky (1970: 85) takes up in a brief comment on the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in connection with a wider discussion of constructions where surface structure may seem to influence meaning. According to Chomsky, (2:78) appears to presuppose that Einstein is still alive, whereas the same is not true of the corresponding passive sentence (2:80)

Princeton has been visited by Einstein.

Traugott is even more categorical, claiming that "the subject of the sentence must be alive (or still in existence if an inanimate)" for the use of the present perfect to be appropriate (Traugott 1972: 46). McCawley's (1971) treatment of such constructions is more perceptive. Like Chomsky he addresses himself to Einstein's by now famous relationship with Princeton,17 noting two important points which Chomsky overlooks: (i) that the presuppositions involved are related to topic rather than to subject and that the acceptability distinction between (2:78) and (2:80) is not, therefore, so straightforward as Chomsky contends; and (ii) that in any case the proposition that Einstein is alive is not strictly speaking presupposed by (2:78) but "is merely inferrable from the presupposition . . . plus factual

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

33

knowledge such as the knowledge that one must be alive to visit Princeton" (McCawley 1971: 106). As regards the first point, McCawley notes that the acceptability distinction Chomsky draws between the two sentences presupposes that both are spoken with the most neutral stress pattern, the nuclear stress falling within the last word of each sentence. If instead the first word is given nuclear stress, the acceptability distinction is reversed: "PRINCEton has been visited by Einstein." seems to suggest that Einstein is still alive, whereas "EINstein has visited Princeton." is neutral in this respect. To the extent that such acceptability distinctions are real, it must be precisely because different topics are involved: with sentence-final nuclear stress, the topic will be taken to be the initial element in each sentence, whereas the thematic roles will be reversed if the initial elements are uncharacteristically made to carry the nuclear stress. McCawley illustrates the validity of his second point with the sentence triplet (2:81) (2:82) (2:83)

Frege has contributed a lot to my thinking. Frege has been denounced by many people. Frege has been frightened by many people.

Only the acceptability of (2:83) seems to be in doubt, even if it is assumed that Frege is dead. That must be because one has to be alive to be frightened but not necessarily to be denounced or to contribute to somebody's thinking, for instance through one's writings. In all these cases the acceptability distinction hinges on whether or not the situation involved is seen as being located within a period which extends all the way up to the deictic zero-point. A crucial question is therefore what is meant by the "situation involved". In what we have said about the meaning of the present perfect so far this point has been left rather vague. Some of the examples which have now been brought into the discussion make it clear that the question is worthy of closer attention. Apparently, the situation involved is the same in the case of the two sentences (2:78) "Einstein has visited Princeton." and (2:80) "Princeton has been visited by Einstein.". And yet there seems to be an acceptability distinction between them, or rather, there are differences underlying both sentences which have consequences for the appropriateness of the present perfect verb form. Besides McCawley, Inoue (1975, 1979) has been concerned with this problem. She defines the meaning of the present perfect in time-referential terms, but at the same time she endorses the traditional assertion that the present

34

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

perfect expresses current relevance. However, Inoue's version of current relevance is very different from most traditional versions and is really a specification of what the strictly temporal meaning of the present perfect implies. This part of Inoue's present perfect theory is presented in three stages (Inoue 1979: 574): First, Inoue argues that the constraint of current relevance concerns only the discourse topic, which is defined by its reference "to a proposition about which the speaker is either providing or requesting new information, in this case, by means of a sentence in the present perfect". Secondly, the relationship between the topic proposition, i.e. the proposition expressed by the discourse topic, and the proposition expressed by the sentence containing the present perfect verb is seen as basically one of entailment. Finally, Inoue argues that . . . 'current relevance' is a condition of 'repeatability' on the situation described in the topic proposition. That is, a currently relevant topic refers to a situation which is either being repeated or is repeatable at the time of the speech act. The situation described in a sentence in the present perfect is necessarily non-repeatable, for it is one which occurred prior to the speech time. (Inoue 1979: 574)

One of Inoue's illustrative examples is Chomsky's sentence (2:78) "Einstein has visited Princeton.", which she maintains is fully acceptable if occurring in a context with a repeatable discourse topic. The following discourse topics are all said to permit the use of the present perfect as in (2:78): (2:84) (2:85) (2:86)

Talking about Princeton University having memorable occasions. Talking about the Nobel Prize winners visiting Princeton. Talking about Jewish scholars coming to the United States.

The following discourse topics, on the other hand, are said not to allow the use of the present perfect as in (2:78), provided Einstein is assumed to be dead: (2:87) (2:88)

*Talking about Einstein engaging in various activities. *Talking about Einstein visiting American universities.

(Inoue 1979: 577. Inoue asterisks the last two discourse topics to indicate that they do not go with the present perfect.) As we have seen, Inoue describes the relationship between the proposition expressed by the sentence with the present perfect verb phrase and the proposition underlying the discourse topic as one of entailment, i.e. if it is

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

35

true that Einstein has visited Princeton, then it is also true that Princeton has had memorable occasions, that at least one Nobel Prize winner has visited Princeton, etc., whereas if it is not true that Einstein has visited Princeton, then it may or may not be true that Princeton has had memorable occasions, etc.18 Inoue points out that the entailment relationship holding between the propositions expressed by the sentence with the present perfect verb phrase and by the discourse topic may be "dependent on the speaker's knowledge of the world and his belief in the relevance or relatedness of the two situations represented in the two propositions" (Inoue 1979: 574). Inoue's is a convincing account of the kind of differences that may underlie sentences like (2:78) "Einstein has visited Princeton." and (2:80) "Princeton has been visited by Einstein.". One may nevertheless question the validity of the third element of her theory, the assumption that '"current relevance' is a condition of 'repeatability' on the situation described in the topic proposition" (Inoue 1979: 574 - see above). One consequence of this assumption is the claim that the present perfect cannot be used if the discourse topic refers to a non-repeatable activity. For example, Inoue compares the painting of a bicycle and the building of a bicycle: the former is a repeatable activity, the latter a non-repeatable activity, as is the painting of a picture. One may ask whether these distinctions are really as rigid as Inoue claims. It may seem that Inoue's requirement that for the use of the present perfect to be appropriate the topic proposition should be repeatable at the deictic zeropoint is too strong. For instance, in a conversation about John's completing his thesis - that will then be a non-repeatable discourse topic - it seems wholly appropriate to use a present perfect construction like (2:89)

But John has completed his thesis.

(2:89) and similar examples suggest that the requirement that the discourse topic should refer to a repeatable situation might be weakened to a requirement that the discourse topic should refer to a situation which could be located at any time up to the deictic zero-point, leaving no gap before zero during which the situation could not be located. This is in line with the claim made by Baker (1989: 470-471) that for the present perfect to be acceptable the "potential period of occurrence" of the situation must include the deictic zero-point. Such a theory will predict the same acceptability distinctions as Inoue's theory in respect of a sentence like (2:78) "Einstein has visited Princeton.". The present perfect in (2:78) will still be held to be acceptable if one is talking

36

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

about Princeton having memorable occasions, or the Nobel Prize winners visiting Princeton, or Jewish scholars coming to the United States, but not if one is talking about Einstein engaging in various activities or Einstein visiting American universities: the first three topics involve situations which can be located at any time up to the deictic zero-point, whereas with the last two topics this is not the case, provided Einstein is assumed to be dead. This is an important specification of the present perfect theory outlined at the beginning of this chapter (section 2.1.2): the situation that should be capable of being located at any time up to the deictic zero-point is not necessarily the situation denoted by the present perfect sentence itself, but rather the situation of the discourse topic. This theory now seems to be formulated with sufficient generality to take care of the more special cases that have been discussed in the literature. We have already considered some such cases. We shall take a look at a couple more. Jespersen (1931) discusses the sentence (2:90)

Newton has explained the movements of the moon.

where the present perfect seems fully acceptable, although the preterite might be expected to be used by anyone familiar with the fact that Newton is dead and has been so for some time. Jespersen's solution is to regard this as an exception to the rule that "in speaking of dead people the preterit is necessary", since here "the reference is to the result as affecting the present day" (Jespersen 1931: 66). Jespersen thus takes (2:90) to imply that Newton's explanation "is still known or thought to be correct". On the other hand, a preterite sentence like (2:91)

Newton explained the movements of the moon from the attraction of the earth.

"would imply that the explanation has since been given up" (Jespersen 1931: 66). This can now be seen to be just a special instance of the general theory we have developed to explain the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite, which says that the present perfect will be used whenever the situation referred to in the discourse topic is seen as capable of being located anywhere within a period which extends all the way up to the deictic zeropoint. According to this theory, (2:90) will be acceptable if the discourse topic is explanations of the movements of the moon currently held to be valid but not if it is explanations which have now been given up, as Jespersen maintains. However, (2:90) will also be acceptable if for instance the

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

37

discourse topic is great scientific advances but not if it is Newton's various activities. Consider another set of examples. Lyons contrasts the three sentences (2:92) (2:93) (2:94)

Christ tells us to love our neighbour. Christ has told us to love our neighbour. Christ told us to love our neighbour.

and maintains that if the speaker chooses (2:92) or (2:93) rather than (2:94), "he can be held to have implicated that Christ's injunction or exhortation had, and still retains, a certain authority and validity" (Lyons 1981b: 211). We shall concentrate on the opposition between (2:93) and (2:94). Again the difference can be explained in terms of discourse topics: (2:93) seems likely to be preferred if the topic is for instance moral obligations held to be valid, (2:94) if the topic (for example as given by the preceding context) is Christ's sayings and activities on earth. It should be noted that one discourse topic does not, of course, imply the denial of the content of another: somebody who is "either providing or requesting new information" (cf. Inoue's definition of discourse topic) about Christ's sayings on earth can very well hold that these are still valid. This points to a weakness in Lyons' explanation: there need not be any conflict between uttering (2:94) and holding to the view that what Christ said still retains "a certain authority and validity". One would think that the motivation for uttering a sentence like (2:94) would often be precisely to point out that one thinks this moral obligation is still valid. Thus it is clearly more satisfactory to explain the difference in terms of discourse topics. Another pair of examples illustrating the difference between the present perfect and the preterite in such cases is (2:95) (2:96)

Shakespeare has written some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language. Shakespeare wrote some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language.

Both of these seem perfectly acceptable. To explain the difference along the lines suggested by Lyons for (2:93) and (2:94), saying that (2:95) but not (2:96) implies that Shakespeare's poetry is still held to be among the most beautiful in the English language, would be totally inappropriate. Instead the difference is explainable in terms of discourse topics: (2:95) may occur if the topic is for example English poetry, (2:96) will be preferred if it is for example Shakespeare's activities.

38

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Obviously, this difference can be a very vague one in cases where context does not clearly determine any one specific discourse topic, for instance if both Shakespeare and English poetry in general have been mentioned in the preceding context (quite apart from the fact that the subject Shakespeare may function as a past-time anchor in its own right and thus serve to establish a new discourse topic). In many kinds of text such diversity of related discourse topics is probably the rule rather than the exception. The encoder will then be left with a fairly free choice between the present perfect and the preterite (obviously not a conscious choice in most cases). The choice he makes will reflect what topic is uppermost in his mind at the time of utterance: one functioning as a past-time anchor, making for the use of the preterite, or one involving a situation which may be located at any time up to the deictic zero-point, leading to the selection of the present perfect. Sometimes it becomes clear that the language requires a certain correspondence between the temporal extension of the verbal situation and that associated with the anchor, as demonstrated by the acceptability distinction between (2:97)

Shakespeare was a drunkard.

and (2:98)

*Shakespeare was drunk.

assuming no further anchor is expressed or implied by the wider context. (2:98) strikes one as unacceptable, because the predicate seems to refer to a particular event - one that cannot very well have lasted for anything like the whole of Shakespeare's lifetime - and no appropriate anchor for such a situation is available. (2:97) is not likely to be taken to refer to the whole of Shakespeare's lifetime either, but here the predicate expresses a general characterisation of the subject referent, and that is sufficient for the past lifetime of this referent to function as the sole anchor of the preterite verb form; as in so many other cases, nothing like complete temporal coincidence is required. Thus (2:99)

Shakespeare was often drunk.

is also acceptable without any further temporal specification. Here the frequency adverb signals that the situation is quantified over the temporal range implied by the subject, the reference being general rather than specific. However, the acceptability distinctions involved do not depend merely on whether the reference is general or specific. In (2:100) the reference is apparently specific:

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

(2:100)

39

Shakespeare said that the quality of mercy is not strained.

It can easily be argued that this reference is only pseudo-specific: that Shakespeare continued to say the same thing, and still does, through his enduring writings (cf. the possibility of using the present perfect or even the simple present in (2:100)). The following sentence is more difficult to explain along these lines: (2:101)

Shakespeare left his wife.

And yet this sentence seems fully acceptable as it stands, without any further temporal specification provided by context, in spite of the fact that the intended temporal reference cannot be viewed as anything other than specific and highly limited in its extension. What, then, is the difference between (2:101) and (2:98) "Shakespeare was drunk." that makes one acceptable, the other not (unless a further anchor is provided by context)? It seems that an important factor in such cases is whether the reference is to what can be considered a single situation. To be drunk is a situation which is capable of being repeated any number of times, whereas to leave one's wife in the intended sense is something one can normally do only once (once in respect of each wife at any rate). Hence with a predicate like that of (2:98) one expects a temporal specification not only of when the situation took place - a rough indication of that is provided by the subject - but also of how many times it occurred. In this case the temporal reference of the anchor is so wide as to leave the question of quantification completely open. That no such specification is offered appears to be sufficient reason for the sentence to come out as unacceptable. With (2:101), on the other hand, the situation is assumed to have occurred only once, so that no temporal quantification is felt to be missing, and the temporal association with Shakespeare's lifetime is a sufficient anchor for the preterite verb form.

2.4.3. Unique reference and minimal sentences In all the examples we have considered so far of the preterite used without adverbial specification (and no other anchor assumed to be given by the context beyond the sentence) there has been some other constituent acting as past-time anchor, in most cases the subject. However, the preterite is frequently used without any such expressed anchor; (2:102) is perfectly acceptable without any further contextual anchoring:

40 (2:102)

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The telephone was invented by Alexander Bell.

Another example of the same type (assuming Mary is still alive at the time of speaking) is (2:103)

Mary was born in Scotland.

In (2:102) and (2:103) the subjects do not act as anchors associated with time-wholly-in-the-past: the telephone is still with us, and Mary is still alive. And yet this is a perfectly normal, and obviously very common, use of the preterite verb form. The speaker of (2:102) need not have the faintest idea when the telephone was invented, or when Alexander Bell lived, nor need the speaker of (2:103) have any very precise knowledge of Mary's age. The temporal reference of the preterite verb form here cannot be regarded as definite in the sense that it is determinable - even vaguely - from the linguistic or situational context. What seems to characterise (2:102) and (2:103), and distinguish them from similar sentences where the preterite cannot so easily be used (such as (2:1) "John was drunk."), is rather that part of the situation referred to by the predicate - although not its temporal location - can be looked upon as given: since it is a fact that the telephone exists, it must have been invented at one (and usually only one) time in the past (although not necessarily by Alexander Bell); since it is a fact that Mary lives, she must have been born at one (and only one) time in the past (although not necessarily in Scotland): the past occurrence of the events denoted by (2:102) and (2:103) is implied by the present validity of the states resulting from them. Hence the reference can be said to be to unique past time. That is evidently sufficient to open the way for the use of the preterite without further specification. The notion of unique reference can be extended to cover cases such as the following, where Leech (1971: 37) argues that underlying when-cisMses can be posited: (2:104) (2:105)

Who gave you this tie? I went to school with Ted Heath.

There seems to be no more reason to introduce underlying when-clauses into these constructions than there is with other preterite sentences. The situations may rather be seen as unique, in the sense that one (and only one) past occurrence of each underlying situation can be regarded as given, even if their (exact) temporal location may be unknown: the speaker of (2:104) assumes that somebody must have given the tie to its present owner, who apparently is not the type who would go and buy himself a new tie paying

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

41

out of his own pocket, or perhaps the tie is one that the owner would not be expected to have chosen himself; likewise, the speaker of (2:105) takes it for granted that his interlocutor will understand that at some time in the past he must have gone to school, so that again the past occurrence of the situation can be treated as a given fact. Thus the use of the preterite seems to impose a vague, general condition of givenness on the verbal situation: either its temporal location must be given, by the linguistic or the situational context, or, if not, then the underlying verbal situation must itself be regarded as given, because it is assumed to be a fact that it must have occurred once - and only once - in the past; this is the meaning summed up by the term "unique" past-time reference. This explanation can be seen to fit in with the general theory of the difference between the present perfect and the preterite outlined above: it is reasonable that a past situation regarded as given is viewed as temporally fixed rather than temporally mobile. Hence it cannot be seen as located within a period extending all the way up to the deictic zero-point, and the use of the present perfect is blocked. It should further be borne in mind that even in cases where a preterite verb form is accompanied by a temporal specifier in the same clause, the temporal location may be highly indeterminate. This is seen in a sentence like (2:106)

I was once on the brink of death.

which may be said in a context which does not contain any closer specification of when this was, so that the highly indefinite adverb once provides the sole anchor for the use of the preterite. As with the unique use of the preterite, the temporal location of the verbal situation remains unknown. The circumstances in which a preterite verb form can be used without specification to refer to what can reasonably be called unique past time are worth looking into more closely, as is the question what exactly is meant by the "underlying situation" that we have referred to, i.e. the situation whose past occurrence can be inferred from the ensuing state. Consider the following examples, assumed to be uttered in contexts which do not supply any suitable past-time anchors: (2:107) (2:108)

?Lincoln died. Lincoln was assassinated.

Assuming the reference is understood to be to the 19th-century American president, (2:108) seems perfectly acceptable without any further temporal specification even if uttered more than a century after the event, while (2:107) is odd in that context. And yet both refer to a past-time event which initiates

42

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

a state known to be valid at the moment of utterance. Why then the difference in acceptability? Consider also (2:109): (2:109)

?Mary was born.

This sentence is again of doubtful acceptability (assuming no indication of time or place is implied), unlike (2:103) "Mary was born in Scotland.". The reason why (2:107) and (2:109) strike one as odd must be that they do not assert anything - they merely say what is presupposed. Anyone familiar with the fact that Lincoln lived in the 19th century can be expected to presuppose that Lincoln must now, a century later, have died, just as anyone who knows that Mary is now alive can be expected to presuppose that she must have been born at some time in the past. (2:107) and (2:109) are both what may be termed "minimal sentences": they do no more than denote events whose past occurrence can be inferred from the validity of the ensuing states; to die is an inceptive event relative to the state of being dead, and it is a minimal event relative to that state; similarly with the event of being born relative to the state of being alive. What these minimal sentences refer to is precisely the "underlying situations" that we have pointed to. By contrast, the acceptable sentences refer to non-minimal situations. To be assassinated/to be born in Scotland are also inceptive events relative to the state of being dead/alive, but these predicates are non-minimal, in the sense that they add semantic specification to the minimal events that can be inferred from the ensuing states. It follows that (2:107) will become fully acceptable if for instance a temporal specification is added, because it will then contain an asserted section, not only the presupposition, rendering it non-minimal: (2:110)

Lincoln died in 1865.

What characterises acceptable preterite sentences of this set is: (i) the sentence denotes a transitional event; (ii) the ensuing state is held to be currently valid; and (iii) the sentence is non-minimal, in the sense that it adds semantic specification to the minimal event implied by the state mentioned under (ii). Some of the examples we have considered earlier can also be seen to satisfy these criteria. Sentence (2:102) "The telephone was invented by Alexander Bell.", for instance, is also non-minimal: the invention of the telephone is a minimal event whose past occurrence is implied by the telephone's present existence, but the interest is instead focused on the agent, Alexander Bell, which is the new information asserted by the utterance of the sentence. Sim-

The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite

43

ilarly, with (2:104) "Who gave you this tie?" the focus of attention is again on the agent, denoted by the interrogative who. Preterite sentences like (2:111) (2:112)

Philadelphia was founded by William Penn. Ben Jonson wrote Volpone.

also belong to this set. If the existence of Philadelphia/the play Volpone is considered a present state, then the event initiating the state will be regarded as unique and as located at a past time clearly separate from the deictic zeropoint. It should be noted that the use of an unspecified preterite is straightforward even in (2:111), which does not, strictly speaking, express unique past time in the same sense as the others, since cities may well exist without having been founded by anyone in this sense. It is as if the implication here is that if Philadelphia was founded by someone, then that must have happened once, and only once, in the past, so that the various criteria for unique past-time reference are satisfied. The use of the preterite to express unique past time has nothing to do with whether the referent of the subject is assumed still to be alive at the deictic zero-point or with what the encoder otherwise knows, and expects the decoder to know, about the exact temporal location of the situation referred to. Thus the preterite will also be required in a sentence referring for instance to a contemporary playwright: (2:113)

Tom Stoppard wrote Dirty Linen.

(The possible complications which follow from the fact that the discourse topic may involve another situation than that referred to directly by the sentence under consideration have already been discussed.) In some closely related constructions the state ensuing from the transitional event is not held to be currently valid but is assumed to have been valid in the past: (2:114) (2:115)

Carthage was founded by the Phoenicians. Lincoln was born in Illinois.

It is noteworthy that the requirement on this use of the unspecified preterite that the event should be unique is the converse of Inoue's requirement on the situation represented in the discourse topic of a present perfect construction that it should be repeatable at the deictic zero-point, which we have weakened to a requirement that the situation should be capable of being located at any time up to zero. In either case it is clear that this requirement is not met by constructions of the type we have been concerned with in this section,

44

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

which is why the present perfect would be unacceptable in these constructions. If any one of the three characteristics we have listed as criterial of this type of construction does not hold, the use of the preterite is normally blocked (unless it is allowed for some other reason, such as the occurrence of a pasttime anchor in the wider context). We have already seen what happens if the third criterion is violated, i.e. if the sentence is minimal (as in the case of (2:107) ?"Lincoln died."). If (ii) is not satisfied, i.e. if the ensuing state is not held to be (or have been) valid, there will be nothing to separate the temporal location from the deictic zero-point. In some cases an unspecified preterite occurs without any apparent anchoring and without the conditions for unique past-time reference being met. Such uses of the preterite often introduce a sequence of past events. This example is from S alkie (1989: 5): (2:116)

My mother fell on the ice outside our supermarket and broke her hip. They hadn 't even bothered to put salt down. Can we sue for damages? (Letter to the Daily Express)

The predicate in such preterite constructions typically serves to draw up the background to a situation that the following context is concerned with. It may seem as if the fact that the situation denoted by the initial preterite verb was followed by other (possibly potential) situations which also belong to the past works as a sufficient indication that the temporal range does not extend up to the deictic zero-point for the preterite to be selected rather than the present perfect. Since such predicates are associated with a following sequence of events, they can be assumed normally to be telic, or bounded (see below, section 2.6) This rather loose preterite use belongs chiefly to colloquial, often spoken, English, where it can probably be quite frequent. It should further be seen in the light of the claim that the preterite is sometimes used in American English where British English would prefer the present perfect (see e.g. Harris 1991: 206 and Vanneck 1958). The various kinds of indirect anchoring that may be associated with preterite verb forms, and the extent to which the preterite is used without any identifiable anchoring, in British and American English, are among the topics we shall be concerned with when we come to look at the collected data in Chapter 3.19

Different thematic functions of the present perfect and the preterite

45

2.5. Different thematic functions of the present perfect and the preterite 2.5.1. Given and new, presupposition and assertion It follows from the different requirements they impose on context in terms of past-time anchors that the present perfect and the preterite can be expected often to perform different thematic functions, for instance in respect of the distinction between presupposed and asserted information, or the related but not identical distinction between given and new information. This is an area of contemporary linguistics where terminology is very far from settled. Allerton (1978) has this to say about the relationship between the given/new opposition on the one hand and the presupposed/asserted opposition on the other hand: . . . givenness refers to something that the listener himself is required to reconstruct the precise details of, and usually applies to individual parts of sentences (e.g. noun phrases); while presuppositions apply to complete or incomplete propositions that the speaker asks the listener to assume to be true for the purposes of the current sentence (if only for the sake of argument). (Allerton 1978: 134-136)

One may thus speak of clause elements referring to given or new information, and also of the presupposed and the asserted part, or scope, of a sentence, i.e. the parts which are or are not associated with a presupposed proposition. The two distinctions are not independent of each other, as the part of a sentence which is associated with a presupposed proposition is more likely to contain references to given information than the asserted part, although all combinations are possible (see Allerton 1978: 151-156). We have already considered some examples where a preterite verb form clearly comes under the scope of presupposition, in constructions where the verb itself refers to what we are calling a minimal situation. Two of these examples are (2:102) (2:103)

The telephone was invented by Alexander Bell. Mary was born in Scotland.

In both (2:102) and (2:103) the scope of assertion may well consist of the final adverbial only, a passive èy-phrase and a locative adverbial, respectively. While preterite verbs may freely occur under either the scope of presupposition or the scope of assertion, present perfect verbs seem likely more often to come under the scope of assertion, and also to be associated with

46

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

new rather than given information, so long as the reference is to time-whollyin-the-past, because if the verb is linked with a presupposed proposition, the past occurrence of the situation referred to (or sometimes the corresponding minimal situation) will often be regarded as given and the preterite be selected instead. If the reference is to time-up-to-zero, even present perfect verbs are commonly used in references to presupposed information. For example, in the case of a sentence like (2:117)

/'ve lived here since 1963.

said in a context where the speaker expects the addressee to know that the speaker is living "here" at the moment of utterance, the reference of the present perfect verb can be regarded as part of a presupposed proposition, the asserted, new information being the temporal specification since 1963. Givón (1984) is concerned with the amount of new information likely to be conveyed by each clause or sentence. His "One-Chunk-Per-Clause" processing principle reads as follows: The majority of sentences/clauses in connected discourse will have only one chunk - be it a nominal, predicate (verb, adjective) or adverbial word/phrase under the scope of asserted new information. All other elements in the clause will tend to be topical, background or presupposed old information. (Givón 1984: 258)

Clearly, there are many cases where this principle does not hold. Socalled "hot news" uses of the present perfect (see below, section 2.8.3) are characterised by the major part of the sentence, frequently the whole sentence, coming under the scope of assertion, as in (2:118)

The president has been assassinated/

If the president's assassination is presupposed, the point of uttering the sentence may be for instance to assert the temporal location of this situation, in which case only the preterite is normally available: (2:119)

President

Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November

1963.

Sometimes a present perfect verb used in a reference to what should probably be classified as time-wholly-in-the-past may also fall under the scope of presupposition. One example might be (2:120)

/'ve written the conclusion today.

Different thematic functions of the present perfect and the preterite

47

which could be said in a context where it is assumed that the speaker writes something every day, so that the present perfect verb would again be under the scope of presupposition. Furthermore, a present perfect verb will sometimes repeat a given discourse topic, as when (2:78) "Einstein has visited Princeton." is said in a context where the discourse topic is "Jewish scholars visiting American universities", so that the asserted, new information is Einstein and Princeton. In all these present perfect constructions the reference is to time-wholly-inthe-past and the present perfect verb can be said to express given information and refer to part of a presupposed proposition. It nevertheless seems likely that the present perfect more commonly than the preterite expresses new, asserted information.

2.5.2. Grounding The distinction between asserted and presupposed information may be related to distinctions which in some treatments of text or discourse structure have been discussed in terms of grounding. Particularly concerned with the relationship between clauses in complex sentences, Talmy (1978) takes over the distinction between Figure and Ground from Gestalt psychology. He associates Figure events with main clauses and Ground events with subordinate clauses, and maintains that "Figure and Ground, applied to events, are very near, if not the same as, 'assertion' and 'presupposition' for propositions, and constitute a generalization of these notions because of their applying as well to object referents" (Talmy 1978: 632). Hopper - Thompson (1980) concentrate on larger units of text, mainly narrative discourse (see also Hopper 1979a, 1979b). Here the main distinction is between foregrounding and backgrounding, a distinction which is claimed to be "perhaps the most basic one that can be drawn" in text analysis (Hopper - Thompson 1980: 280 f.n.). The authors note that language users "are constantly required to design their utterances in accord with their own communicative goals and with their perception of their listeners' needs", and then go on to define background as "That part of a discourse which does not immediately and crucially contribute to the speaker's goal, but which merely assists, amplifies, or comments on it", while foreground is "the material which supplies the main points of the discourse" (Hopper - Thompson 1980: 280), such that "the foregrounded portions together comprise the backbone or skeleton of the text, forming its basic structure" (Hopper - Thompson 1980: 281).

48

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

As usually defined, foregrounded clauses differ from backgrounded clauses in normally being ordered in a sequence corresponding to the temporal sequence of the events they refer to. Hence the position of a foregrounded clause relative to other foregrounded clauses in a narrative may be of crucial importance to the meaning of the discourse. Being a link in a sequence has consequences for the temporal characteristics of an event in foregrounding: it will be bounded at its beginning by the termination of the preceding event and at its end by the initiation of the next event in the sequence. Such events will typically be reported as perfective, and they tend to be telic (bounded). By contrast, events in backgrounding are presented as on-going, repeated, or simultaneous with foregrounded events, and they are less often telic (Hopper - Thompson 1980: 286). Clearly, the formal category most obviously expressing such differences in the English verb phrase is the progressive/non-progressive contrast: the typical verb form of foregrounded clauses in narrative discourse is the nonprogressive preterite, while the preterite progressive form is commonly used to signal that the reported event is outside the main temporal sequence of the discourse and thus backgrounded. However, other verb forms may also perform that latter function, for example the pluperfect: (2:121)

Ten years ago her husband died. She had never really liked the house they (had) bought when they married, so she decided to sell it.

Here died and decided are foregrounded. The fact that it is possible to have the preterite in the relative clause they (had) bought and that this is the only likely verb form in the following temporal clause when they married is evidence that the preterite may also function in backgrounding. Sometimes a present perfect verb can have a similar function to that of the pluperfect in (2:121): (2:122)

On Friday night John called and asked us to join him for a week at his mountain cottage. We have always loved the mountains at this time of the year, so we gladly accepted the invitation.

Frequently, however, the present perfect has a narrative function which must be classified as foregrounded rather than backgrounded. That is the case when a present perfect verb occurs in the first link in a sequence of past-time references, as it commonly does if this first link is not associated with any past-time anchor:

Different thematic functions of the present perfect and the preterite

(2:123)

49

Mary has inherited a house from an uncle. It came as a complete surprise.

Here the initial present perfect form establishes the past-time anchor required by the preterite form in the second sentence (and any subsequent sentences which are part of the same sequence). In such cases the present perfect functions as what Werlich (1983: 61) calls a "lead-in" tense. It may be questioned whether such sequences, consisting of an initial unspecified present perfect followed by one or more preterite verbs referring to the same time, are quite parallel to sequences initiated by a (specified) preterite. With constructions initiated by the present perfect the preterite forms following the present perfect form may often seem to re-refer to the same time rather than to refer to a sequence of subsequent times. If the reference is to events which are clearly separate in time, a construction consisting of only preterite forms may be more likely. Constructions with two (or more) consecutive present perfect forms also occur: (2:124)

Mary has inherited a house from an uncle. She has decided to sell it.

In (2:124) the two events, denoted by has inherited and has decided, form a clear temporal sequence. It would seem difficult to replace the second of these present perfect forms with a preterite form, evidently because the second situation (that denoted by has decided) can be located at any time between the first situation and the deictic zero-point. It is a matter of taste whether the concept of a sequence of past events should be extended to include cases where the sequence consists of just one element. In any case the present perfect is frequently used in such isolated references to past time. It thus seems clear that the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite is related to the distinction between backgrounded and foregrounded information in that in narrative discourse the preterite is commonly used in what would be classified as foregrounded clauses, while the present perfect often occurs in backgrounding. However, the present perfect can also be used in foregrounding, the most typical verb form conveying backgrounded information being the preterite progressive.20

50

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

2.6. Aspectual character So far we have discussed the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite without making any consistent distinction between different kinds of verbs or predicates. And yet it is evident that the temporal meaning of a predicate will depend not only on the chosen verb form and various features occurring in the wider context, but also on the inherent nature of the verb or predicate itself.21 The distinctions that may be relevant are such as those between stative and dynamic, telic (goal-orientated) and atelic, durative and punctual, etc. The discussion of oppositions of this kind can be traced all the way back to Aristotle, but in recent linguistics it is especially Vendler (1967) that has been influential.22 Many linguists would treat such oppositions under the label "Aktionsarten", but following Lyons (1977) we shall prefer the term "aspectual character". The fundamental difference between aspect and aspectual character, as these terms are generally used, is that aspect refers to a grammaticalised opposition, such as the progressive/non-progressive distinction in English, whereas aspectual character is concerned with lexical differences inherent in the verb itself or expressed by the wider linguistic context.23 Vendler's by now classic article makes a fourfold distinction between state terms, activity terms, accomplishment terms and achievement terms. Vendler claims that states and achievements are characterised by not accepting progressive aspect in English, but that is a highly unreliable test, and many of the predicates he places in these classes occur freely in the progressive. Even though Vendler's definitions can be, and have been, attacked, the aspectual classes he sets up have been found useful by a number of subsequent writers. One important criterion distinguishing between these aspectual classes is the telic/atelic distinction, closely related to the distinction between bounded and unbounded situations or predicates, which are the terms we shall prefer. The latter pair of terms emphasise the fact that this distinction has to do with whether or not the situation can be associated with distinct temporal endpoints. Achievements and accomplishments are bounded, activities and states are unbounded. 24 A common test question to distinguish between the two types is "If one is interrupted while V-ing, has one then V-ed?". 25 If the answer is no, the predicate is bounded; if it is yes, the predicate is unbounded. Hence "to drown" will be a bounded predicate, "to sleep" will be unbounded; "to write a letter" will be bounded, "to write letters" unbounded.

Aspectual character

51

At the syntactic level, the difference is manifested in the kind of temporal specifier the predicate will take: bounded predicates can normally be modified by in- or αί-phrases, unbounded predicates by /or-phrases. Aspectual classes at least broadly similar to the ones Vendler operates with can be described as follows: Achievements are situations which can be looked upon as momentary, hence they are bounded. The predicates used to refer to them take temporal specifiers of type "at . . . " ("She finished the article at 3 o'clock."). Accomplishments are durative and bounded. The corresponding predicates take temporal specifiers of type "in . . . " (as do some achievements). "She wrote the article in five hours." is an example of an accomplishment. The distinction between activities and states is sometimes difficult to draw. Both are unbounded and both combine with temporal adverbials of the set "for . . . " ("She worked for three hours.'V'She lived in England for three years."). The fundamental temporal difference between the two classes is that states have a stable, unchanging internal structure, activities do not, although this distinction is often less than clear-cut, but then the same can be said of the distinction within the bounded group, between achievements and accomplishments. Vendler himself is aware that not all verb phrases or predicates will fit neatly into any one of his four categories. In the context of this study it is important to note that aspectual character is determined not necessarily by the verb phrase alone, and not even by the predicate alone as that term is normally employed: all constituents, including the subject, may influence what we are calling the aspectual character. 26 That the number of the verbal object may render the predicate either bounded or unbounded is a frequently noted fact: "write a letter" will normally be bounded, "write letters" unbounded, as we have already seen. The function of the number of the object noun phrase in such cases is to indicate whether the reference is to a single situation or to a series of repeated situations. What is often overlooked is that it is not the singular/plural opposition in itself that is important here but rather the distinction between specific and unspecific number or quantity. Thus "write three letters", with a plural object but one where the number is nevertheless specific, will usually be a bounded predicate. With a vaguer object like "many letters" or "several letters" the status of the predicate in terms of the bounded/unbounded contrast will be more uncertain. McCoard (1978: 142) points out that the number of the subject may have a similar effect to that of the object: (2:125)

The guests arrived from town for two hours.

52

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

is fine, he says. In this construction the plurality of the subject renders an otherwise bounded situation unbounded. And it is not only the number of the nomináis that can be significant. In the following examples it is the lexical nature of the subject that is decisive (the examples are from Langacker 1982: 274): (2:126) (2:127) (2:128) (2:129)

Sally went from Phoenix to Tucson, (bounded) This road goes from Phoenix to Tucson, (unbounded) The crowd divided into two groups, (bounded) This artery divides into two main branches, (unbounded)

Here the verbs (go and divide, respectively) are ambiguous, and the subjects, with support from the rest of the sentence in each case, function to disambiguate them. That the number of syntactic elements included in the predicate will often affect its aspectual character is emphasised by Dowty (1986). Using Vendler's terminology, he sees a sentence like (2:130)

John was walking to the station.

as containing three aspectual classes: "The lexical verb walk is an activity. The verb phrase walk to the station is an accomplishment . . . , and the sentence as a whole is a stative because of its progressive tense." (Dowty 1986: 44) Many would say that Dowty's last observation is a matter of aspect rather than aspectual class or character: that (2:130) has a bounded (accomplishment) predicate ("walk to the station"), which is reported as imperfective by the use of the progressive verb form. Semantically, however, there can be no clear distinction between aspect and aspectual character: for a reference to be bounded it is necessary both that the predicate itself is bounded and that the aspect is perfective, i.e. non-progressive in the case of English. The progressive verb form has the effect of turning an otherwise bounded predicate into an unbounded one: "She wrote a letter." is bounded, "She was writing a letter." is unbounded. For other reasons, too, the bounded/unbounded distinction can be less than straightforward. A predicate like "wet one's lips" may be given either a bounded or an unbounded reading, corresponding to the paraphrases "make one's lips wet" and "make one's lips wetter", respectively. Constructions like these abound in the language. In many cases they should probably be regarded as semantically vague rather than ambiguous. We shall see what effect, if any, the distinction between bounded and unbounded predicates may have in present perfect and in preterite constructions.

Aspectual character

53

2.6.1. Aspectual character in present perfect constructions When appearing in present perfect constructions, both bounded and unbounded predicates may occur with or without specification: (2:9) (2:131) (2:35) (2:132)

John John John John

has has has has

been drunk. finished his book. been drunk ever since he came here. finished his book since I saw you last.

With both types of predicate zero specification normally means that the verbal situation is located at some undetermined time in the past. With a specifier of the since set, on the other hand, there is a difference in temporal meaning: an unbounded predicate, such as the one in (2:35), will usually be taken to mean that the verbal situation extends all the way up to the deictic zero-point, unless there are contextual signals to the contrary. Most bounded predicates cannot so easily be given a strict up-to-zero reading. A bounded situation will not normally be reported in either the present perfect or the preterite until it is completed, i.e. has reached its terminal point or goal. Hence the temporal reference will not strictly speaking extend up to the deictic zero-point. Often the situation will be located at some distance into the past, as in the case of (2:132), although sometimes the reference will virtually extend up to zero, as when a happy student exclaims (2:133) as he puts his pen down: (2:133)

/'ve finished my paper!

Sometimes a present-tense verb form will more naturally be used to report what is seen as a bounded situation completed exactly at zero ("Charlton scores his third goal in a row."), or the progressive present if the situation is regarded as still incomplete at the deictic zero-point ("Wolverhampton are winning their third match in a row."). Thus, if a situation is located wholly in the past, that situation may be reported by a present perfect verb form regardless of whether it is bounded or unbounded. If, on the other hand, a situation extends from the past all the way up to zero, and possibly into the future, the use of the present perfect is generally straightforward only with unbounded predicates; with bounded predicates the simple present or the present progressive will sometimes be selected instead. In practice, however, the distinction between time-up-to-zero and timewholly-in-the-past will often be blurred. In the following examples it is difficult to say that the temporal reference is clearly one or the other:

54 (2:134) (2:135)

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

He has grown to be a young man. The situation has developed into something of a nightmare.

These situations must be classified as bounded; there is no specification; and yet the reference may well be to what can be seen as time-up-to-zero. When the reference is to an indefinite number of repeated situations, the combined situation will usually be unbounded. In such cases, too, it can be difficult to draw any hard and fast line between time-wholly-in-the-past and time-up-to-zero: (2:136)

They've been there lots of times.

(2:137) is another example where an unspecified present perfect may be used of time-up-to-zero: (2:137)

She's lived a good life.

2.6.2. Aspectual character in preterite constructions In preterite constructions the bounded/unbounded opposition is less significant from our point of view. With either type of predicate the reference will normally be to time located wholly in the past. However, differences of aspectual character may influence the temporal relationship holding between the situation referred to by the preterite verb form and the anchor to which that verb form is attached, as illustrated by the following examples: (2:138) (2:139) (2:140)

We had dinner at six o'clock. She knew the answer at six o'clock. He finished the letter at six o'clock.

In (2:138) the punctual anchor is likely to be associated with the inception of the durative verbal situation and in (2:139) with its middle section, while in (2:140) the verbal situation as well as the anchor will probably be seen as punctual and be taken to coincide (albeit not necessarily in a strict sense).

2.7. Tense logic Numerous attempts have been made during the past few decades to account for the intricacies of tense and aspect within the framework of formal logic.

Tense logic

55

2.7.1. Reichenbach An early attempt to account for these intricacies within such a framework was made by Reichenbach (1947). Although Reichenbach's account is in principle universal, his main concern is with English. The chief characteristic of Reichenbach's approach to the analysis of tense is his consistent distinction between the "point of speech" (S), the "point of the event" (E), and the "point of reference" (R). The point of speech is of course identical with the deictic zero-point (real or imagined), and the point of the event with the point or period of time at which the verbal situation is located. Reichenbach offers no explicit definition of the term "point of reference", but his examples and comments make it clear that this is conceived as a point of time from which the event is seen or described. Often the point of reference will be expressed linguistically by a temporal adverbial, as in a typical preterite sentence, such as (2:141)

I saw John

(yesterday)

(Reichenbach gives this and other examples without adverbial or other specifiers.) In (2:141) the point of reference, denoted by yesterday, would be said to coincide with the point of the event, denoted by saw. Reichenbach (1947: 290) uses the timeline to illustrate such temporal relationships: (2:141)

/ saw John

R,E

(yesterday).

S

In this theory the present perfect differs from the preterite in that with the present perfect the point of the event precedes the point of reference, which instead coincides with the point of speech, as in (2:142)

I have seen John.

E

S,R

Reichenbach's analyses thus reflect the different requirements that the present perfect and the preterite place on the linguistic or non-linguistic context in respect of temporal specification, although Reichenbach himself does not go into detail about these consequences.

56

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The idea of a reference point to account for distinctions between verb forms was not new. Jespersen had made use of a similar concept to explain the socalled "subordinate times" (Jespersen 1931: 2, 1933: 231), such as the ones expressed by the "pluperfect" and the "future perfect", exemplified by (2:143) and (2:144), respectively. On Reichenbach's timelines these constructions would come out as indicated by the following diagrams: (2:143)

I had seen John

E (2:144)

(yesterday).

R

S

I shall have seen John (by then).

S

E

R

In these cases, where S, E and R are all separate, the need for a reference point in addition to the point of speech and the point of the event is more obvious than in the cases where two of the three points coincide, as with the present perfect and the preterite. Reichenbach's main contribution to the discussion of the ways in which verb forms express time was to point out that the apparently more straightforward forms can be analysed in a similar fashion. As regards the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite, Reichenbach's account is in broad agreement with the theory developed in this study: the preterite differs from the present perfect in usually combining with a past reference point - or anchor - separate from S, i.e. the deictic zero-point. Unfortunately, Reichenbach has next to nothing to say about the ways in which his reference points may be expressed by the language. The one specific claim he makes is demonstrably false. Expounding what he calls the "positional use of the reference point", which, he claims, "at least, is followed by the English language", he says without reservation that if a temporal specifier is present, it will determine the reference point rather than the event (Reichenbach 1947: 294). Clearly, this is wrong, as shown by specified pluperfect constructions, which are commonly ambiguous between a reading with event specification and one with reference-point specification; cf. (2:145)

I had met him on Tuesday.

Tense logic

57

which can mean that the meeting took place either on Tuesday or before that time. Reichenbach's assumption that a temporal specifier invariably modifies the reference point is probably inspired by the restrictions applying to the specification of the English present perfect. Reichenbach overlooks the fact that there are fundamental differences in this respect between the behaviour of the present perfect and that of other verb forms, including the other perfect forms. This points to a more general problem with Reichenbach's theory: its lack of flexibility, insisting as it does that all uses of all the traditional tenses that are treated should be analysed in terms of exactly three points - those of speech, of reference and of the event. Related to this problem is the special status Reichenbach assigns to the point of speech, rightly criticised by Prior (1967: 13), who observes that "the point of speech is just the first point of reference". This, however, does not furnish any justification for Prior's sweeping conclusion that "This, no doubt, destroys Reichenbach's way of distinguishing the simple past and the present perfect" (Prior 1967: 13). Seen from the viewpoint adopted in this study, Reichenbach's approach is fundamentally sound, although, as Hornstein says in a comment on Reichenbach's tense theory, "It is not so much the right theory as the right type of theory" (Hornstein 1981: 132). Reichenbach (1947) is significant not least for its substantial influence on subsequent tense analysts, who have added much of the detail that is lacking in Reichenbach's account. The importance of Reichenbach's treatment of tense is underlined by the fact that it is eagerly discussed even in much more recent publications.27

2.7.2. Standard tense logic What is often called standard (or classical) tense logic, associated above all with the name of Arthur Prior (see e.g. Prior 1967, 1968),28 takes a different tack from that found in Reichenbach. This variant of tense logic makes use of tense-operators, of which there are at least two, the so-called past-tense operator, P(p), and future-tense operator, F(p), often paraphrased "It has been the case that p." and "It will be the case that p.", respectively. In addition one often finds H(p), "It has always been the case that p.", and G(p), "It will always be the case that p.".

58

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Although the standard paraphrase of the past-tense operator contains a present perfect verb form, the operator is applied equally to structures underlying English sentences with the present perfect and with preterite verbs. This type of tense logic does not provide any apparatus for handling the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in English, or several other tense-related distinctions, as many linguists have noted. Lyons states that "standard tense-logic, so called, is grossly inadequate for the analysis of tense as it actually operates in those natural languages that have it" (Lyons 1981b: 141). Allwood - Andersson - Dahl (1979: 124) conclude their section on what amounts to a slightly updated version of standard tense logic in a similar vein, commenting that "We thus see that a tense logic of the kind we have outlined here is much too crude to encompass the subtleties of English tenses, . . . ". Bäuerle (1979) rightly points out that the chief reason for the failure of traditional tense logic is that it generally assumes "that the only contextfeature relevant to an interpretation of the statement operators P(astness) and F(uturity) is the time of utterance", without noting that "for a full understanding of a tensed sentence we need to know not only the time of utterance, but also the time referred to" (Bäuerle 1979: 227-228). Tichy (1980), finally, says of what he terms conventional tense logic that "The most conspicuous symptom of [its] inadequacy . . . is its inability to distinguish semantically between the Present Perfect and the Simple Past" (Tichy 1980: 344). Tichy points out that in conventional tense logic the two sentences "Tom has been drunk." and "Tom was drunk." would be assigned the same truth-conditions, in spite of the fact that they are "vastly unlike in meaning": the first expresses "a fully blown statement", whereas the second requires a reference point (Tichy 1980: 344). It seems a fair description of most of the work that has been published within the framework of standard tense logic to say that it has been more concerned with discussions of the nature of time and the advancement of logical systems than with the ways in which tense operates in natural language. 29 Interesting as such discussions may be, they have done little or nothing to advance our understanding of for instance the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in English. As the realisation has spread that the meaning of tense and aspect in natural language cannot be adequately accounted for within the framework of socalled standard tense logic, attempts have instead been made to employ a more broadly-based model-theoretic apparatus, using predicate-logic notation to represent the internal structure of propositions, often with variables and quantifiers.

Tense logic

59

Before we consider what contribution this type of formal logic can make to the study of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite, it will be useful to have a closer look at the relationship between the tenses of natural-language sentences and the representation of time (if any such representation is appropriate) in the underlying propositions.

2.7.2.1. Sentences and propositions, time and tense In what may now be called classical logic propositions are usually seen as lacking both tense and temporal specification. One example of such a proposition might be that represented by the string "It rain", which differs from any corresponding natural-language sentence in that the verb occurs in its base form, uninflected for tense as well as for all other grammatical categories. This proposition will be true or false depending on time and place. If one thinks of the world as going through different states with the passage of time, the proposition will be true of some states and false of others. If one conceives of a set of different worlds rather than different states of the same world, the proposition will be true of some worlds and false of others. One and the same proposition can be expressed by a number of different sentences, in this case for example "It is raining.", "It has been raining.", "It rained.", etc. Alternatively, a proposition may be seen as timelessly true or false. To maintain such a view, a distinction can be made between the intensional world in which a proposition is true (or false) and the extensional world of which it is true or false (cf. Lyons 1977). It is seen as timelessly true (or false) in the intensional world, but may be true (or false) of only some extensional worlds (or states of the extensional world).30 On this view a proposition might be represented by the string "It is the case that p" (see Lyons 1977: 687). The ρ has a lot in common with the kind of unit envisaged as a proposition under the first alternative, but this ρ will include some specification of the particular worlds (or states of the world) of which the propositional function, i.e. the proposition minus the specification, is claimed to be true or false. For example, one might have the proposition (2:146)

It is the case that it rain in Birmingham at noon on 1 May 1995

which again might be expressed by a number of different sentences, some of which would be

60 (2:147) (2:148) (2:149) (2:150)

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

It It It It

rained in Birmingham at noon on 1 May 1995. is raining. has been raining. was raining there at this time yesterday.

Which sentence will be chosen to express the proposition will depend, among other things, on the time and place of utterance, and on other contextual features. The timelessness implied by this propositional form underlines the obvious point that if it is true that it was/is/will be raining in a particular place at a particular time, then it is always - timelessly — true that it was/is/will be raining in that place at that time. At the same time the proposition may be, and in the majority of cases will be, time-bound, in the sense that the ρ included in the formula will restrict its application to just some worlds (or states of the world). On this view propositions are still tenseless, under any reasonable definition of the term "tense". In the timeless intensional world in which propositions are true or false there is no place for tense or other deictic elements, which are inexorably bound up with the here-and-now of the utterance of sentences. Hence any temporal specification has to be expressed in non-deictic terms, as in (2:146). On the other hand, the sentences that can be used to express the proposition will normally contain tenses and frequently also other deictic elements, as illustrated by (2:147)-(2:150). These deictic elements will depend, of course, on the relationship holding between the temporal specification of the proposition and the deictic zeropoints to which the sentences are attached on particular occasions. In the context of this study the relationship between propositions and temporal specification is of special interest. If it is to be maintained that propositions are units of meaning with a determinable truth-value,31 the form of a proposition will have to leave room for temporal specification of one kind or another, unless one is prepared to let its truth-value be dependent on the time and place of the utterance of the corresponding sentences, in which case the temporal and other specification will instead have to be stated somewhere outside the form of the proposition. Only a highly limited set of propositions, of type "Two and two be four", have a truth-value which can be claimed to be independent of time. A unit of the form "It rain" cannot be assigned a truth-value unless it is made clear what world (or states of the world), i.e. what time and place, it is claimed to be true of. Clearly, the vast majority of the propositions underlying natural-language sentences are of this type.

Tense logic

61

2.7.2.2. The logical analysis of tense The most straightforward way of incorporating such temporal specification within a propositional formula seems to be to regard the specification as an argument similar to subjects, objects and other arguments recognised in traditional logic.32 In combination with a suitable predicate these will then constitute a proposition. Instead of just "John be drunk" the proposition might take the form "John be drunk at t", with the corresponding formula D(J,t), where D is the predicate "be drunk" and J and t are the two arguments John and the temporal specification, respectively. (I shall from now on present propositions in this simplified form, omitting the initial "It is the case that . . . ".) A sentence like (2:2) "John is drunk." can then be said to express the proposition (2:151)

John be drunk at ti

where t¡ is the reference time. The proposition itself can be represented by the formula (2:152)

D(J,ti)

where D is the (two-place) predicate "be drunk" and J and ?,· are the two arguments John (the subject) and the reference time, respectively. If the corresponding sentence (2:2) is uttered to make a statement about the world at the deictic zero-point, so that t¡ = to, the sentence can be represented by (2:153)

ti = to & D(J, t¡)

We are assuming that t can denote periods as well as instants of time.33 For a predicate like "be drunk" periods are clearly appropriate. A problem with formula (2:153) is that there is a clash between the temporal extension of t¡ and that of to, usually conceived as an instant (the deictic zero -point): the likely meaning of (2:2) is not that John is drunk precisely at zero but rather that he is drunk at a period encompassing that moment. One solution to this problem would be to replace the "equals" relation with the "included in" relation: (2:154)

to € ti & D(J, t¡)

Another solution, which might have a more general application, is suggested by Barense (1980), who introduces the two predicate symbols Ρ (twoplace) and S (three-place), with the meanings P(ti, t2) = "t2 is a part of ti" and S(ti, t2, t3) = % spans t2 and t3".

62

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The problem easily gets more complicated than what either of these proposals seem capable of handling. If we consider an apparently simple preterite sentence like (2:4)

John was drunk last night.

the most reasonable analysis appears to be (2:155)

tj < to & D(J, ti)

where is the constant last night, in this case given in the immediate linguistic context. The logical formulae (2:153) and (2:155) bring out the fact that (2:4) differs from (2:2) mainly in that the anchor precedes rather than coincides with the deictic zero-point. It is evident that the exact relationship between the time t of the underlying proposition "John be drunk at t" and the time denoted by the temporal specifier last night is anything but simple. One thing is that it may be difficult enough to determine the exact time denoted by last night. Another problem is that the relations between the t of the proposition and the time denoted by the specifier (t¡), whatever that may be, are also far from simple: t may be included in t,, t, may be included in t, or one may partly precede or succeed the other. Such vagueness is inherent in natural languages (and apparently in the human perception of the world) but is difficult to build into many of the logical languages used to represent natural languages. These logical representations therefore run the risk of forcing upon natural languages a degree of precision they do not possess. It is all too often forgotten that "Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic.", as Strawson (1971: 27) says in a comment on two such representations. In spite of these complications a logical analysis of the preterite along the lines we have suggested, representing tense as a constant, does bring out what is clearly an important aspect of the most typical function of that tense. It further points to the similarity between the preterite tense and many central uses of personal pronouns, which are also often analysed as constants.34 A present perfect construction, on the other hand, will frequently call for a quantifier-and-variable analysis; cf. (2:9)

John has been drunk.

which is another possible expression of the proposition (2:151) "John be drunk at tj".

Tense logic

63

This sentence has to be uttered at a time later than t¡, so that t, < to. In a general representation of (2:9) a logical formula with the existential quantifier seems to be required: (2:156)

(3t)(t < to & D(J,t))

A speaker will typically use such a sentence to make a statement if he knows that there exist one or more times t prior to the deictic zero-point such that the proposition "John be drunk at t" is true but does not want to say, possibly because he does not know, when that time was/those times were.35 The difference between the present perfect and the preterite as analysed here comes out clearly if the sentences in which they occur are negated. (2:157)

John has not been drunk.

means that John has not been drunk at any time within the overall temporal range, which may well extend all the way up to the deictic zero-point. On the other hand, (2:158)

John was not drunk.

like its positive equivalent (2:1), links the verbal situation with some particular past time, which again has to be identified, however vaguely, by either the linguistic or the extra-linguistic context. The difference is reflected by the logical formulae we have suggested. A negated formula with the existential quantifier is synonymous with a formula with the universal quantifier and internal negation: (2:159) and (2:160) are both possible representations of (2:157): (2:159) (2:160)

~ 3t(t < to & D(J, t)) Vt(t < to D(J, t))

where is the negation operator. In paraphrase (2:159) means that there does not exist any time t equal to or prior to the deictic zero-point such that "John be drunk at t" is true, whereas (2:160) expresses the same meaning by saying that for all times t, t being equal to or prior to the deictic zero-point implies that "John be drunk at t" is not true. The fact that the logical analysis we have suggested makes the right predictions about what happens to a present perfect sentence when negated is a forceful argument in favour of this analysis. The negated preterite sentence (2:158) may be given a tense-as-constant analysis, so that the logical formula will be (2:161)

ti < to & ~ D(J, t¡))

64

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

where no variable and no quantifier are involved. Instead the formula brings out the meaning we want, namely that "John be drunk at t" is false if t equals the (past) time given by context. Of course, even a positive present perfect verb form may be used in references to periods of time extending all the way up to the deictic zero-point. As we have seen, this will be the most likely reading if the predicate is unbounded and the verb form is accompanied by an adverbial specifier in the form of a smce-phrase (including smce-clauses): (2:162)

John has been drunk since six o'clock.

In the logical analysis of a present perfect construction in which the temporal reference extends up to zero the existential quantifier is no longer appropriate. Instead the universal quantifier might be used: a possible formula to represent (2:162) would be (2:163)

(Vt)(tj < t < to —> D(J, t))

where is the time six o'clock immediately preceding the moment of utterance. This analysis would bring out the meaning that for all times t, t being between the preceding six o'clock and the deictic zero-point, or equal to either of those times, would imply that "John be drunk at t" was true. Such an analysis would seem the obvious one if t was taken to be the continuous temporal variable and to denote only instants of time. However, on the view we have adopted, with t taken to represent either instants or periods of time, it would also be possible to analyse (2:162) as simply (2:164)

t¡ = [tj, to] & D(J, ti)

where tj is the time six o'clock immediately preceding the moment of utterance.36 A logical analysis along these lines, with temporal constants rather than variables and quantifiers, may seem appropriate when the reference of the present perfect construction is to a fixed period, i.e. when the construction denotes time-up-to-zero. No more variation is involved with a present perfect sentence like (2:162) than with a preterite sentence like (2:4) "John was drunk last night.", or (2:165)

John was drunk from Friday night till Monday morning.

Conversely, a quantifier-and-variable analysis may sometimes be right for a preterite construction, as when the reference is to several separate situations: (2:166)

John was drunk several times while he was here.

Tense logic

65

Even in some cases where a preterite construction refers to a single situation, a quantifier-and-variable analysis may be considered. As we have already noted (section 2.4.2), McCawley (1971: 107, 1981b: 354) compares the two sentences (2:167) and (2:75): (2:167) (2:75)

Have you seen the Monet exhibition? Did you see the Monet exhibition?

In both cases a temporal range seems to be involved, the range extending up to the deictic zero-point in the case of (2:167) but being located wholly in the past in the case of (2:75). The range will correspond to the run of the Monet exhibition, or perhaps merely the addressee's possibility of seeing the exhibition.37 Apart from the location of the temporal range relative to zero, the temporal reference of the present perfect and that of the preterite are closely similar in these cases. To use a quantifier-and-variable analysis to represent one but not the other construction would be to distort the facts of the language. How can this be reconciled with the tense-as-constant analysis of the preterite proposed above? According to McCawley (1981b: 340-355), the two views of the preterite cannot and should not be reconciled. He concludes his discussion of this problem by maintaining that (2:75) and a sentence like (2:168)

John left at 2.00.

involve two different uses of the preterite, one where it functions as a variable - (2:75) - and one where it functions as a constant - (2:168). McCawley's analyses of these sentences both look reasonable when considered in isolation. It is furthermore noteworthy that in some cases one and the same sentence may be given either a tense-as-constant or a tense-asvariable analysis, depending on the intended temporal meaning. For example, the preterite in (2:169)

Did you see Death of a Salesman?

would presumably be analysed as a constant if the reference was to a television screening (only one occasion) but as a variable if the reference was to a theatre production (one out of several possible occasions). One may nevertheless question the desirability, or even feasibility, of drawing a clear-cut distinction between two entirely different uses of the preterite, as McCawley proposes. Unfortunately, the language does not always behave quite so neatly as the theory predicts. Rather than two clearly separate uses,

66

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

the language seems to display a cline of uses, with cases like (2:75) and (2:168) placed at or near opposite ends of the cline. Consider for example (2:170) (2:171) (2:172) (2:173) (2:174)

I I I I I

visited visited visited visited visited

the the the the the

Monet Monet Monet Monet Monet

exhibition exhibition exhibition exhibition exhibition

from 7 to 9 last night. last night. yesterday. last week. last month.

It is far from obvious which, if any, of these should be analysed as constants, and which as variables. Presumably, if the exhibition was a permanent one which opened only once a month, and this was known to both speaker and addressee, even (2:174) might be assigned a tense-as-constant analysis. Several attempts have been made to handle the vagueness that is so characteristic of the reference of the preterite by means of more refined logical analyses. We have already seen that Partee (1984) distances herself from some of the claims about analogies between tenses and pronouns made in Partee (1973). Based largely on work by Bach, Hinrichs and Kamp, 38 Partee (1984) develops a theory which still sees the temporal reference of the preterite as broadly anaphoric but which takes account of the fact that the reference of the preterite is more variable and frequently less precise than the typical reference of pronouns. We have seen that predicate logic can be invoked to shed interesting and revealing light on some of the most central differences between the present perfect and the preterite, and also to bring out some of the similarities between the opposition between these verb forms on the one hand and that between certain nominal expressions on the other hand; that latter point will become even clearer when we come to discuss the resultative connotations that may be conveyed by present perfect constructions (below, section 2.8.2).

2.8. Comparison with other theories of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite On the view we have adopted, the essential difference between the present perfect and the preterite is definable as a difference in the way the two verb forms express temporal reference: the preterite is typically used if the situation is somehow tied to a past-time anchor, while the present perfect is used if the situation involved is seen as located at some unspecified time within a past

2.8. Comparison with other theories

67

period which extends all the way up to the deictic zero-point, and, of course, if the situation itself extends up to zero. We have seen that other theories explaining the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in time-referential terms compare the reference of the preterite to either the reference of personal pronouns or the reference of definite noun-headed nomináis. Although there are obvious parallels with the theory developed above, it has been argued that some of those theories are in need of modification. An alternative set of theories refer to some kind of current relevance as the crucial factor distinguishing the present perfect from the preterite, i.e. they maintain that what characterises the present perfect, and by implication distinguishes it from the preterite, is that it expresses the notion that a past situation is somehow relevant at zero. This meaning is sometimes related to the formal structure of the present perfect, the participle being said to signal the reference to the past, the auxiliary the reference to the present.

2.8.1. Current-relevance theories Current-relevance theories predominate among traditional English grammars. An early proponent is Pickbourn (1789), and the three towering descriptions of the English language from the first half of the 20th century are mainly in the same vein: Kruisinga (1932), Poutsma (1926-1929), and especially Jespersen (1931, 1933). Although it is probably fair to say that current-relevance theories no longer enjoy the same popularity as they once did, they still have their advocates among modern linguists. Chomsky (1970) must be placed within this family of theories, and Huddleston (1969) also comes down on the side of current relevance. Johansson - Lysvâg (1986), Joos (1964), Lehmann (1976), Palmer (1965, 1974), Strang (1968) and Twaddell (1963) likewise define the meaning of the present perfect mainly or largely in terms of current relevance. Furthermore, several important treatments of the present perfect and the preterite point to a version of current relevance as one of several meanings that can be expressed by the present perfect. That is true of Comrie (1976), Leech (1969, 1971) and McCawley (1971). One problem with current relevance as the basis for a definition of the essential meaning of the present perfect is the difficulty of explaining in precise terms what is meant by "current relevance", beyond the obvious observation that all past situations may be seen as having some relevance to the current state of affairs.

68

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

"Resultativeness" is probably the most precise definition of current relevance to have been suggested: the present perfect is said to signal that although the verbal situation itself is located in the past, it has brought about "results" which persist at zero. The resultative present perfect appears in its purest form with predicates of the type Vendler (1967) calls "achievement terms", or other bounded predicates, as emphasised by e.g. Hopper (1982), Kenny (1963) and Leech (1971). With such predicates the present perfect is said to signal that the state resulting from the past situation denoted by the verb still obtains at zero, as when (2:175)

Mary has broken her leg.

is said to explain why Mary cannot come to a party. The trouble is that, for one thing, (2:175) may well be uttered at a time when Mary's leg has healed, for example in answer to a question about whether anyone in one's family has ever had the experience of breaking a limb; and that, secondly, the corresponding preterite form may also be "resultative": (2:176)

Mary broke her leg last Sunday.

may be said to excuse Mary from the party just as well as (2:175). One of Leech's examples of the resultative present perfect is (2:177)

The taxi has arrived.

which he paraphrases as "The taxi is now here." (Leech 1971: 34). Comrie similarly maintains that the sentence (2:178)

I have had a bath.

"implies that the results of my bath (that I am clean, that I don't immediately need another bath) still hold" (Comrie 1976: 56-57). Clearly, these so-called implications do not hold in all cases. If asked whether the taxi has arrived, it is fully possible to answer (2:179)

Yes, it has arrived and left, I'm afraid.

just as (2:180) is a possible reply to a question about whether one would like a bath: (2:180)

I have had a bath, but after that slog in the garden I need another one.

2.8. Comparison with other theories

69

Although in these last couple of examples non-resultativeness is indicated by explicit denial of any assumption that the state resulting from the past situation persists at the deictic zero-point, there are many cases where a nonresultative reading does not depend on any particular contextual signals. McCawley (1971: 104) offers (2:181)

Max has been fired.

as an example of a sentence which in itself is neutral between a resultative reading and other readings. Since explicit denial is not generally required to avert a resultative reading, there is no justification for the claim (cf. Dowty 1979: 340) that resultativeness, or current relevance, is an implicature of present perfect constructions. Moreover, it can again be seen that resultativeness can equally be associated with a preterite construction. Asked about the taxi, one might also answer (2:182)

It arrived five minutes ago.

and, barring contextual signals to the contrary, (2:182) will be given a reading just as resultative as (2:177). Similarly, asked whether one would like a bath, an alternative answer would be (2:183)

I had one just half an hour ago.

which will again normally convey the same resultative connotations as (2:178). The following example, taken from Declerck (1991: 236), is also instructive: (2:184)

I know what Tom is like. I (*have) spent my holidays with him two years ago.

The preterite can be seen to be used in those cases where there is an anchor denoting past time, while the present perfect is used in other cases, irrespective of whether a resultative reading is intended. The claim that resultativeness is an essential present perfect meaning thus fails on both counts: the present perfect is not always associated with resultativeness, and the present perfect is not the only verb form that can be associated with resultativeness.39

70

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

2.8.2. Why the present perfect often conveys connotations of current relevance The above is not to deny that the present perfect often, and more often than the preterite, is used in cases where a past situation is seen as having had consequences which still obtain at the deictic zero-point and where the encoder wants to focus on these consequences. Sometimes the intended focus is so much on the ensuing - and enduring state rather than the past event initiating the state that a construction with an event verb in the present perfect becomes near-synonymous with one with a Stative verb in the simple present. Thus (2:185)

John has come.

unless there are contextual signals barring a resultative reading, will be taken to mean more or less the same as (2:186)

John is here.

In this case the special deictic features of COME render a resultative reading particularly likely. Because of the improbability of repetition of the event denoted by the lexical verb, (2:187)

John has died.

will similarly be near-synonymous with (2:188)

John is dead.

But it should be noted that for the same reason the preterite of DIE also invites a resultative reading: (2:189)

John died this morning.

differs from (2:187) in specifying the temporal location of the situation referred to but is similar to that sentence in that it will normally be taken to imply (2:188). Similarly, (2:190)

John just came.

will usually convey the same resultative connotations as (2:185). The example par excellence of an English expression where an eventive present perfect equals a stative simple present tense is of course have (has) got, which today commonly functions as an idiom with the same stative

2.8. Comparison with other theories

71

present-time meaning as the simple have (has), especially in British English. What has happened in this case is clearly that the semantic shift from past event to present state has become a permanent feature of the construction (cf. Jespersen 1931: 47-54). The greater likelihood of the present perfect being associated with current relevance follows from the time-referential difference between that verb form and the preterite: a past situation reported by the present perfect is seen more directly from the deictic zero-point than a past situation reported by the preterite, since in the latter case the situation is usually viewed via a past-time anchor. The anchor will often have the effect of drawing attention away from the present situation, focusing instead on the state of affairs obtaining at the time denoted by the anchor. With a present perfect verb form, on the other hand, there is no such intermediate stage between zero and the past situation. Furthermore, a preterite verb will often be used of one of a sequence of past events, where the main thrust of the message is to bring the action forward; that is the typical narrative function of the preterite. A present perfect verb, on the other hand, will frequently be used of more or less isolated past situations which are mentioned mainly or largely for their direct relevance to the present state of affairs. Hence preterite verbs are characteristically pastorientated, present perfect verbs characteristically present-orientated, which helps to explain why the latter are more likely to be associated with "current relevance" than the former. Also, with the preterite the past event will often be located at a fixed distance from zero, while with the present perfect it can be located at any time up to zero. This is a further reason why the chances that any result of the event still persists at zero will often be seen as greater with the present perfect. Comparison with nominal expressions may again be instructive (cf. above, sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.7.2.2). Once more there can be seen to be a parallel between the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite on the one hand and the opposition between pronouns like somebody and he on the other hand. The sentence (2:191)

He knows the secret.

will usually focus the attention on the fact that the particular person referred to by he (whose reference must be assumed to be established by context) knows the secret. By contrast, the sentence (2:192)

Somebody knows the secret.

72

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

will often be used in contexts where the identity of the subject referent is unknown, or where its identity is known but considered irrelevant; interest will instead be focused on the fact that the secret has been revealed. Similarly, the preterite is frequently used to focus the attention on the time when a past situation occurred, the location of this time being established by context. The main message of a present perfect construction, on the other hand, is often that the past occurrence of the verbal situation is now a fact, its further temporal location being unknown and/or considered less interesting, the attention being concentrated instead on the present consequences of the past occurrence of the situation. The similarity with the two nominal expressions is seen again when these are negated: (2:193)

He doesn't know the secret.

is likely to focus the interest on the fact that the particular person referred to does not know the secret. The formal paraphrase will be (2:194)

~K(n,s,t0)

where Κ is the predicate "know", η the referent of he, s is the secret, and where to is seen as denoting extended present time. It is revealing that the most likely negative equivalent of (2:192) is not (2:195)

Somebody doesn't know the secret.

but rather (2:196)

Nobody knows the secret.

which is apt to be said to make the point that the secret has not been disclosed, its formal paraphrase having either the existential quantifier and external negation or the universal quantifier and internal negation, as is the case with negated present perfect constructions (cf. (2:159) and (2:160) above): (2:197)

~3xK(x,s,to)

or (2:198)

Vx(~ K(x, s, to))

It is not surprising, therefore, if, other things being equal, the present perfect is often selected in preference to the preterite when the speaker wants to focus the attention on any results of the past situation which may be relevant at the moment of utterance. In the actual use of the language, however, other things are often not equal, for instance because a past-time anchor is provided

2.8. Comparison with other theories

73

by the wider linguistic context. In that case the temporal factor will normally prevail, a preterite verb form being selected.40 In many cases there will be a fairly free choice between the two verb forms, for instance because the anchor is given only vaguely and indirectly, so that a past situation does not have to be attached to it, or because the situation of the discourse topic differs from that of the actual sentence; cf. our discussion of Inoue (above, section 2.4.2) and the examples given in the course of that discussion. In such cases there is an increased probability that the choice between the present perfect and the preterite will be determined by the current-relevance factor. Consider the following example from Huddleston (1969: 784), said to be from real life: (2:199)

A (a teacher): I got them to write a story in the style of Chaucer, Lawrence, or Shaw. Β: I bet nobody did it in the style of Chaucer. A: No, I don't think anyone has.

Huddleston is no doubt right in his claim that "The teacher switches to present perfect here because she has the stories in her briefcase and is preparing to mark them." (Huddleston 1969: 784): the two preterite sentences are tied to a past-time anchor, presumably provided by the linguistic or situational context, whereas in the case of the last sentence it is rather the subsequent existence of the reports resulting from the writing exercise that is uppermost in the speaker's mind; by this time the past-time anchor has become sufficiently distant - syntactically and psychologically - no longer to force the choice of verb form. Such examples do not, however, provide any justification for Huddleston's general conclusion that resultativeness is the overriding consideration in the choice between the present perfect and the preterite. In many cases where a past-time anchor is only given indirectly, a preterite verb form will nevertheless be selected even if the intended meaning is clearly resultative. For example, a husband who knows his wife was reading the paper some time ago may well ask (2:200)

What did you do with the paper?

rather than use the corresponding present perfect construction, even though his main concern is likely to be with the present whereabouts of the paper rather than with his wife's past action. We have seen that if an appropriate past-time anchor is given in the immediate context, for example through an adverbial in the same sentence, that anchor

74

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

will normally lead to the selection of the preterite, and that, conversely, if no anchor is provided, either directly or indirectly, a present perfect verb form can be expected, irrespective of whether a resultative reading is intended. In cases where a possible anchor is given more indirectly, for example in the more distant linguistic context, there is more scope for the operation of the current-relevance factor.

2.8.3. Theories distinguishing between several present perfect types The resultative present perfect is one of four present perfect uses - or senses or types - distinguished, under various labels, in the broadly similar accounts given by Comrie (1976), Leech (1971; see also 1969) and McCawley (1971).41 Apparently it was McCawley who inspired the two other presentations.42 We shall briefly consider what McCawley has to say about the present perfect in his influential 1971 article. McCawley (1971) posits a transformational framework similar to that of Ross (1969), and maintains that all present perfects are derived from an underlying structure in which a past tense is embedded within a present tense. He is most detailed about the present perfect senses he calls "universal" and "existential". The former is said "to indicate that a state of affairs prevailed throughout some interval stretching from the past into the present" (McCawley 1971: 104), and exemplified by (2:201)

/'ve known Max since 1960.

What characterises the existential use of the present perfect is that it indicates "the existence of past events", as in McCawley's example (2:202)

/ ' v e read Principia

Mathematica

five

times.

For these two present perfect uses McCawley proposes a logical analysis in which a quantifier - universal and existential, respectively - operates on times whose range is an interval stretching from the past into the present. These analyses are basically the same as the ones we considered for the present perfect denoting time-up-to-zero and the present perfect denoting time-wholly-in-the-past, respectively. McCawley differs from the approach we suggested in maintaining that these two analyses do not between them take care of all present perfect uses. The two further present perfect senses he distinguishes (McCawley 1971: 104) are the stative - "to indicate that the direct effect of a past event still continues" - as in

2.8. Comparison with other theories (2:203)

75

I can't come to your party tonight - / ' v e c a u g h t the flu.

and the "hot news", exemplified by (2:204)

Malcolm X has just been assassinated.

McCawley's stative present perfect is recognisable as what we and most other people would call the resultative present perfect. As has been made clear, we take the view that to associate resultativeness particularly with the present perfect is misguided, since the preterite as well as the present perfect may convey resultative connotations. The status of the hot-news perfect as a separate category is at least as doubtful. What is characteristic of this present perfect use is that the information which the sentence conveys is assumed to be news to the addressee, even though the situation referred to may be located at some distance away from the deictic zero-point. Often such sentences will have a characteristic exclamation mark after them, as in (2:205)

The President has been shot/

McCawley (1971) hesitates to include the hot-news perfect with the existential perfect because with hot news the range of the temporal variable does not normally extend up to the deictic zero-point, since the speaker will know that the situation is located at some distance into the past. McCawley's hesitation seems ill-founded. For one ting, the speaker will know that the situation is located at some distance away from zero even with most of the present perfect uses that McCawley would apparently place in his existential category; it is the speaker's failure to indicate what this distance is that is the basis for a logical analysis with a range extending up to zero. Secondly, it is easy enough to endorse McCawley's (1971: 109) suggestion that the hot-news use of the present perfect can be explained on the assumption that the speaker adopts the addressee's point of view, because for him, clearly, a situation which he does not know about can be located at any time up to zero; again, however, this is the normal state of affairs even with existential present perfect uses. Although there is hardly any basis for recognising a separate hot-news sense of the present perfect, it is only to be expected that in contexts of this type the present perfect will often be the chosen verb form, since no past-time anchor will be given by the preceding context and the speaker will frequently want to avoid overloading the sentence by including a temporal specifier, as generally required by the preterite, on top of the other new information to be conveyed (cf. Givón's "One-Chunk-Per-Clause" principle,

76

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

above, section 2.5.1). Also, it will often be obvious that the intended reference is to the very recent past. It is noteworthy that in McCawley (1981a) a change of heart is reported: McCawley now endorses Karttunen's (1974) account of pragmatic presupposition, "in which the interpretation of sentences is based on what the speaker and addressee take to be shared knowledge rather than on the knowledge or beliefs that they have individually" (McCawley 1981a: 81-82). This leads McCawley to accept that the hot-news perfect belongs in the category of existential perfects. McCawley (1981a) is less explicit about his "stative", i.e. resultative, present perfect but "guesses" that it should be analysed as an existential perfect "accompanied by an implicature ( . . . ) that the event type that is referred to would normally result in the present state of affairs that the speaker conveys is the case (with an affirmative present perfect) or is not the case (with a negated present perfect) . . . " (McCawley 1981a: 84). That leaves the opposition between what McCawley calls the universal and the existential present perfect senses, i.e. the present perfect denoting timeup-to-zero and time-wholly-in-the-past, respectively. Since for one thing the distinction between the two is not always clear-cut, and secondly they have one fundamental characteristic, namely their temporal range, in common, the English present perfect can largely be seen as one unitary semantic category. We have argued that attempts which have been made to account for the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in other than timereferential terms do not address themselves to the essential difference between the two verb forms. It has also been seen, however, that the various present perfect and preterite meanings defined by the theories we have considered are not only compatible with, but follow from, the theory of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite that we have developed.

2.9. Summary In this chapter we have explored the basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite in present-day English by considering some of the most central differences of usage between them, and discussed some of the existing literature on the two verb forms. In section 2.2 (with subsections) we concluded that not only the preterite but even the present perfect (but not so obviously the other perfect forms) can be classified as tenses as that term is used in contemporary linguistics.

Summary

77

After having looked into some of the specifier types that combine with the two verb forms in section 2.3 (with subsections), we developed a theory which accounts for the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in strictly time-referential terms in section 2.4 (with subsections): the preterite is typically used in references to situations which are somehow attached to a past-time anchor, the present perfect in references to situations not attached to any such anchor and to situations which extend up to the deictic zero-point or at least are not clearly separate from that point, i.e. to situations located within a temporal range which extends up to zero. We found that besides the most obvious types of anchors, those established by the preceding context or by temporal adverbials in the same clause, anchors can be established in a variety of other, often less direct, ways. It was seen that the concept of unique past-time reference could be extended to account for many uses of the preterite without any overt anchor. It was further noted that, especially in colloquial English, the fact that the reference is to a past time preceding other past references can function as a sufficient indication of separation from the deictic zero-point for the use of the preterite to be acceptable without any further anchoring, as can an expressed or implied contrast with present time. Such uses of the preterite are probably particularly common in American English, where the preterite is generally held to be more frequent, and the present perfect less frequent, than in British English. In the case of the present perfect we concluded that the requirement that the situation should be capable of being located at any time up to the deictic zeropoint need not be a requirement on the situation referred to by the present perfect construction itself but rather on the discourse topic, as defined by Inoue. This was seen to explain several of the "exceptional" cases that have been left unaccounted for by many previous present perfect theories. That many cases remain where our theory does not clearly predict the selection of either a present perfect or a preterite verb form was not taken as a weakness of the theory but rather as a reflection of the fact that the distributional distinction between the two verb forms is sometimes less than clear-cut. After examining some of the different thematic functions of the present perfect and the preterite (section 2.5 with subsections) and the impact of differences to do with aspectual character (section 2.6 with subsections), we looked into the possible use that may be made of tense logic to account for the meanings and uses of the two verb forms (section 2.7 with subsections). Reichenbach's early contribution was seen to be in broad agreement with the view of the present perfect/preterite opposition we have developed, while socalled standard tense logic was found to be incapable of accounting for the difference between these verb forms. More recent model-theoretic approaches

78

Towards a theory of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

were regarded as more promising, and a kind of predicate logic was suggested that was shown to shed interesting light on what can be called the most typical functions of the present perfect and the preterite. Not least, this predicate logic was useful in explaining what happens to present perfect and to preterite constructions when negated. Finally (section 2.8 with subsections), we compared the theory we have developed with other theories which have been claimed to explain the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite, concentrating most of our attention on current-relevance theories. We maintained that although the present perfect will often convey connotations of current relevance, that should not be seen as the essential difference between that verb form and the preterite. Our deliberations in this chapter have been based exclusively on well-known differences of usage between the present perfect and the preterite, as these are set out in the existing literature. The task facing us in Chapter 3 will be to look in detail at the actual use of these verb forms in a wide variety of specimens of present-day English, to see what further light that may shed on the distinction between them.

3. The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

3.1. Introduction Our investigation into the use of the present perfect and the preterite, and other, related verb forms, in present-day English will consist of three main parts: (i) a frequency analysis of the Brown University Corpus of American English (BUC) and the corresponding corpus of British English, the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (LOB) (section 3.2 with subsections); (ii) a detailed contextual analysis of a corpus consisting of some of the texts from the Survey of English Usage at University College London and of British and American texts collected especially for this study (section 3.3 with subsections); (iii) elicitation tests with British and American informants, focusing especially on the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite (section 3.4 with subsections). LOB and BUC are unsurpassed as sources of information about differences between the major varieties of written English, especially the opposition between British and American English. The reason why I nevertheless chose to collect my own corpus for the more detailed analysis was first of all that I wanted to be able to consider each text in its entirety and in its original context. LOB and BUC would in any case have had to be supplemented with some important genres which I wanted to include in the detailed analysis but which are not represented in those corpora, above all various kinds of spoken English, and also specimens of drama texts.43

3.2. The present perfect and the preterite in LOB and BUC In this section we shall see what information can be extracted from LOB and BUC about the frequency of the present perfect and the preterite in present-day English.

80

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

LOB and BUC each consist of 500 texts. As the length of each text is just over 2,000 words, the total size of each corpus is a little more than 1 million words. All the texts are from printed material published in the year 1961, in Great Britain and the US, respectively. The composition of the two corpora is closely similar: in each the 500 texts are divided into fifteen text categories - or genres - the number of texts making up each category in most cases being the same in the two corpora; see Table 3.1.44 Table 3.1. Composition of LOB and BUC: text categories and number of texts and words making up each text category.

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.

Press: reportage Press: editorial Press: reviews Religion Skills, trades, and hobbies Popular lore Belles lettres, biography, essays Miscellaneous (government documents, foundation reports, industry reports, college catalogue, industry house organ) J. Learned and scientific writings K. General fiction L. Mystery and detective fiction M. Science fiction N. Adventure and western fiction P. Romance and love story R. Humour Sum

texts

LOB words

texts

BUC words

44 27 17 17 38 44 77 30

89138 54447 34321 34387 76913 89090 155336 60761

44 27 17 17 36 48 75 30

88690 54505 35346 34590 72590 97223 152064 62477

80 29 24 6 29 29 9

161900 59204 49145 12119 59391 59382 18203

80 29 24 6 29 29 9

162211 58380 48208 12042 58416 58625 18277

500

1013737

500

1013644

In the tagged editions of LOB and BUC each word has been supplied with a grammatical code ("tag") that assigns the word to one of a large number of classes, reminiscent of traditional word classes but with much finer distinctions.45 This makes it easy to study for example the distribution of the preterite across the various text categories in the two corpora, which we shall do in section 3.2.1. As the tagging does not distinguish between have/has used as present perfect auxiliaries and other uses of the same forms, there is no straightforward way in which the tags can be used to extract or count all and only the

The present perfect and the preterite in LOB and BUC

81

present perfect constructions occurring in the two corpora. The problem is compounded by the fact that the same tag is employed for verbs both when used as infinitives and when used as uninflected present-tense forms, so that infinitive perfect constructions and all present perfect constructions except those in the 3rd person singular carry the same tags. Counts based on the occurrence of sequences of have/has plus a past participle proved highly unreliable for other reasons as well, one of them being that present perfect constructions often appear with adverbials or other items intervening between the auxiliary and the main verb. To get an impression of the frequency of the present perfect we shall instead have to base ourselves on various indirect indications (section 3.2.2). Besides, we shall have a look at the result of a manual count of the present perfect and preterite forms recorded of eight of the most common verbs in LOB and BUC (section 3.2.3 with subsections).

3.2.1. Frequency of the preterite No problems arise with the counting of the single-word preterite construction. In the tagged versions of LOB and BUC the preterite form of lexical verbs (which do not include BE, HAVE, DO and the modal auxiliaries) is marked "VBD". Table 3.2 sets out the number of such forms recorded in each of the fifteen text categories in the two corpora.46 In addition to the absolute frequencies, Table 3.2 and a number of the following tables give relative frequencies (i.e. the number of preterite forms divided by the total number of running words), expressed as percentages; coefficients of the relationship between the number of forms recorded in LOB and in BUC;47 and the statistical significance of the LOB/BUC difference in each case, according to the Chi-square test.48 It can be seen that the relative frequency of the preterite varies considerably from text category to text category. It will also be seen that the variation follows closely similar patterns in the two corpora. The inter-categorial variation is illustrated in Figure 3.1. A striking feature of the variation is the consistently higher proportion of the preterite in the fictional text categories, K-R, compared with the informational categories, A-J. This difference clearly reflects the fact that the preterite is the chief narrative tense of fiction, while informational prose is more orientated towards the present. Within the informational group the three text categories with the highest proportions of the preterite are in both corpora A: "Press: reportage", F:

82

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.2. Occurrences of the preterite of lexical verbs (marked "VBD") in LOB and BUC, distributed over text categories and text category groups. Absolute frequencies, percentages of running words, LOB/BUC coefficients, and statistical significance of LOB/BUC difference according to Chi-square test ("n.s." = "not significant"). Text category

A

Β

C

D

E

F

G

H

LOB:

η %

2360 2.65

477 0.88

350 1.02

393 1.14

721 0.94

1732 1.94

3581 2.31

443 0.73

BUC:

η %

2533 2.86

701 1.29

507 1.43

511 1.48

617 0.85

2273 2.34

3503 2.30

405 0.65

0.08 - 0 . 1 4 n.s. 0.001

0.01 n.s.

0.04 n.s.

LOB/BUC P< Text category

- 0 . 0 4 - 0 . 1 9 -0.18 - 0 . 1 3 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 J

Κ

L

M

Ν

Ρ

R

LOB:

η %

1364 0.84

2821 4.76

2623 5.34

613 5.06

3497 5.89

3137 5.28

574 3.15

BUC:

η %

1492 0.92

3032 5.19

2645 5.49

531 4.41

3702 6.34

3048 5.20

699 3.82

- 0 . 0 4 -0.04 0.05 0.001

0.00 n.s.

0.07 - 0 . 0 3 0.05 0.01

LOB/BUC P— Text category group

0.01 -0.10 n.s. 0.001

Informational (A-J)

Fictional (K-R)

All text categories

LOB:

η %

11421 1.51

13265 5.15

24686 2.44

BUC:

η %

12542 1.65

13657 5.38

26199 2.58

LOB/BUC

-0.05 0.001

-0.01 0.001

-0.03 0.001

P
A 319 as||tonished I think :everyone !PR\ESENT • · 321 *«of the II British DELE!G\ATION • »* [London-Lund]

C 0 2 086 A

C 0 5 402

985

*||\OH • ·* 986 [W] || W=ELL [arm] • - 987 ||she^ 'just |got this :{J\OB} in !DUN!D\EE· - - 988 [aim] a sort of ||J\OURNALISM ' t h i n g · 989 I'm "||not really "clear what it's A":BVOUT· [London-Lund]

RN3 050 The husband of a woman who disappeared mysteriously from her home in Kent more than a year ago has died from a heart attack. He was Mr Graham S..., whose wife Linda has been missing since July last year, when she was six months pregnant. [BBC radio news] It is often claimed that particularly in the case of the adverb just there is a distinct British/American English difference in the choice between the present perfect and the preterite (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.3.3.1). As far as they go, the figures recorded for CONTCORP bear out this claim. CONTCORP contains a total of 38 instances of just occurring as an adverbial by itself (i.e. not in combinations like just now or followed by before- or after-clauses etc.). As many as 29 of those instances occur in NONPRINT, twenty in present perfect clauses, only two in preterite clauses, and seven with other verb forms. Five instances of just occur in BRPRINT, all of them with the present perfect. The remaining four occurrences of just were recorded in AMPRINT, none with the present perfect, two with the preterite and two with other verb forms. Although overall figures are low, especially in the printed divisions, these findings do suggest that the British/American English difference may be marked in such constructions. They will be taken up again when we come to discuss the results of the elicitation test (cf. section 3.4.1). The deictic adverbials combining with the preterite typically denote more definite past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. Some examples: HC2 004 It began nearly two years aso at a dinner in Mr. Symington's home attended by the Soviet ambassador in Washington, Anatoli Dobrynin. [Herald Tribune]

116

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

SC3 081 One of those who spotted the danger in this strategy was the prime minister. On September 20 last year, Jenkin wrote to tell her his plan. She did not like it: . . . . [Sunday Times] EN6 016 Last year, 44% of all investment in plant and machinery took the form of imported capital goods - a share that had been only 31% in 1980. [Economist, p. 29] RN6 047 A search is going on for five prisoners who escaped from Winson Green Gaol in Birmingham last night. [BBC radio news] T29 001

A

it's IDoctor \Edgton# Ι was !in 'touch with him 'earlier tod\ay# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.2g.l] Λ

C 0 4 105

441

- and ||Bill 'did no 'teaching till :TH\IS y e a r · 442 this is his IIfirst 'year "REACHING • 443 «and» of ||course he's :just 'finished his 'PH/D • [London-Lund]

C 0 4 105 illustrates the particular kind of temporal specification that can occur in negative and semi-negative constructions. These will be taken up in a separate section (3.3.13.4) below. Both C 0 4 105 and T29 001 (with earlier today) have specifiers that could also combine with the present perfect. However, a clear majority of the deictic specifiers recorded in preterite constructions denote a past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, so that the use of the present perfect would be difficult or impossible.

3.3.6.2. Relative adverbials Here again there is a very marked contrast depending on the verb form the adverbial co-occurs with. While most of the preterite specifiers classified as relative again express pretty straightforward past-time reference, the most frequent present perfect specifiers of this set are already and yet\ among the others are a few .smce-phrases, besides some more context-specific expressions. Some examples of the recorded present perfect constructions:

Contextual analysis

117

NN1 007 In fact, labor's increasingly militant reaction has already forced some governments to modify their plans. [Newsweek, p. 10] ADI 186 PRINCESS: ... p. 33]

Haven7 you fixed it yet? [Sweet Bird of Youth,

LUI 057 From her first days here she impressed everyone with her intelligence and vitality, and with the efficiency and attention to detail which she brought to the work. Since then she has continued to contribute enormously to the life of the School. [Survey/business letter, W.7.6.18] ER3 001 This season Glyndebourne is 50 years old. From its beginnings as the intimate setting for the sweet, but small, voice of Audrey Mildmay, it has won international renown and an air of permanence that must be envied by many a struggling temple of the arts. [Economist, p. 96] Already and yet are sometimes reported to occur with the preterite in colloquial American English to express the kind of time where the present perfect is the norm, at least in British English, i.e. past time orientated towards the deictic zero-point (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.3.1). 68 In fact not a single instance of already combining with the preterite was recorded in either BRPRINT or AMPRINT. However, six such combinations do occur in NONPRINT; of those five have stative predicates, so that the use of the preterite is straightforward, but one, T25 017, is such as to attract attention to itself: T25 017 C [s:m] · Aall it [i.e. the price of property] can !p\ossibly d/o# c is Ago " ! !\up# · c it *A{c\an't 'go j Β * A y\up# · Β Ar\ight# · Β Ar\ight#* >C ":nVow#* C cos it Aalready "!w\ent down th/ank you# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.2a. 19] This is clearly the sort of construction where the present perfect would be the expected verb form to combine with already, at least in British English. It is noteworthy that the one instance of the preterite appearing in such a construction is from the spoken British English material. As regards yet, one of the 22 recorded instances is a preterite construction, but that occurs in BRPRINT and is straightforward, with a stative predicate;

118

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

the three instances occurring in AMPRINT all combine with the present perfect. The choice between the present perfect and the preterite in constructions with already and yet will be taken up again in our discussion of the results of the elicitation test (section 3.4.4). Some of the constructions typical of the combination of the preterite with an adverbial classified as relative are: ADI 043 CHANCE: Yes. She was sick when I left here the last time. SCUDDER: She was sick at heart as well as sick in her body at that time. Chance. [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 20] LUI 086 Miss =Name= was one of the three ablest students in her year and fully deserved the First awarded to her in —2222=. She began postgraduate work at =Name= College under the supervision of Mr. =L. Name= but subsequently transferred her registration to =Word Name= College, where she has been supervised by Dr. =L.L.Name=. [Survey/business letter, W.7.6.32] C05 353

886

||so I !got a'bout :four hours :sleep 'on :SVUNDAY· - 887 ||=AND • · 888 I llchose to 'sleep :TH\AT N / I G H T · 889 because I IIwanted to 'go to the "!T\URNER exhibition· · 890 ||on «the» M / O N D A Y · 891 «cos» it's " | | F R \ E E · 892 in DE||C/EMBER· [London-Lund]

3.3.6.3. Clock-and-calendar adverbials Although adverbials of the clock-and-calendar set are more frequent in preterite constructions, some were also recorded in combination with present perfect verbs. These were typically s/nce-phrases, of either the cyclic (cf. UN3 013) or the absolute (cf. RN6 027) variety: UN3 013 Banks should cut lending rates because other interest rates have dropped sharply since late summer. [USA Today] RN6 027 After the meeting last night Mr Lewis, who's held the seat since 1945, said he was disgusted at what had happened. [BBC radio news] Two examples of the preterite in combination with adverbials that were classified as cyclic clock-and-calendar ones (i.e. lacking any deictic element) are:

Contextual analysis

119

HN1 043 President Reagan urged Senator Barry Goldwater, the incoming Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on Wednesday to "keep an open mind" on production of the MX missile, administration sources said. [Herald Tribune, p. 1] RN4 041 It's been disclosed that the television hypnotist Romark has died at the age of 55. He 'd suffered a stroke. ... In May Romark was sentenced, under his real name Ronald Markham, to 18 months in jail, but three-quarters of the sentence was suspended. [BBC radio news] The absolute clock-and-calendar adverbials recorded in preterite constructions are straightforward indications of time located wholly in the past, as in: AS3 047 In February, 1959, during the second admission to The New York Hospital, a biopsy specimen of the left gastrocnemius showed striking increase in the sarcolemmal sheath nuclei and shrunken muscle fibers in several sections. [BUC, J15 49] C05 185/187 C 564 ||[\m] • - 565 and ||then I .shared a 1FLYAT with H / E R · - 566 II [?]W\ELL • - 567 IITHNEN I «||I was somewhere» !\ELSE • - · 568 [a:m] - · IIfor the ¡«whole» of 'nineteen :S\EVENTY • 569 ||\ANYWAY • 570 b [m] C 571 ||so I ¡shared a flat with _ H = E R · - 572 ||we ¡moved i n in 'SEVENTY-:VONE M · 573 ||she moved 'out - :this Y \ E A R · · [London-Lund]

3.3.6.4. Temporal clauses A clear majority of the adverbial clauses recorded as temporal specifiers in CONTCORP are when-clauses. These will be treated in a separate section (3.3.12.4) below. Here we shall look at some other types of temporal clauses recorded as specifiers. Like the recorded when-clauses, most of these other temporal clauses occur in preterite constructions. As can be seen from Table 3.11, however, a few clausal specifiers were also found with present perfect verbs. Here are three examples with, respectively, as-, after- and smce-clauses:

120

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

EN2 017 They want to service their debt, but they need some economic growth as well. To achieve that combination, even the most cheerful computer model says they would need falling dollar interest rates and 3% annual growth in big industrial countries for several years. The odds on both happening, never good, have lengthened as American interest rates have risen this year. [Economist, p. 13] RN. 002 In Northern Ireland three men believed to be connected with the IRA have been killed after police fired at their car. [BBC radio news] T50 006 [9:m w a:] Awell n\ow# A since Ί :booked this :c\all 'with you [aim · 9] Cl/ive# · I Ahave in 'fact :wr\itten# · A s=o# A [?]I'll !not bother 'to [a:m - g;] .tell you !all [a] Awhat I've !p\ut in the l/etter# · [a:] I'll A just !mVention# that it's aAbout "!Wh\itcott# does Athat _name !m/ean any'thing to 'you# · [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.9.21.7] Clauses introduced by after would normally be expected to take preterite verbs. The reason for the present perfect verb at RN. 002 seems to be that the after-clause denotes general circumstance more than temporal location in the strict sense; hence the choice of verb form in the main clause is not bound by the occurrence of the after-clause. Among the temporal clauses other than w/ien-clauses recorded with preterite matrix verbs were the following, some of them non-finite: UN2 005 People [name of American airline] agreed to retrain 55 pilots after it could not produce training documents for them. [USA Today] EN9 015 One of Mr Palme's private channels - bypassing his foreign ministry - was a series of talks that Sweden's ambassador at the United Nations, Mr Anders Ferm, had with two Russians in New York just after the Andersson commission had reported. [.Economist, p. 60] BF1 031 Thinking of all this for the hundredth time he nearly ran into a stationary black Mercedes which was parked round the corner on the main road. [Monsignor Quixote, p. 12]

Contextual analysis

121

RN9 006 In Northern Ireland two people have been killed in a bomb explosion near the centre of Enniskillen in County Fermanagh. The victims were an off-duty policeman and a woman civilian. It's thought the bomb had been attached to the policeman's car, and it exploded as the couple were driving away from a leisure centre. [BBC radio news] LS7 043 Dearest Liz, It was nice to speak to you yesterday evening. The weekend has been strange . . . . Still its not disastrous and after talking to you I had a drink and went to talk to a friend and got a decent nights sleep for the first time in weeks! [Survey/social letter, W.7.31b.l5] As these examples illustrate, the temporal clauses recorded in preterite constructions vary a great deal. Some are heavily dependent on context for their temporal implications, some have a more independent status. Some express a clear additional meaning besides the purely temporal one, as is the case with UN2 005, which has strong causal connotations.

3.3.6.5. Adverbials of frequency/length The specifiers classified as adverbials of frequency/length are of largely the same type in present perfect and in preterite constructions. They differ from the adverbial classes distinguished above in being non-locational, i.e. they do not locate time relative to either the deictic zero-point or any other reference point. In present perfect constructions they will tend to be associated with time extending up to the deictic zero-point, in preterite constructions with time located wholly in the past (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.3.3). In both present perfect and preterite constructions a substantial number of the adverbials of this type recorded in CONTCORP are from the always/never/ever set. With these the difference between British and American English has again been claimed to be distinct, as was pointed out in Chapter 2. Overall numbers in CONTCORP are small and the evidence far from conclusive. In the case of always BRPRINT has three present perfect constructions and also three preterite constructions, while AMPRINT has one of each. As regards never, the most frequent of the three adverbs, there is some hint of an underlying British/American English difference: in BRPRINT there are five present perfect and four preterite constructions, in AMPRINT two

122

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

present perfect and five preterite, while in NONPRINT there are six instances of never combining with the present perfect and eight instances of combinations with the preterite. In the case of ever, there are two instances with the preterite in BRPRINT and one in AMPRINT, while neither division has any combinations of ever with a present perfect verb form (although there are several in NONPRINT). Those figures report overall occurrences, irrespective of temporal reference. Cases where the reference is to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point were included in the elicitation test and will be considered in section 3.4.4. Several examples of these adverbials combining with the preterite to express time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point will also be given in a section on temporal location later on during our discussion of CONTCORP (section 3.3.8.2). Constructions where adverbials of this set denote such time will further be singled out for attention in a separate section when we come to consider the historical material in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.9.2). Here are a few constructions with other adverbials of frequency/length, where the preterite as well as the present perfect express their more characteristic kinds of temporal reference: UB2 003 MEXICO CITY - U.S. Embassy officials said two American couples were kidnapped in Guadalajara 10 days ago. Ben and Pat Mascarinas of Ely, Ne v., who have lived in Guadalajara for one year, and Gand Dennis and Rose Carlson of Redding, Calif, who were visiting the Mascarinases, were kidnapped Dec. 2. [ USA Today] T40 101 Α ΛΙ ! think that 'Tim Mnglesant's very g\ood 'but [o:]# Β A l=ook# Β Ahave you ! lever m/et him# Α "ΛηΛο# Β Aah in ¡which 'case you :see A [a] I'm Atalking a'bout him ":purely on *:p\aper#* Β *you* Aought to !s\ee him# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.4j.45] ADI 047 SCUDDER: ... But people were very good to her, especially people who knew her in church, and the Reverend Walker was with her at the end. CHANCE: She never had any luck. [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 20]

Contextual analysis

123

LU2 004 I graduated from =Name= College, =Name=, with a secondclass honours degree in =2222— and researched for two years into =word— century =word= literature. [Survey/business letter, W.7.8.5] All the above classes have consisted of specifiers realised by adverbials. We shall go on to look at specifiers realised by other syntactic elements.

3.3.6.6. Temporal specification expressed by subject In some of the constructions where the temporal specification is conveyed by the subject the specification is expressed by a modifier within the subject which may have a status not very different from that of a separate adverbial constituent. In others a past-time anchor is established much more indirectly, for instance by reference to people no longer alive or to past events which are either mentioned in the preceding context or are assumed to be shared knowledge. The subject specifiers recorded in preterite constructions refer to past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. Some examples: AS3 058 Severe back pain in June, 1959, prompted a third hospital admission. [BUC, J15 64] AD2 140 NICK: ... My father-in-law - was a man of the Lord, .... Woolf p. 68] COI 109

[Virginia

873

IIrail re!port on :English EX/AMINING{llas you K N / O W · } · IItalked about · [öi] :best WRVITING· 875 ||of · Idifferent :K\INDS • - [London-Lund]

874

LS6 089 This last week has seen a great reassessment of ideas for me. It started off with a state of depression and confusion regarding me and my views on myself [Survey/social letter, W.7.31a.27] RN7 003 Trouble on the streets of Brixton in South London last night was quickly sorted out by police. [BBC radio news] The subject specifiers recorded in present perfect constructions generally denote the kind of past time that is typical of other present perfect specifiers. A couple of examples again:

124

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

HR1 019 In writing his new critical biography, John Halperin has no significant material that previous writers have not had. [Herald Tribune, p. 18] BS2 006 Recent work on syntactic variation has demonstrated that, if the notion of the panlectal grammar does correspond to any empirical reality at all, its scope of application is sharply constrained (e.g. Labov, 1973; Trudgill, 1982). ["Syntactic variation", p. 303]

3.3.6.7. Temporal specification expressed by object The following are examples of the constructions where the object was classified as expressing the temporal reference: ADI 015 CHANCE: The Princess had a rough night. [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 19] LS5 087 /'d a lovely Christmas with Mair & Tony (Swanwick) at Emsworth masses of books as presents including Laurie Lee's gloriously earthy "Cider with Rosie." [Survey/social letter, W.7.5b.l]

3.3.6.8. Temporal specification expressed by other constituent The temporal specification can also occur in other constituents: ASI 030 In the observations at 4.3 mm (Coates, 1959 ...), the diameter of the antenna beam, 6.7, was small enough to allow resolution of some of the larger features of the lunar surface, ... [BUC, J01 113] SCI 013 Its present power was, in effect, invented by the greatest and longest-serving TUC secretary, Walter Citrine, ... [Sunday Times] In ASI 030 the temporal location is determined most precisely by the parenthesis that is part of the initial adverbial, in SCI 013 by the agent èy-phrase. It can be seen that the temporal specifiers of these constructions vary over the same types as adverbial specifiers: some are deictic; some are clock-andcalendar, in absolute (1959) or cyclic (Christmas) terms; quite a few express their temporal meaning through reference to information conveyed by the

Contextual analysis

125

wider context (e.g. it referring to the beginning of the week); and some of the specifiers depend for their reference on what is assumed to be general, or at least shared, knowledge. More examples of the various combinations recorded of verb forms and specifiers will be presented in the next few sections, where figures showing the recorded distributions between the present perfect and the preterite will also be given. Several of the adverbial types set out in the above survey were further included in the elicitation test to be reported on in section 3.4 (with subsections). That the proportion of unspecified clauses should be higher in preterite than in present perfect clauses, as noted at the beginning of section 3.3.6, may seem surprising. If it is true, as was argued in Chapter 2, that the essential difference between the two verb forms is that the present perfect refers to past time whose location is basically undetermined while the preterite refers to a particular past time, the proportion of unspecified clauses might rather have been thought to be lower for the preterite than for the present perfect. It should be borne in mind, however, that for one thing this difference between the present perfect and the preterite applies only to cases where the reference is to time located wholly in the past; and that, secondly, a substantial proportion of the preterite clauses can be expected to re-refer to time given by the preceding context. We shall see what effect those two factors have on the choice of verb form.

3.3.7. Given versus new time Table 3.12 sets out the distribution of the most central verb forms according to what may be called contextual function. A distinction is made between re-reference to given time (i.e. given in a preceding sentence); reference to new time which is the first in a sequence, i.e. which is referred back to in the following context; and reference to new time which is single, i.e. which is not referred back to in the following context. Cases where the reference is to a time established by another clause in the same sentence account for most of the constructions marked "other". The distribution between the present perfect and the preterite according to the major divisions made in Table 3.12 is illustrated in Figure 3.10. As in most cases no notable differences were detectable between BRPRINT, AMPRINT and NONPRINT (apart from the general tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be lower in AM-

126

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.12. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to contextual function of temporal reference: given time, new/sequence, and new/single. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Preterite Present Preterite Pluperfect prog. perfect

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

η hor % ver %

156 5.3 19.5

2489 84.1 74.3

47 1.6 49.5

65 2.2 72.2

202 6.8 54.6

2959 100.0 62.9

0.0627

New time/ η sequence hor % ver %

139 24.2 17.4

383 66.6 11.4

5 0.9 5.3

3 0.5 3.3

45 7.8 12.2

575 100.0 12.2

0.3629

New time/ η single hor % ver %

503 44.0 62.9

456 39.9 13.6

43 3.8 45.3

22 1.9 24.4

119 10.4 32.2

1143 100.0 24.3

1.1031

Given time

Other

η hor % ver %

2 7.7 0.3

20 76.9 0.6

0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0

4 15.4 1.1

26 100.0 0.6

0.1000

Sum

η hor % ver %

800 17.0 100.1

3348 71.2 99.9

95 2.0 100.1

90 1.9 99.9

370 7.9 100.1

4703 100.0 100.0

0.2389

Given vs. new time

Given

New/sequence

New/single

Figure 3.10. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to contextual function of temporal reference: given time, new time being the first in a sequence, and single new time.

Contextual analysis

127

PRINT), Table 3.12 and most subsequent tables in this chapter will again only give the figures for CONTCORP as a whole. To simplify things further, our attention in this and the next few sections will be confined to main clauses.69 Obviously, the distinction between the various kinds of contextual function is not always straightforward. As was pointed out in Chapter 2 (section 2.4.1), temporal reference is more complicated than nominal reference typically is in that two verb forms frequently do not refer either to exactly the same time or to two completely separate times. My policy in coding the recorded verb forms was to treat the concept of given time liberally, marking the reference time as given provided it could be clearly associated with a time referred to in the preceding context even if there was no question of the reference times being identical. For instance, in the case of sequences of past events, particularly frequent in narrative passages, the time of any link after the first was regarded as given by the preceding link in the sequence. As could be expected, the distinctions made in Table 3.12 display fundamental differences between the present perfect and the preterite in particular.70 The present perfect is overwhelmingly a verb form used in references to new time: the two classes "new/sequence" and "new/single" account for only 36.5 per cent of all main clauses recorded but for as much as 80.3 per cent of the recorded present perfect constructions. The difference between single references to new time and the first of several references is remarkable. The proportion of present perfect verb forms is nearly twice as high in the former as in the latter type of construction 44.0 to 24.2 per cent. In the former case the present perfect is more frequent than the preterite, while in the latter the preterite outnumbers the present perfect by nearly three to one. The figures mean that the main contextual function of the present perfect verb form is to refer not only to new time but to time which is contextually isolated. This function accounts for close to two-thirds of the present perfect occurrences in main clauses but for less than one-quarter of all recorded main clauses. The variation in the frequency of the preterite is the converse of that of the present perfect; between them the two verb forms consistently make up from 84 to ninety per cent of all coded verb forms. What we have found about the present perfect being particularly frequent in references to single past times, i.e. times which are outside any sequence of past events, means that the present perfect is a verb form often used for backgrounding, while the figures confirm that the preterite is used predominantly for foregrounding (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.5 with subsections).

128

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

3.3.8. Temporal location Another factor that can be expected to be of crucial importance for the choice between the present perfect and the preterite is the kind of temporal location the verb forms are used to refer to. Table 3.13 distinguishes between time located wholly in the past; time which extends up to the deictic zero-point, or at least is not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point; "past in the past"; and "other", which covers things such as "future in the past", "past in the future", etc.71 Figure 3.11 illustrates the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite according as the temporal location was classified as wholly in the past or extending up to the deictic zero-point/not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point/vague. Not surprisingly, the difference is very marked.72 Table 3.13. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to temporal location. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present Preterite PluPreterite perfect perfect prog.

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

Time η wholly hor % in the past ver %

392 10.0 49.0

3268 83.0 97.6

1 0.0 1.1

84 2.1 93.3

193 4.9 52.2

3938 100.0 83.7

0.1200

Time up η to zero or hor % vague ver %

401 81.0 50.1

34 6.9 1.0

0 0.0 0.0

2 0.4 2.2

58 11.7 15.7

495 100.0 10.5

11.7941

Time past η in the past hor % ver %

0 0.0 0.0

17 14.0 0.5

94 77.7 98.9

2 1.7 2.2

8 6.6 2.2

121 100.0 2.6

0.0000

Other

η hor % ver %

7 4.7 0.9

29 19.5 0.9

0 0.0 0.0

2 1.3 2.2

111 74.5 30.0

149 100.0 3.2

0.2414

Sum

η hor % ver %

800 17.0 100.0

3348 71.2 100.0

95 2.0 100.0

90 1.9 99.9

370 7.9 100.1

4703 100.0 100.0

0.2389

The most obvious type of reference to time extending up to the deictic zero-point occurs with constructions which refer to unbounded situations and take specifiers which explicitly denote time extending up to the deictic zeropoint. One example of this is:

Contextual analysis

129

Temporal location

Wholly in the past

Up to zero or vague

Figure 3.11. Relative frequences of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to temporal location.

SR3 033 Ever since 1933, when Wallace died, theorists have been busy. [Sunday Times] However, a majority of the constructions with temporal references appearing under the label "(extending) up to zero/vague" express a reference which does not necessarily extend all the way up to the deictic zero-point in the literal sense but which on the other hand cannot be said to refer to a time that is clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. A few examples (the second and third with the relevant verbs in subordinate clauses again): ADI 110 CHANCE: Can you control your memory like that? PRINCESS: Yes, /'ve had to learn to. [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 26] BS1 163 I would like to oppose two theses which I regard as fallacies, and which have influenced thinking about illocutionary force, particularly through the work of Austin and Searle. [Principles of Pragmatics, p. 174] RN1 014 Sahib Salaam, who's been one of the main representatives of the Palestinians in negotiations with the Lebanese government and in turn with the American special envoy Philip Habib, who is the link with the Israelis, says these issues are no longer a sticking-point. [BBC radio news]

130

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Several examples of the preterite expressing the same kind of time will be presented below (section 3.3.8.2). The results of the classification set out in Table 3.13 are largely as expected, but the scale of the differences is noteworthy. In constructions referring to time wholly in the past the preterite is selected in the vast majority of cases, just as the present perfect predominates in constructions classified as vague or as expressing time-up-to-zero; however, since time-wholly-in-thepast is by far the most numerous reference time, very nearly half the recorded occurrences of the present perfect nevertheless occur in expressions of that kind of reference time. As one would think, time labelled "past in the past" is expressed above all by constructions with the pluperfect. If subordinate clauses had been included, a more varied picture of this verb form would have emerged, because in conditional clauses, for example, the pluperfect is commonly used in references to (hypothetical) simple past time rather than past in the past.

3.3.8.1. The present perfect with past-time specification In section 3.3.6 (with subsections) above we considered examples of the present perfect combining with various types of temporal specifiers. Those specifiers were all such that the combination with the present perfect was straightforward: they either referred to a past time that extended up to the deictic zero-point, or they denoted a very vague past time (e.g .just, recently). More occasionally the present perfect was found to co-occur with specifiers which can be said to denote particular past times clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, although these specifiers tend to be non-adverbial. One set of present perfect constructions which were coded as having past-time specifiers refer to the dates of previous publications. These constructions are confined to the science category and are particularly frequent in BRPRINT science. A couple of examples: ASI 028 Observations have also been made at 1.5 mm using optical techniques (Sinton, 1955, 1956,; see also chap. 11). [BUC, J01 107] BS1 082 [End note] The commercial analogy has also been exploited by Brown and Levinson (1978) in their interpretation of communicative acts as involving exchange of 'goods and services '. [Principles of Pragmatics, p. 129]

Contextual analysis

131

The fact that in ASI 028 the specifier is given in parenthesis means that the specifier has less direct influence on the choice of verb form. In BS1 082, on the other hand, the past-time specification occurs in a passive fry-phrase and the preterite might well have been used. The fact that the reference is not to past time in the strict sense but rather to a still existent book makes the use of the present perfect straightforward (cf. the possibility of even using the present tense in BS1 082 and many similar cases). In some other cases, mostly in the BRPRINT science category again, a present perfect verb combines with a specifier referring not to a previous publication but to a preceding section of the same text. Two examples are: BS1 076 It mitigates the force of You will - because, as we have seen (p. 87, Table 4.1), You can - carries the implicature 'You do not have to', and so offers . . . . [Principles of Pragmatics, p. 122] BS1 132 But, as I have already indicated (2.2), I do not accept the view that . . . . [Principles of Pragmatics, p. 156] Once more the choice of present perfect verb forms is explained by the fact that the specifiers occur in parenthesis, and also that they do not refer to past time in the strict sense. One single instance was recorded in CONTCORP of the present perfect appearing in combination with a straightforward adverbial specifier of past time, of the sort that the present perfect is not supposed to combine with: if Aif you could :ask him to be :fairly [a] "IswVift a'bout 'that# Ι !w\ill# beAcause [am] · J ' v e had !no re:pl\y ΛΙ · I mean I've Asent the 'first 'letter a'bout :three mVonths a'go# and the Alast 'one a'bout a :mVonth a'go# and I've Ahad !no re'ply at +\all#+ [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.9.2e.6]

T47 006 A C A

Λ

It is noteworthy that this is from a genuine spoken source; in more careful, written language this type of construction might well be amended. A couple of factors further help to explain the use of the present perfect in T47 006: the reference is to two clearly separate past events, which extends the reference time, although not up to the deictic zero-point; and the (natural) choice of the present perfect in both the preceding and the following clauses may have influenced the form of SEND as well.

132

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

3.3.8.2. The preterite referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point Of particular interest are the 34 cases where a main clause with a preterite verb phrase was classified as referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point (cf. Table 3.13 above), because in these cases a present perfect verb form might rather have been expected. In some of these constructions the temporal reference is sufficiently vague for the use of the preterite to be completely straightforward. A special case is the combination of the preterite with an adverbial of the never/ever/always set to refer to time not clearly separate from zero, where it has often been noted that the preterite is common. Some examples from CONTCORP: SCI 009 The possibility of an outsider filling the job was never real because of the fear that he (the election of a woman is, as yet, unthinkable) might show partiality towards his old union in any inter-union disputes that the TUC has to judge. [Sunday Times] STI 015 She is, and always was, a woman of faith. [Sunday Times] BDI 078 STANLEY. I can't drink this muck. Did«'t anyone ever tell you to warm the pot, at least? [The Birthday Party, p. 18] C 0 5 204

615

he's changed about the face he's not quite so bony and immature • oh I mean his face never looked immature but somehow it's got • it's got older [London-Lund]

C05 495/496 b 1238 I think they felt a bit isolated there really - they were • they - did you ever go to Cerne Abbas 1239 C "||no I : D \ I D N ' T · [London-Lund] The distribution between the present perfect and the preterite with adverbials of this set referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point will be studied in more detail in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.9.2 - see also section 3.4.4 of this chapter). Several constructions remain where the use of the preterite is noteworthy. In some of them the preterite occurs in parallel with the present perfect, without any apparent difference in the temporal reference, which in both cases is to time classified as not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. A few examples:

Contextual analysis

133

HE2 007-009 . . . Mr. Nitze has stood for improving rather than abandoning the arms treaties of the 1970s. He has been venturesome in probing for agreement, as in his 1982 walk in the Geneva woods with his Soviet counterpart, but he was repeatedly shackled from above. [Herald Tribune] UC1

002-006 In the 22 days since the first anti-apartheid demonstrators were arrested: • The South African government capitulated to demands for the release of labor leaders jailed without charge. • Conservative Republican congressmen took a strong, public stand against the status quo in South Africa and threatened sanctions against that government if it did not take steps toward true democracy. • President Reagan has shifted tactics from ineffective "quiet diplomacy" to bully pulpit moralizing. [USA Today]

LUI 065/066 She has taught a wide range of courses in this department; these included medieval English literature, the European Novel, and seminars and lectures in an extensive Comparative Literature course on =Word= poetry in French and English. [Survey/business letter, W.7.6.24] LU2 035-037 In addition to my full-time post, I have for the last four years worked on a large =Name= summer school. For the last two years I combined some teaching, and frequently a lot of teaching with the post of Director of Studies and Social Secretary. This meant, during the last summer season organising classes ... . [Survey/business letter, W.7.8.19] C 0 5 136/139 b 440 *«you still» living* with Deb C 441 ||no N \ 0 • 442 HI ¡must have :told you :THVAT • · b 443 no - haven't told me · you might *have told Ian* C 444 *IImust have 'told I\AN* - · a 445 [?]I I · do remember **«2 to 3 sylls - isn't it»** C 446 **||I'm ¡sure I re'member Jelling 'telling + : Y V O U · +** b 447 + Y O U + didn't tell me • [London-Lund] In some of these cases the reference of the preterite is explicitly marked as extending up to the deictic zero-point: that is most obviously true of the preterite form at LU2 036 (combined), which is specified by the adverbial

134

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

for the last two years in the same clause (but which may have been affected by the preterite of the following sentence). In HE2 007-009 it may seem as if the preterite denotes a bounded situation and the present perfect unbounded ones, the latter of which may more easily be associated with time which literally extends up to the deictic zero-point. It may further be noted that in four of the five passages quoted above the present perfect form comes first, so that the following preterite form might be seen as attached to an anchor established by the present perfect form. However, that functional distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is normally found in cases where the reference is to time located wholly in the past (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.1.2). It will also be seen that in UC1 002-006 the present perfect form comes last, after several preterite forms expressing a similar reference. One factor which may help to explain the distribution of verb forms in UC1 002-006 is current relevance. The final present perfect form seems more directly associated with current relevance than any of the preceding preterite forms, whose relevance is more confined to the past times at which the situations are located, even if these are placed within a time span which extends all the way up to the deictic zero-point, drawn up by the initial adverbial. The last two examples we shall consider in this section have verb forms which were classified as the preterite but could be considered to be on the borderline between the present perfect and the preterite: COI 024 Β

246

• II January I sup:pose there* :may be an : interview round about JXANUARY • A 247 IIYVEAH· - 248 [a:m] ||Y/OU heard anything {a||bout TH/IS • } • · 249 Β 11 nothing at !\ALL « y / e t » · - A 250 [s:m] - - you've ||not heard !P\EEL .mentioned {in ||this CONN=EXION • } • [London-Lund]

C 0 3 393

1196

«and» she's ||always - - [?] feeling she's going to be thrown out of the staff [a] !D\INING-_ROOM • 1197 because · she's ||always being L\OOKED a t · 1198 ||as she goes U N · - 1199 «people think she's a : S T \ U D E N T • · 1200 ||you MVET _ h e r · [London-Lund]

These two preterite constructions are very similar: both are from the category of face-to-face conversation, and in both cases the context and the into-

Contextual analysis

135

nation make it clear that the intended meaning is interrogative. Moreover, the predicates are both bounded, while in most of the other constructions of this set they are stative, the state itself extending up to the deictic zero-point. Like many other interrogative constructions (cf. below, section 3.3.13.5), COI 024 and C03 393 were nevertheless marked as denoting time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, because the situations referred to could be located anywhere within such a time span. The two constructions demonstrate how close the present perfect and the preterite can be, especially in spoken language, where a sub-auditive auxiliary HAVE can often be imagined. If the verb is one with identical forms for the preterite and the past participle, as in both these cases, the present perfect and the preterite can sometimes be difficult to distinguish. It may further be significant that, if present, the auxiliary would in both cases be have rather than has, in speech commonly reduced to a very weak /v/, which seems particularly susceptible to elision. That both constructions are interrogative in import is also noteworthy. If the syntax were to be made interrogative as well, an auxiliary of one kind or another would be required. It may almost seem as if the recorded form functions as a present perfect/preterite hybrid, a shortened form not fully either one or the other, which may sometimes be resorted to in questions in the spoken language to avoid the somewhat cumbersome auxiliary constructions. The fact that these occur is itself an indication that the present perfect and the preterite are felt to be functionally very close. The closeness of the two verb forms is underlined by the fact that in the case of COI 024 the same speaker repeats the same question in a different form, now switching to the present perfect. Most of the examples we have considered in this section have been from either AMPRINT or NONPRINT. The underlying figures confirm that the use of the preterite in references to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point is more common in those divisions than in BRPRINT. Our material thus demonstrates that the functional distinction between the present perfect and the preterite can be a pretty blurred one, especially, it seems, in American English and the kind of not very carefully constructed language characterising many of the texts in NONPRINT.

3.3.9. Conditioning factors in combination So far we have looked at the distribution of the present perfect, the preterite and the other major verb forms in relation to the various conditioning factors separately. Yet it is clear that it is the combined effect of these factors that

136

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

is of the greatest interest to us. The next two tables will give us a chance to study the variation in the present perfect/preterite distribution when the three conditioning factors we have now been concerned with are seen in combination. Table 3.14 sets out the verbal distribution according to specification and contextual function in main clauses referring to time-wholly-in-the-past, and Table 3.15 gives the same distributions for time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point (i.e. classified as extending up to the deictic zero-point or vague). It can be seen from these tables that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is consistently higher for time classified as not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point than for time located wholly in the past, and pretty consistently higher for unspecified than for specified constructions. The latter result is noteworthy, since we observed in section 3.3.6 above that overall the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is slightly lower in unspecified constructions. Tables 3.14 and 3.15 make it clear that that was because the preterite is more likely to refer to given time and to time located wholly in the past. If the comparison is confined to new time located wholly in the past, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is several times higher in the unspecified case; for new time classified as not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point the difference in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite depending on specification is also distinct. It should further be noted that the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite for single references to new time compared with the first reference in a sequence is also consistent for both types of temporal location. Several of the construction types underlying these tables may seem surprising but have already been dealt with. That is true, for instance, of the present perfect combining with temporal specifiers to express time located wholly in the past, and of the preterite, specified and unspecified, referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. Some of the new findings emerging from Tables 3.14 and 3.15 may also seem surprising. Two results in particular call for a comment: first, that a substantial number of the preterite clauses which refer to new time located wholly in the past do so without the assistance of temporal specifiers - cf. Table 3.14 (b) and (c); and, second, that an even greater proportion of the present perfect constructions classified as referring to new time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point likewise manage without the support of temporal specifiers - cf. Table 3.15 (b) and (c) - in spite of the fact that present perfect verbs will normally be interpreted as referring to time-whollyin-the-past unless an appropriate reference time extending up to the deictic zero-point is given by the preceding context or determined in the same clause.

Contextual analysis

137

Table 3.14. Distribution of major verb forms according to contextual function and temporal specification in main clauses referring to time-wholly-in-the-past. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. (a) Re-reference to given time Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

Unspecified

η hor % ver %

38 1.8 79.2

1951 90.4 79.9

170 7.9 81.0

2159 100.1 79.9

0.0195

Specified

η hor % ver %

10 1.8 20.8

492 90.8 20.1

40 7.4 19.0

542 100.0 20.1

0.0203

Sum

η hor % ver %

48 1.8 100.0

2443 90.4 100.0

210 7.8 100.0

2701 100.0 100.0

0.0196

(b) First of several references to new time Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

Unspecified

η hor % ver %

58 30.5 71.6

123 64.7 33.4

9 4.7 40.9

190 99.9 40.3

0.4715

Specified

η hor % ver %

23 8.2 28.4

245 87.2 66.6

13 4.6 59.1

281 100.0 59.7

0.0939

Sum

η hor % ver %

81 17.2 100.0

368 78.1 100.0

22 4.7 100.0

471 100.0 100.0

0.2201

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

(c) Single reference to new time

Unspecified

η hor % ver %

188 43.9 71.5

212 49.5 48.4

28 6.5 63.6

428 99.9 57.4

0.8868

Specified

η hor % ver %

75 23.7 28.5

226 71.3 51.6

16 5.0 36.4

317 100.0 42.6

0.3319

Sum

η hor % ver %

263 35.3 100.0

438 58.8 100.0

44 5.9 100.0

745 100.0 100.0

0.6005

138

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.15. Distribution of major verb forms according to contextual function and temporal specification in main clauses referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. (a) Re-reference to given time Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

Unspecified

η hor % ver %

85 83.3 79.4

8 7.8 61.5

9 8.8 81.8

102 99.9 77.9

10.6250

Specified

η hor % ver %

22 75.9 20.6

5 17.2 38.5

2 6.9 18.2

29 100.0 22.1

4.4000

Sum

η hor % ver %

107 81.7 100.0

13 9.9 100.0

11 8.4 100.0

131 100.0 100.0

8.2308

(b) First of several references to new time Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

Unspecified

η hor % ver %

32 84.2 56.1

2 5.3 25.0

4 10.5 30.8

38 100.0 48.7

16.0000

Specified

η hor % ver %

25 62.5 43.9

6 15.0 75.0

9 22.5 69.2

40 100.0 51.3

4.1667

Sum

η hor % ver %

57 73.1 100.0

8 10.3 100.0

13 16.7 100.0

78 100.1 100.0

7.1250

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

(c) Single reference to new time

Unspecified

η hor % ver %

121 83.4 51.5

5 3.4 38.5

19 13.1 54.3

145 99.9 51.2

24.2000

Specified

η hor % ver %

114 82.6 48.5

8 5.8 61.5

16 11.6 45.7

138 100.0 48.8

14.2500

Sum

η hor % ver %

235 83.0 100.0

13 4.6 100.0

35 12.4 100.0

283 100.0 100.0

18.0769

Contextual analysis

139

In both cases the explanation is largely that temporal anchoring need not take the form of adverbial or other overt syntactic elements in the same clause but can be implied or expressed in various indirect ways, or be contained in the more remote linguistic context. As regards unspecified present perfect forms referring to new time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, it should further be recalled that such time need not extend all the way up to the deictic zero-point; all that was required during the coding was that there should be no clear indication that it is located wholly in the past. As much as forty per cent of these present perfect constructions are negative and/or interrogative, both of which are features which generally increase the present perfect proportion substantially (see below, sections 3.3.13.4 and 3.3.13.5). We shall look in more detail at the use of unspecified preterite constructions to refer to new past time. 3.3.10. The preterite referring to new time in clauses without expressed temporal specification With all the types of temporal specification we have considered so far the specifier, adverbial or other, has occurred in the same clause as the verb form under consideration. They are the constructions which were marked as specified in the tables we have just considered. Below follows a survey of some of the preterite constructions classified as referring to new time in which there is no such overt temporal specification in the same clause. 3.3.10.1. Temporal specification in wider linguistic context In a small number of the main clauses with preterite verbs expressing new time the verb can be associated with a temporal specifier located in the wider linguistic context, i.e. outside the same clause. In some cases the specification is contained in a subordinate clause:73 HN2 003 These were among the points that emerged from a conversation with Hans Modrow, the party secretary of the ruling Socialist Unity (Communist) Party for the Dresden district, at his office here last week. [Herald Tribune, p. 1] C03 383

1138

||did - you FMND { P R E S I D E N T · } · · 1139 that IIwhen you were in the :D\ESERT • • 1140 you were very THMRSTY • [London-Lund]

140

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

In some other cases the time referred to was classified as the same as that specified in a subsequent sentence, so that the preterite verb can be said to anticipate that specification. In some of these constructions the temporal location is assumed to be vaguely known in advance, the following specification serving to determine the location more precisely. A couple of examples: HC2 003 My involvement in this episode arises from a keen desire to educate my students in world affairs. Alas, I little reckoned the difficulties. It began nearly two years ago at a dinner in Mr. Symington's home attended by the Soviet ambassador in Washington, Anatoli Dobrynin. [Herald Tribune] C05 391

969

| | W = E L L · - 970 "||TR\ICIA 'went ACTUALLY· 971 ||she 'went on a - :on the !PR\EVIOUS 'Monday • - • 972 «and» ||went in the 'AFTER:NVOON M [London-Lund]

LSI 088 Sue had a good time at Doddington. Went Sat, morning (...) returned Sun, a.m. [Survey/social letter, W.7.1.10]

&

Like many other preterite uses, this has a pronominal equivalent, illustrated very clearly by the opening sentence of Graham Greene's novel Monsignor Quixote (included in CONTCORP as BF1), which reads: "It happened this way." This it can be seen as referring to the story related in the rest of the first chapter, or even the whole book. Constructions in which a temporal specifier occurs either in another clause in the same sentence or in a subsequent sentence obviously have a lot in common with constructions in which the specification is contained in the same clause, even though they have been treated as unspecified in the last few tables. This is a problem of minor importance to our analyses, however, as between them the two types of constructions with the specification occurring outside the same clause make up only a fraction of one per cent of all the constructions recorded with preterite verbs in main clauses.

3.3.10.2. Temporal anchoring implicit in context Many of the other constructions convey some kind of temporal determination, even though no overt temporal specification is to be found in either adverbials or other constituents. Frequently the temporal location is implied by the wider linguistic or by the situational context. Some examples:

Contextual analysis

141

ADI 083 PRINCESS [On waking up]: Oh - I - had - a terrible dream. [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 23] BF2 118 Eight years ago I lost my wife, my son, and my daughter in an aeroplane accident. . . . I was a family man. [The Body in the Library, p. 66] C 0 4 004

17

T07 001

A

*what did you ||read YENGLISH • • [London-Lund]

18

or | | N \ O T ·

((have)) Adid you IhVear me# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.7.2g.l]

M19 001 I Awondered .whether perJiaps he 'isn't !\in to_day# · [Survey/telephone monologue, S.9.3.87] LS6 001 Dear Claire, Hi! I thought I'd write before I got the chance to forget - ... . [Survey/social letter, W.7.31a.l] RN2 037 The actress Vivien Merchant has died in London .... Although her film career was always secondary to her stage work, she had some notable screen roles. [BBC radio news] The preterite forms in M19 001 and LS6 001 are of the type sometimes classified as expressing a diffident present time, but they can also be seen as referring to the past, to the time when the speaker/writer decided to call/write. In some other cases the speaker or writer clearly assumes that the time referred to is previously known to the addressee, the purpose of the utterance sometimes being to remind the addressee of the past situation. Some of the recorded constructions are: C 0 5 190 a 576 •'I'll tell* you a friend of yours I've met recently C 577 IIyou !T\OLD ' m e · · [London-Lund] T36 001 A *((look))* I Agave a 'tape-re'corder to C\uthbert# Β Ay\es# · Β (([a])) Shouldn't there 'be a :lVead with it# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.4a.l] LS7 067 Dear Liz, Thanks alot for your letter - it was lovely to hear from you so early in the term. [Survey/social letter, W.7.31b.23]

142

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

3.3.10.3. Reference to preceding linguistic context Not surprisingly, constructions of the last two types (those dealt with in 3.3.10.1 and 3.3.10.2) occur mainly in conversation, i.e. in the spoken texts, drama and the direct speech of novels. Constructions where the reference is directly to a preceding section of the linguistic context tend likewise to occur mostly in spoken language. Although not to past time in the usual sense, this usage is similar to other uses of the preterite in that the reference is to time which is prior to the current deictic zero-point in the universe of discourse associated with the text. The distance to this preceding section can be quite considerable. The following are some of the examples recorded from CONTCORP: ADI 022 CHANCE: ... How's Heavenly, George? [Several lines down:] SCUDDER: Why have you come back? CHANCE: I heard that my mother was sick. SCUDDER: But you said 'How's Heavenly?' mother?' Chance. [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 19]

not 'How's my

AD2 089-097 GEORGE: ... Yes, well, he's a- comfort, a bean bag. NICK: A what? GEORGE: A bean bag. Bean bag. You wouldn 't understand. [Overdistinct] Bean - bag. NICK: I heard you - I did η 't say I was deaf - I said I did η 't understand. GEORGE: You did η 't say that at all. NICK: I meant I was implying I did« 't understand. [Virginia Woolf pp. 63-64] BD 1 063 MEG (...). Well, I bet you don't know what it is. STANLEY. Oh yes I do. MEG. What? STANLEY. Fried bread. MEG. He knew. [The Birthday Party, p. 16] C03 002 b A

5

II[/m] • - - - 6 you got a | | C / O L D · - " | | N \ 0 • · 8 just a ||bit !SN\IFFY· 9 cos I'm - I "||\AM C / O L D · 10 and I'll ||be all right 'once I've warmed \ U P · 11 do I ||L\OOK as though I've got a : C / O L D ·

7

Contextual analysis

143

b 12 no I 11 thought you S\OUNDED as if you were [London-Lund] LS6 095

[Line indicating break in writing of letter.] Some time later: I played squash & was slaughtered, . . . . [Survey/social letter, W.7.31a.29]

3.3.10.4. Past time compared with present time In some cases a preterite verb refers to new past time which is not assumed to be known and which is not determined either explicitly or implicitly, the main function of the past reference being either to focus on a contrast with present (and possibly future) time, or to signal that the past situation referred to is confirmed by the present situation. In such cases the preterite verb does not require any specification apart from that provided by the deictic zero-point. Some of the occurrences in CONTCORP are: ADI 089 CHANCE: Princess, I didn't think you'd have these attacks any more, . . . . [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 24] BDI 080 MEG. I'm expecting visitors. STANLEY. What? MEG. You didn't know that, did you? [The Birthday Party, p. 20] IIhave you !M\ET our man Yoolet Y / E T · - 558 *«the ||one who's a ¡student for the • »• 'DIPLVOMA· 559 Β *[a:] | | N \ 0 • 560 « | | N \ 0 · » * 5 6 1 ||N\OB A 562 ||[mh/m] • Β 563 I 11 knew that he was CVOMING· 564 I've ||heard Stan ¡Carter M/ENTION _ h i m · [London-Lund]

COI 075 A

557

*|| [Am] • * 1028 but ||they can put it :FVORWARD • • 1029 11 for ¡any title that they !L\IKE • 1030 APPARENTLY • 1031 HI didn't :R\EALISE t h i s · 1032 *«1 to 2 sylls* so ||TH=IS • · » A 1033 *||no !I didn't know TH/AT • • >B 1034 «IIclearly doesn't EX'AIST·» [London-Lund]

C02 192 Β

1027

144

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

T38 013 Β

but ΛΙ [a] '.obviously you kn/ow# will Awill !\index it and# · A put it in the appropriate :b\ox# A yeah y/eah# A thanks 'very :m\uch# I A didn't imVagine# that he atAtached so 'much imp\ortance# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.4g.6] A

A

T46 008 I Ath\ought · Ath\ought it 'probably w/ould# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.9.1m.7] LS5 080 I thought she might be here this weekend, but now it seems it will be late Sept if then. [Survey/social letter, W.7.5a.6] With all these constructions the wider context makes it clear that the emphasis is on the relationship between the unspecified past time and the present. As will be seen from the list of examples, the preterite verb often takes a that-cimse as direct object. In the case of negative constructions the intended meaning is often that the negative statement about the past contrasts with a corresponding (unexpressed) positive statement about the present: "I didn't know before but now I know that . . . .", "I didn't think/imagine that . . . but now I (not only think/imagine but) know t h a t . . . ." Examples of this are ADI 089, BDI 080, C 0 2 192 and T38 013, reproduced above. If the matrix verb is non-factive, the intended meaning may instead be that a negative past assumption has been confirmed by present circumstances ("I didn't think I'd make it, so I'm not really disappointed."). Here the past/present contrast is one of belief against certainty. In the case of positive statements the relationship with the present can also be one of either confirmation or rejection. With factive verbs the normal thing is confirmation: (COI 075) "I knew that he was coming." is said at a time when the speaker has been proved right. With non-factive verbs both possibilities are open: "I thought he was coming." can be said either to point out that one has been right all along, or to indicate that one now realises one has been mistaken. In speech such constructions will often be disambiguated by the stress and intonation pattern. The wider context, and also the stress and intonation pattern, make it clear that in the case of T46 008 the speaker's past assumption has been confirmed, whereas the writer of LS5 080 realises that she has been wrong.

Contextual analysis

145

3.3.10.5. Unique past time Of special relevance to us are constructions in which an unspecified preterite verb refers to a past situation which can somehow be said to be unique. These were discussed in some detail in Chapter 2 (section 2.4.3). Here are some of the main clauses thus classified in CONTCORP: NR4 005 Heller heroically completed "God Knows " while he was recovering from a grueling illness. [Newsweek, p. 50] BS2 029 [Footnote] The questionnaire was administered to 145 northern HE speakers. ["Syntactic variation", p. 312] BDI 068 STANLEY. You're a bad wife. MEG. I'm not. Who said I am? [The Birthday Party, p. 16] | | W = E L L · · 3 «if» did ||Y/OU j e t - t h a t · II well !J\OE and J • 5 ||set it BETWXEEN _us • !Joe 'set the :P\APER • 7 and *«3 to 4 sylls»* [London-Lund]

COI 001 A Β

C 0 2 030 A Β A Β

2

4

6

||actually

85

*||Steven* Peel SUP!P\ORTED y o u · · HY\ES • · 87 most ||C\URIOUS· 88 now II where did I hear THYAT .from • 89 [g] «IIprobably me» on the PH/ΟΝΕ _was i t · - 90 it was the 11 day YAFTER· - 91 *||on «my 1 syll» [a]* ||when I R=ANG • [London-Lund] 86

RN7 023 According to one of them it was ACAS who suggested the meeting . . . . [BBC radio news] In the following two examples a similar verbal usage occurs in an object r/iar-clause: BF1 144 ' . . . . The Fathers teach us that God created animals for man's use, and a long life of service for a horse is as desirable in the eyes of God as a long life for my Mercedes which, I am afraid, looks like failing me. ...' [Monsignor Quixote, p. 19] C05 032 C a

105 106

*«they'd a»* ||couple of :SH\ORT _films • [m]

146

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

11 which were rather ! G \ O O D · · 108 «||quite NUCE really • » 109 [?]I ||think 'they were :PR\OBABLY /ACTUALL Y · 110 IImade for !T\ELLY • [London-Lund]

C

107

In all these constructions the verb refers to a single, bounded past situation which can be seen as a necessary prelude to a subsequent situation whose past or present occurrence is taken to be a fact; those are the minimal situations discussed in section 2.4.3. In the most typical case the second situation is a state obtaining at the deictic zero-point and the first situation is the past event initiating that state. NR4 005 is from a book review, the completion of the book being seen as a unique past event initiating the state of the book's present existence. The verb must be considered unspecified, because the attached wMe-clause cannot here be said to express temporal location; its function is rather to denote the circumstances in which the action reported in the main clause took place. Similar relations obtain in the other constructions. For example, the second speaker in BDI 068 takes it for granted that the first speaker would not say such a thing unless he had heard it from someone, just as the speaker of C 0 2 030 assumes she would not know if she had not heard it from somewhere. RN7 023 is about a labour dispute, where a meeting is reported to have been held between the trade union involved and the conciliation service, ACAS. The focus of the utterance is on the question of which side had taken the initiative for the meeting, it being assumed that no meeting would have taken place unless one or the other side had taken such an initiative. In all these constructions the further temporal locations of the past situations remain undetermined. It can be seen to be sufficient for the use of a preterite verb form that the past occurrence of the situation is taken to be a fact because the ensuing state is taken for granted.

3.3.10.6. The preterite with no apparent anchoring In the last few sections (3.3.10.1, 3.3.10.2, 3.3.10.3, 3.3.10.4 and 3.3.10.5) we have considered cases where the preterite refers to what was classified as new past time without being accompanied by any overt temporal specification in the same clause but where it is nevertheless possible to point to particular reasons why the preterite rather than the present perfect was selected. In addition CONTCORP contains quite a few other cases of unspecified preterite forms denoting new time. In some of them the reference is close to the types

Contextual analysis

147

distinguished above and the use of the preterite pretty straightforward; in other cases the choice of the preterite may seem less obvious. Before we look at some of these constructions, we shall see how the proportion of unspecified preterite forms classified as referring to new time varies across text categories. The figures can be studied in Table 3.16. The specification underlying this classification is any overt temporal specification expressed by an element of the same clause, adverbial or other. Instances where the preterite is attached to elements outside the same clause, and of implicit and unique reference etc., are treated as unspecified. A great deal of variation emerges. If we focus on overall figures for the three main divisions first, it can be seen that the proportion of unspecified preterite forms is distinctly lower in BRPRINT than in AMPRINT and NONPRINT, that proportion being very nearly 25 per cent in both the last two divisions. Table 3.16. Distribution across text categories of verb forms classified as expressing new time: all past-referring verb forms and unspecified preterite forms. Science

BRPRINT All new time Unspecified preterite

time Unspecified preterite NONPRINT All new time Unspecified preterite

Novels

Newspapers

All

Drama

η

215

136

199

97

99

746

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

η

18

14

28

20

31

111

%

8.4

10.3

14.1

20.6

31.3

14.9

Science

Magazines

Newspapers

Novels

Drama

All

η

54

85

202

41

146

528

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

η

4

12

29

14

66

125

%

7.4

14.1

14.4

34.1

45.2

23.7

AMPRINT All new

Magazines

Letters/ Letters/ Radio Phone/ Phone/ Face-to-face business social news monol. dialogue conversation

All

η

141

307

302

48

341

487

1626

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

η

22

70

36

9

99

142

378

%

15.6

22.8

11.9

18.8

29.0

29.2

23.2

148

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

As regards the variation within each division, the proportion of unspecified preterite forms follows parallel trends in BRPRINT and AMPRINT. In both varieties the proportion of unspecified preterite constructions is consistently higher in the novels and drama categories compared with the informational categories.74 The fact that this proportion is particularly high for drama in both BRPRINT and AMPRINT suggests that it is especially in the spoken language that this use of the preterite is common, an assumption which is corroborated by some of the results for NONPRINT. Within NONPRINT there is a great deal of variation, however, that division alone displaying almost the whole gamut of the overall variation.75 The recorded figures are another confirmation that in important respects the radio news texts have more in common with written than with spoken language. In general the variation in NONPRINT can be seen as an indication that high proportions of unspecified preterite constructions are characteristic of a more casual style. We shall have a look at some of the unspecified preterite constructions which were not classified as belonging to any of the types treated in the preceding sections. Some of them nevertheless have a great deal in common with those labelled unique above (cf. section 3.3.10.5), as for instance: B D I 0 9 3 STANLEY. ... Where's my tea? MEG. I took it away. You didn 't want it. [The Birthday

Party, p. 21 ]

The taking away of the tea can hardly be called a necessary antecedent to the state of the tea being gone, and yet it is clear that Meg's action initiates a state known to obtain at the deictic zero-point in much the same way as the actions classified as unique. The difference between BDI 093 and genuine members of the unique class is underlined by the fact that in this construction the preterite is readily replaceable by the present perfect: " - Where's my tea? - I've taken it away." would be a perfectly normal sequence, and would probably be preferred by many in more formal style. Related to this type of construction are constructions in which the past situation cannot be said to initiate a present state but is clearly separated from the deictic zero-point in some other way. This is the case if, for instance, the situation is the first in a series of past events (cf. Chapter 2, p. 44). Again such constructions are characteristic of informal, especially spoken, language rather than formal written language. Two examples from CONTCORP:

Contextual analysis

149

||and -these ¡people ! S M \ I L E · 1290 and you [pu] - well you Hdon't know !how to RE!\ACT at F / I R S T · 1291 because it's ||so * ! S T R \ A N G E • • 1292 b *yes* I felt that in Scotland **- yes ( - laughs)** C 1293 •*( - laughs)** 1294 a **yes** someone gave me a very nice smile in Dillon's 1295 b [m] 1296 a she was waiting for the lift - I just · «took a look» up while I was writing and she gave me a great big smile · [London-Lund]

C 0 5 513 C

1289

[a:m]* · now Λ Ι 'spoke 'to the es:tVate 'agent((s)) {of A [öi:] !vVendors#}# Β A [/mhm]# A A =and# · A AhVe 'said that# · [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.1a.l0]

T16 018 A

In the first of these examples the verb gave occurs as the first verb in a sub-story exemplifying or illustrating a point made in the main story. In T16 018 the unspecified preterite form is the first verb in a new sequence, referring to a situation which serves as the introduction to that sequence. In such cases the preterite verb has the effect of leading the interlocutor to expect a follow-up. If the speaker had paused after the first sentence, "Now I spoke to the estate agent.", a natural question from his interlocutor would have been "What did he say?". In the following construction a similar temporal relationship obtains in a construction with a relative clause: C 0 3 293

846

||S\OMEBODY I told ΤΗ/IS _ t o · 847 said she || probably • knocks back a :bottle of : G \ I N · 848 for ||BR\EAKFAST • [London-Lund]

Here the verb TELL in the relative clause refers to the initial link in a sequence continued by SAY in the following main clause. More often than not, the reference in constructions of this type can be expected to be to a situation which should be classified as bounded. The fact that this situation can be said to be the first link in a (possibly potential) sequence of past reference times seems to be a sufficient indication of separation from the deictic zero-point for the preterite to be used without specification.

150

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The current-relevance factor has played a central role in many discussions of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite, as we have seen. We have pointed out that specified preterite constructions may have a meaning where the current relevance is just as strong as it can be claimed to be in any present perfect construction. CONTCORP also contains several examples where even an unspecified preterite form has clear connotations of current relevance. Those connotations are very conspicuous in the following two constructions: A D I 116 CHANCE:

Where did / put your glasses?

[Sweet

Bird of Youth,

p. 27] COI 009

68

* φ ] IIWH/ERE did you put those THUNGS • * [London-Lund]

These constructions can be explained as further instances of unspecified preterite forms referring to situations which initiate subsequent situations known to obtain at the deictic zero-point. The same is true of the following constructions, where the current relevance is less marked but still clearly present: T09 008 Β

A

I'm ¡trying to re'view James · ¡Stirling's :n\ew _book# which ΛΙ · I should Anever have undertaken and is 'far _too "!l\ong# A A [\m}# Β * A so* A * A wh/at ((is))* · Ais ((it)) · [a:m] AI !saw it :Vadver'tised I 'think# in the A TL!\S# [Hence I know of it but I'd like to know more.] [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.7.2k.l0]

M27 001 Aand Processor :HVorden'berg# · A told me to ¡ring you /up# to enAqu/ire# · aAbout a !cr\ash c/ourse# · A in · "L\atin# [That's why I'm calling.] [Survey/telephone monologue, S.9.3.110] M28 001 I Atried 'phoning 'Michael !S\imeson# A =and - [9]#

Contextual analysis

151

the Ainfor'mation I wVant# A if it's a!vVailable# - · A is · [δί:] ¡page !rVeferences# A of · !{m\y} !Varticle# A in f'öi:] proceedings 'of ['öi:] :Archeo'logical :Congress of 'last yAear# [I'm calling you because I didn't get hold of MS.] [Survey/telephone monologue, S.9.3.115] BF2 055 " . . . He is awake now and sent me to find you, [That's why I'm here.] [The Body in the Library, p. 64]

...

The types of unspecified preterite constructions we have now been through are characteristic of spoken, informal English. Without exception the examples we have presented from CONTCORP have been from the two text categories made up of genuine unscripted speech, or from the categories aiming to imitate natural speech. Similar unspecified preterite constructions also occur in more formal language. At least two, only slightly different, groups can be identified in CONTCORP. One rather special group consists of preterite constructions from short, summary newspaper items whose temporal location is never determined. Three of the newspapers represented in CONTCORP contain such items. Several of those printed in USA Today remain unspecified, despite a more or less consistent use of preterite verb forms: UB2 001 MEXICO CITY - U.S. Embassy officials said two American couples were kidnapped in Guadalajara 10 days ago. [USA Today] UB7 001 M BEIRUT, Lebanon: A car bomb exploded outside a Druse Moslem center in west Beirut, killing two people and wounding 10. [USA Today] UB8 001 The administrations's chief civil rights enforcer said his proposal to dismantle a court-ordered busing plan is in the "finest tradition " of Brown vs. Board of Education, the historic 1954 Supreme Court decision banning segregated schools. [USA Today] By contrast, the preterite forms appearing in the corresponding columns examined from The International Herald Tribune and The Daily Mirror are consistently specified. Short newspaper items of this type invariably refer to very recent events, and the use of unspecified preterite constructions is perhaps facilitated by

152

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

the fact that to some extent the temporal location is therefore determined. We also note that the one newspaper in CONTCORP which has unspecified preterites in these items is American, which may be connected with the more liberal use of the preterite at the expense of the present perfect in American English. However, unspecified preterites in texts of this kind do occur in British newspapers as well (although not in any of those included in CONTCORP). Sequences of preterite forms which remain unspecified appear in other contexts too. For instance, one of the AMPRINT science texts begins with an abstract relating, mostly by means of preterite constructions, the performance of an experiment which forms the basis for the whole text. Neither in the abstract nor in the ensuing text is the temporal location of that experiment ever determined. The abstract begins: AS2 001/002 ABSTRACT Experiments were made on an electric arc applying a porous graphite anode cooled by a transpiring gas (Argon). Thus, the energy transferred from the arc to the anode was partly fed back into the arc. [BUC, J02 3/5] A somewhat similar preterite use was recorded in a comment article in The Daily Mirror, the opening paragraph reading: DC1 001-004 A NEW YORK engineer shot four young men who tried to mug him. He then surrendered and confessed. Yet no one in the US believes a jury can be found to convict him. [Daily Mirror] The following story does not contain any specification of when the past events took place. The story consists partly of further preterite references to the past situation, partly of a present-tense comment on its implications. What is common to that example and to AS2 001/002 is that the sections containing preterite verb forms relate sequences of past events which form the basis for, or the background to, the texts of which they are part, otherwise told mainly in the present tense. The past events are thus surrounded by present-time, and present-tense, contexts, each text having two entirely separate temporal orientations, one past, the other present. It is as if the main significance of the past stories is not their independent interest but rather their value as part of the encompassing stories. The past stories have their own universes of discourse (cf. Chapter 2, note 8), which are never directly related to the deictic anchoring of the matrix stories.

Contextual analysis

153

In that respect this tense usage can be seen to be similar to that common in fiction, also outside the here-and-now of the real-world context. Of course, in fiction an entire story is frequently told in the preterite tense without any kind of specification relating its temporal location to the real world. Sometimes unanchored fictional units are part of non-fictional texts, as in the following example from CONTCORP, where the speaker tells a joke using a long sequence of unspecified preterite forms: 447 COI 044-048 446 «let me» ||tell you a STXORY· a ||girl 448 went into a xhemist's S H = O P · and IIasked F = O R · · 449 IICONTRA!C\EPTIVE t a b l e t s · - - 450 «so he said» ||well I've got · all KAINDS • 451 and · ||all PRAICES • 452 what do you !W\ANT • 453 «she said well» || what have you ! ! G \ O T · 454 «and he said» I've ||got some : H / E R E · - [London-Lund]

The fact that a disproportionate number of the constructions where unspecified preterite forms refer to new time occur in the spoken text categories suggests that this preterite use is most common in not very carefully composed language. Some of these construction types will be considered further below, especially in connection with our discussion of verbal usage in subordinate clauses (cf. section 3.3.12 with subsections). What we can say at this stage is that our analysis of CONTCORP has revealed that preterite forms referring to new time without being accompanied by any overt temporal specification are more frequent than has often been recognised, even if many of those constructions can be accounted for as instances of indirect, implicit determination of a past temporal location.

3.3.11. Verb forms in some textual subdivisions Up to now we have been concerned only with each text category from CONTCORP as a whole. And yet it is clear that at least in some cases various subdivisions may be relevant to our study of verbal usage. In this section we shall look at the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite across a finer subclassification of the text categories news magazines and newspapers, and across subdivisions within each text from novels and from BBC news bulletins. Since we shall sometimes want to refer to adverbial and other specification, we have postponed our treatment of these subdivisions until after our general discussion of specification.

154

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

3.3.11.1. Novels In the case of novels major differences in verbal usage may be expected between direct speech, which makes up a substantial proportion of many texts of this kind, and narrative passages. 76 Table 3.17 gives the figures for the BRPRINT and AMPRINT novels texts included in CONTCORP. Table 3.17. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms according to textual division of novels. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. BRPRINT Narrative

η

% Direct speech

η

% Sum

η

% AMPRINT Narrative

η

% Direct speech

η

% Sum

η

%

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

0 0.0

198 75.6

64 24.4

262 100.0

0.0000

34 24.5

80 57.6

25 18.0

139 100.1

0.4250

34 8.5

278 69.3

89 22.2

401 100.0

0.1223

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

1 0.6

126 78.8

33 20.6

160 100.0

0.0079

4 10.0

32 80.0

4 10.0

40 100.0

0.1250

5 2.5

158 79.0

37 18.5

200 100.0

0.0316

The table displays great differences, illustrated in Figures 3.12 and 3.13, which also bring in the distributions between the present perfect and the preterite recorded for drama (cf. Table 3.10). As expected, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is higher for direct speech than for narrative, in both BRPRINT and AMPRINT. 77 Indeed, the present perfect is virtually non-existent in the latter subcategory, with just a single recorded instance. That instance occurs in The Catcher in the Rye (AFI), which differs from the other novels included in CONTCORP in being narrated in the 1st person singular, so that the distinction between direct speech and narrative passages is less marked than in the other novels. The present perfect construction characteristically occurs in a present-tense context:

Contextual analysis

155

Novels and drama in BRPRINT 80%

Novels/narrative

Novets/drect speech

Drama

Figure 3.12. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in subdivisions of novels and in drama in BRPRINT.

Novels and drama in AMPRINT

Novels/narrative

Novels/drect speech

Drama

Figure 3.13. Relative frequences of major past-referring verb forms in subdivisions of novels and in drama in AMPRINT.

AFI 092 The one side of my head - the right side - is full of millions of grey hairs, /'ve had them ever since I was a kid. And yet I still act sometimes like I was only about twelve. [The Catcher in the Rye, p. 13] Since the direct speech of novels has a lot in common with drama texts, it is noteworthy that in the case of both BRPRINT and AMPRINT the ratios be-

156

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

tween the present perfect and the preterite are higher for direct speech: 0.4250 versus 0.2348 for BRPRINT, 0.1250 versus 0.0929 for AMPRINT (see the figures recorded for drama, Table 3.10). These differences are not statistically significant so long as BRPRINT and AMPRINT are considered separately, but if the figures for the two varieties are put together the combined difference in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is significant.78 This difference may well reflect a tendency for the direct speech of novels to be more integrated with the immediate speech situation than drama texts, where the dialogue often serves the purpose of providing background information by relating events (often in sequence) from a more distant past, a task which in the case of novels is usually performed in narrative passages.

3.3.11.2. Radio news bulletins The twelve texts of this category have a very distinct textual structure: they each begin with a few "news headlines", in most cases consisting of just a single sentence each, before the more detailed treatment of the same plus a few additional topics which makes up the bulk of each bulletin; as part of the more detailed treatment each bulletin often contains one or more correspondents' reports, which give the impression of being scripted, like the rest of the bulletin. In addition some of the bulletins contain brief recorded passages of unscripted interviews or sports commentaries; these were excluded from the coding.79 Table 3.18 presents the figures showing the distribution between the present perfect, the preterite and other verb forms according to this textual division. The distributions between the present perfect and the preterite are illustrated in Figure 3.14. Some very marked differences in the distribution of verb forms emerge: the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite varies from a high of 4.1667 in the introductory news headlines to a low of 0.1744 in correspondents' reports, the lowest ratio otherwise being that in non-initial constructions in the detailed treatment of each news item, at 0.2408. 80 The underlying figures further reveal a very consistent pattern as regards the combination of verb form and adverbial or other specification. Unspecified present perfect constructions predominate in the headlines: of the 32 constructions recorded from that textual division 23, or 71.9 per cent, are unspecified present perfects. The same construction type accounts for a majority of initial sentences in the detailed treatment of each news item, although there

Contextual analysis

157

Table 3.18. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms according to textual division of radio news bulletins. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

Headlines

η %

25 78.1

6 18.8

1 3.1

32 100.0

4.1667

Details/ initial

η %

50 58.1

28 32.6

8 9.3

86 100.0

1.7857

Details/ non-initial

η %

46 14.2

191 59.1

86 26.6

323 99.9

0.2408

Reports

η %

15 11.4

86 65.2

31 23.5

132 100.1

0.1744

Sum

η %

136 23.7

311 54.3

126 22.0

573 100.0

0.4373

Radio news bulletins 80%

1

60%

Ή

1

40%

20%

ι

Ί

M

-

Headlines

I

Details/initial

Γ

Details/non-initial

ί

α

h

L

S

Present perfect

f

Β

Preterite

1

Reports

Figure 3.14. Relative frequencies of the present perfect and the preterite according to textual subdivision of radio news bulletins.

the picture is a little more varied: 44 of the 86 constructions, i.e. 51.2 per cent, are unspecified present perfects, specified preterite constructions making up another 24 instances, i.e. 27.9 per cent. In non-initial sentences in the detailed treatment the preterite is in the majority: of the 323 recorded instances 125, or 38.7 per cent, are unspecified preterites; 66, or 20.4 per cent, are specified preterites.

158

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

What all this means is that in the BBC news bulletins, more than in any other text category, unspecified present perfect forms predominate in constructions used to introduce new information, while the preterite is used in other cases.81 This pattern reappears in all the twelve news bulletins included in CONTCORP. We shall look at one example: RN6 001-011/025-037 BBC news at nine o'clock on Thursday the 28th of October. The Northern Ireland Secretary has said political activity must take the place of terrorism, despite the violence of the past few days. A Labour MP in East London has been dropped by his local party. The miners are voting on pay, pit closures and a possible strike. Three Irish soldiers with the United Nations have been killed in Lebanon. The Northern Ireland Secretary, Mr James Prior, has made clear his determination to press ahead with the province's new assembly in spite of the upsurge in violence which has followed the election. Two kidnapped victims were murdered in the series of incidents which began last Friday as votes were still being counted. A Sinn Fein supporter was shot dead in a street in Armagh, and yesterday the IRA killed three policemen with a huge bomb on a road near the shore of Loch Neagh. In an interview last night Mr Prior said . . . . The Labour MP for the London constituency of Newham Northwest, Mr Arthur Lewis, has been rejected by his local party as its candidate for the next general election. He's been replaced by Mr Tony Banks, the leader of the Greater London Council's Arts and Recreation Committee. After the meeting last night Mr Lewis, who's held the seat since 1945, said he was disgusted at what had happened. He claimed the local party had been hijacked by supporters of the Militant group, who had slipped in almost unnoticed. The miners have begun voting in the pithead ballot in which their union is asking for a mandate for strike action over this year's pay claim and pit closures. The voting began as shifts changed this morning. It'll continue until tomorrow night, and the results will be announced on Tuesday, after the votes have been counted by the Electoral Reform Society . . . . [BBC radio news]

Contextual analysis

159

As can be seen, preterite verb forms frequently pick up the time reference of a preceding present perfect form, any specification accompanying the preterite verb form often serving to specify the reference left unspecified by the present perfect form. 82 The effect is a gradual, step-by-step introduction of new information. Why are such textual patterns more frequent in the recorded radio news bulletins than in other text categories? The following reasons suggest themselves: (i) Because of the spoken delivery the need not to overburden the addressee with too densely structured information is felt to be more urgent than in the case of texts conveyed through the written medium. (ii) Since these texts are scripted, they can be planned and structured more carefully than genuine spoken texts. (iii) Because of the live, oral delivery, the deictic zero-point is easily identifiable, which in turn means that the distinction between time located wholly in the past and time extending up to the deictic zero-point is more clear-cut than it usually is in the case of written texts. That may serve to make the present perfect more accessible.

3.3.11.3. News magazines and newspapers When we studied distributions across the various text categories of LOB and BUC (above, section 3.2 with subsections), great differences emerged between the three categories (A, Β and C) consisting of texts from newspapers. We shall now introduce a subdivision of the newspaper texts included in CONTCORP, to see whether any similar differences in the use of the present perfect and the preterite can be detected. The distinctions and the results are set out in Table 3.19. The illustrations appear in Figures 3.15-3.17. The category "news" accounts for the majority of the constructions recorded from news magazines and newspapers. It comprises not only straightforward news items but also some texts which contain a good deal of comment. These text types (including "Atticus" from The Sunday Times), distinguished in Appendix II, are merged in the tables, since no clear difference in verbal usage was detectable. The category of "book reviews" also includes one text which reviews the previous night's television programmes (again given separately in Appendix II). "Editorial" consists of texts printed as editorial comments.

160

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.19. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms according to subdivision of news magazines and newspapers. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. (a) BRPRINT news magazines

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

54 21.7 7 6.1 61 16.8

133 53.4 97 84.3 230 63.2

62 24.9 11 9.6 73 20.1

249 100.0 115 100.0 364 100.1

0.4060

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

η % η % η % η % η %

40 14.0 15 30.6 9 3.3 3 30.0 67 10.9

190 66.7 26 53.1 208 76.8 7 70.0 431 70.1

55 19.3 8 16.3 54 19.9 0 0.0 117 19.0

285 100.0 49 100.0 271 100.0 10 100.0 615 100.0

0.2105

(c) AMPRINT news magazines

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

22 17.2 15 17.0 37 17.1

76 59.4 64 72.7 140 64.8

30 23.4 9 10.2 39 18.1

128 100.0 88 99.9 216 100.0

0.2895

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

38 13.9 15 34.9 4 12.9 8 6.1 65 13.6

186 68.1 25 58.1 22 71.0 108 82.4 341 71.3

49 17.9 3 7.0 5 16.1 15 11.5 72 15.1

273 99.9 43 100.0 31 100.0 131 100.0 478 100.0

0.2043

News Book reviews Sum

η % η % η %

(b) BRPRINT newspapers News Editorial Book reviews Brief Sum

News Book reviews Sum

η % η % η %

(d) AMPRINT newspapers News Editorial Book reviews Brief Sum

η % η % η % η % η %

0.0722 0.2652

0.5769 0.0433 0.4286 0.1555

0.2344 0.2643

0.6000 0.1818 0.0741 0.1906

Contextual analysis

161

The category "brief" contains brief notices appearing in special columns (some of which were discussed in section 3.3.10.6 above). There can be seen to be great differences in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite according to the distinctions made in these tables, although these are not so marked in the AMPRINT news magazine texts.83

1I Ί UΨ F I News magazines

100%

80%

60%

40%

BRPRINT news

BRPRINT reviews

AMPRINT news

IH

Present perfect

Η

Preterite

AMPRINT reviews

Figure 3.15. Relative frequencies of the present perfect and the preterite according to textual subdivision of BRPRINT and AMPRINT news magazines.

Newspapers in BRPRINT

60%

News

Editorial

Reviews

Brief

Figure 3.16. Relative frequencies of the present perfect and the preterite according to textual subdivision of BRPRINT newspapers.

162

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Newspapers in AMPRINT 100%

H]

Present perfect

H

Preterite

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

rfl.. ^jl. r j l , f—ι News

Editorial

Reviews

Figure 3.17. Relative frequencies of the present perfect and the preterite according to textual subdivision of AMPRINT newspapers.

One striking feature is the particularly high ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in the editorial texts, in both BRPRINT and AMPRINT newspapers. This must be because editorials, to a greater extent than most other newspaper texts, are orientated towards present time: they largely express (present-time) comments rather than report (past-time) news. That is reflected in the fact that as many as 60.9 per cent of the coded (past-referring) editorial verb forms refer to time classified as new, against an average of 35.8 per cent for the other newspaper texts. Apart from the present perfect, quite a few of those editorial references to new time are expressed by unspecified preterite forms, apparently because many of them are to recent events that the reader is assumed to be familiar with, as with the following example: SE4 001 THE PEERS who sabotaged the government's bill to abolish next year's local government elections are unlikely champions of democracy. [Sunday Times] As regards the relationship between BRPRINT and AMPRINT, the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite are in several cases remarkably similar, with no clear evidence of the tendency otherwise observed for the ratio to be higher in BRPRINT. However, distinct differences between BRPRINT and AMPRINT are displayed by the texts labelled "book reviews" and "brief", the difference in the former case running against the general tendency in both news magazines and newspapers: untypically, both sections

Contextual analysis

163

of book reviews show the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in AMPRINT. The generally low ratios between the present perfect and the preterite in the book review texts, especially in BRPRINT, may seem surprising: it might be thought that, like editorials, these texts would tend to be orientated towards present time, largely expressing comments and reflections. The very low present perfect proportions are the result of a strong tendency for the recorded book reviews to dwell on the past events related in the reviewed books in the case of non-fictional literature, and on the lives of the authors and the circumstances in which the books were written in the case of fiction. Whether this is really a stronger tendency in British book reviews than in American ones is impossible to say on the basis of our material.84 The texts appearing under the label "brief" in the tables show an BRPRINT/AMPRINT difference in the usual direction, with the higher ratio of the present perfect to the preterite recorded in BRPRINT. Although the number of constructions recorded in BRPRINT is so small that one cannot draw any firm conclusions,85 our findings tally well with our more general impression of such columns in American versus British newspapers; however, preterite verb forms are perhaps becoming more common in British English as well. We shall look at some of the constructions found in CONTCORP, from two news items reproduced here in their entirety, representing BRPRINT and AMPRINT, respectively: 86 DB1 001-004 NEWS EXTRA Police chief is cleared A POLICE chief has been cleared of an alleged indecent act in a Coventry public toilet after the director of Public Prosecutions decided that there was no evidence to prosecute him. Chief Supt. Stanley Hammond, 50, has asked for early retirement. [Daily Mirror] HB1 001-008 WORLD BRIEFS Marcos Orders Curbs to Get IMF Loan MANILA (UPI) - President Ferdinand E. Marcos ordered Thursday strict compliance with government spending targets in a last-minute move to win approval of a $630-million loan from the International Monetary Fund. The fund was expected to consider the Philippine request Friday at its headquarters in Washington. But Philippine news reports said that final approval may be put off until January because Japanese bankers have refused to commit themselves to making new loans to the heavily indebted Marcos government.

164

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

A statement from the presidential palace said that Mr. Marcos ordered his aides to comply with a plan to cut costs and improve tax collection to reduce a projected 1984 budget deficit of 8.2 billion pesos ($410 million). The directive was designed to "strengthen the country's bid" for the IMF loan, the statement said. [Herald Tribune] Such news items have a lot in common with the recorded radio news: each item is brief and self-contained, not depending on the temporal reference of any wider context. The newspaper items are less carefully structured, however, and it can also be seen that their verbal usage is more varied. Text categories A, Β and C in LOB and BUC (cf. Table 3.1) correspond broadly to the categories news, editorial and book reviews, respectively, which we have distinguished in the case of CONTCORP. Comparison of the results reported in this section with the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite calculated on the basis of eight verbs in LOB and BUC (cf. Table 3.7) reveals a great deal of discrepancy. In the case of category A: "Reportage" in LOB and BUC the ratios are much lower than those recorded for "news" in CONTCORP. This may suggest that the texts making up category A of LOB and BUC are generally more focused on past time than some of the texts in our own news category. As regards the other two categories, the results of the comparison are more mixed, although the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite can be seen to be somewhat higher for CONTCORP than for LOB/BUC. That may be taken as a confirmation that the ratios obtained for LOB and BUC were rather on the low side, probably because the most frequent of the eight verbs, SAY, has ratios well below the average for all verbs. The consistently higher ratios between the present perfect and the preterite recorded for LOB than for BUC as far as the newspaper categories are concerned suggest that the absence of any clear BRPRINT/AMPRINT difference in the newspaper texts of CONTCORP is due to chance, although there is still reason to believe that the British/American English difference is greater in fictional than in non-fictional writings (cf. above, section 3.3.5). In this section distinct differences in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite have been noted between the various subcategories that the texts from news magazines and newspapers can be divided into, the ratio being particularly high in editorial texts and lower than average in book reviews, especially in BRPRINT. The variation in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite has been explained from the vastly different temporal perspectives characteristic of texts printed in news magazines and

Contextual analysis

165

newspapers, and is largely the same in BRPRINT and AMPRINT. In that respect these texts deviate from the general pattern prevailing in CONTCORP. Comparison with frequencies in LOB and BUC suggests that this deviation may be due to chance.

3.3.12. Verb forms according to clause type In this section we shall see how the distribution of the major verb forms varies according to clause type. Table 3.20 distinguishes between main clauses, object that-clauses (with that and with zero conjunction),87 restrictive and nonrestrictive (adjectival) relative clauses, and (mostly adverbial) when-clauses. Table 3.20. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms according to clause type. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present perfect

Preterite

Pluperfect

All

Perf.:pret.

Main clauses

η %

800 17.0

3348 71.2

95 2.0

4703 100.0

0.2389

Object thatclauses

η %

82 12.9

281 44.1

57 8.9

637 100.0

0.2918

Restrictive relative clauses

η

93 20.9

247 55.6

31 7.0

444 100.0

0.3765

%

Non-restrictive relative clauses

25 13.7

112 61.5

12 6.6

182 100.0

0.2232

%

When-clauses

η %

3 2.1

126 89.4

3 2.1

141 100.0

0.0238

All clause types

η %

1179 16.2

4787 65.8

276 3.8

7272 100.0

0.2463

η

It can be seen that the present perfect and the preterite predominate even more in main clauses than they do in all clause types combined. The difference is mostly due to the preterite, which is more than five percentage points stronger in main clauses than the average for all clauses. The lower percentages recorded for the present perfect and the preterite in some of the subordinate-clause types are explained by the fact that some of the other, minor verb forms tend to express relative past time and are

166

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

therefore more frequent in contexts where they can be orientated towards a superordinate clause. We shall look in more detail at the clause types distinguished. 8 8 The distribution of the major verb forms in each of these is illustrated in Figures 3.18 and 3.19.

Clause types I 80%

fIS

Present perfect

60%

40%

20%

All clause types

Main clauses

OMect that-dauses

Figure 3.18. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms according to clause type: all clause types, main clauses, and object ίΑαί-clauses (with and without overt conjunction).

Clause types II 100%

80% -

Present perfect ¡¡§

Preterite

Ü

Pluperfect

¿ÊÊÊËM fi

60%

40%

20%

•

b

p

Restrictive relative clauses

. . Γ "

L p

Non-restrictive relative clauses

—

L p » When-clauses

Figure 3.19. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms according to clause type: restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, and when-clauses.

Contextual analysis

167

3.3.12.1. Main clauses In the case of main clauses we shall consider the variation in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite depending on the verb forms of the immediately preceding and the immediately following main clauses. Table 3.21 gives the distribution of some of the verb forms recorded in main clauses according to the verb form of the preceding main clause. The cases where the preceding verb form is given as "none" are those where no immediately preceding main-clause verb phrase was identifiable. These consist of all text-initial constructions, and also all constructions which are initial in various textual subdivisions, such as quotations (including the direct Table 3.21. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms coded in main clauses according to verb form of preceding main clause. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Coded verb

present perfect

Preterite Pluperfect Preterite auxiliary (lexical)

All

Perf.:pret.

Preceding verb None η hor % ver %

177 27.9 22.1

400 63.1 11.9

3 0.5 3.2

26 4.1 9.7

634 100.0 13.5

0.4425

Present perfect

η hor % ver %

135 45.9 16.9

135 45.9 4.0

4 1.4 4.2

7 2.4 2.6

294 100.0 6.3

1.0000

Preterite (lexical)

η hor % ver %

111 4.9 13.9

1906 84.6 56.9

54 2.4 56.8

115 5.1 42.8

2252 100.0 47.9

0.0582

Preterite auxiliary

η hor % ver %

26 12.4 3.3

126 60.0 3.8

5 2.4 5.3

42 20.0 15.6

210 100.0 4.5

0.2063

Present (lexical)

η hor % ver %

243 26.7 30.4

547 60.2 16.3

14 1.5 14.7

62 6.8 23.0

909 100.0 19.3

0.4442

Present auxiliary

η hor % ver %

68 37.2 8.5

98 53.6 2.9

2 1.1 2.1

9 4.9 3.3

183 100.0 3.9

0.6939

All

η hor Rever %

800 17.0 100.0

3348 71.2 100.0

95 2.0 100.0

269 5.7 100.0

4703 100.0 100.0

0.2389

168

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

speech of novels) and footnotes. In this category were also placed constructions where the preceding sentence, or sentence fragment, is verbless (as is often the case with headings and sub-headings). The few imperative clauses that were recorded were also marked so as to appear under "none" in indications of verbal context. The distributions for the most frequent preceding verb forms are illustrated in Figure 3.20.

Main clauses i 100% 80%

U

Present perfect

g§

Preterite (lexical)

H§

Pluperfect

Β

Preterite auxiliary

ÉflIB ||

ilflBB

60% 40% 20% 0%

Ll_ _L Present perfect

Preterite (lexical)

:

I j H B

Present (lexical)

Preceding main clause Figure 3.20. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms coded in main clauses according to verb form of preceding main clause.

Table 3.21 shows strong correlation between the verb form of a main clause and the verb form of the preceding main clause. For instance, the proportion of present perfect forms is nearly ten times greater if the preceding verb is also in the present perfect than if the preceding verb is in the preterite. In the former case the present perfect and the preterite are equally frequent. It is a characteristic feature of the results set out in Table 3.21 that the various present-tense contexts make for higher-than-average proportions of the present perfect and lower-than-average proportions of the preterite, as one might expect. It is furthermore noteworthy that preterite auxiliaries - most of which are (so-called) preterite-tense modals: should, would, could, might - display very different results from those of regular preterite verbs, with a much higher proportion of present perfect forms and a lower proportion of preterite forms. In fact preterite auxiliaries constitute the most "neutral" of the contexts distinguished, i.e. the one with the distribution that is closest to the overall

Contextual analysis

169

average, which is evidently a reflection of their considerable versatility as regards temporal reference. It will be seen that the proportion of present perfect forms is especially high in constructions where no preceding main-clause verb form was identified, which again was only to be expected, since we have already observed that the present perfect is commonly used to refer to new time (section 3.3.7). The higher incidence of the present perfect in present-tense contexts likewise reflects the greater tendency of that verb form to refer to new past time, amply demonstrated above. As regards the distribution across text categories, the underlying figures reveal a couple of notable deviations from the general pattern. One difference between the major divisions is that the variation in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite depending on preceding verb form is not so marked in NONPRINT as it is in BRPRINT and AMPRINT. This is indicative of a more rambling style in the non-printed texts, as compared with the more carefully structured printed texts. It may be noted that the radio news bulletins are again similar to the printed texts rather than to the other categories in NONPRINT. Results for BRPRINT and AMPRINT are in most cases parallel, but AMPRINT stands out in having a ratio between the present perfect and the preterite slightly below average for constructions where the preceding verb form is marked "none", while that ratio is well above average in both BRPRINT and NONPRINT. The result for AMPRINT may seem surprising, since the tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be especially high in references to new time makes itself felt in all textual divisions, including AMPRINT (cf. above, section 3.3.7). Our material is not sufficient to say whether this is a real difference between British and American English, which might help to explain the generally lower ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in the latter variety. As regards individual text categories, that made up of radio news bulletins differs from all the others in that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite reaches its highest value for constructions with the preceding verb form marked "none", where it is indeed several times higher than for any of the other contexts distinguished. In the analysis of the radio news bulletins each news item was treated as a separate text; hence, what the recorded figures mean is that the present perfect is the predominant verb form in constructions used to introduce new items. This result thus confirms what we found in section 3.3.11.2 above about a particularly clear-cut difference in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite according to the textual divisions of radio news bulletins.

170

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

We shall go on to consider the distribution of the major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to the verb form of the following main clause. The results appear in Table 3.22. 89 They are illustrated in Figure 3.21. Table 3.22. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms coded in main clauses according to verb form of following main clause. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Coded verb Following verb None

Present Preterite Pluperfect Preterite perfect (lexical) auxiliary

All

Perf.:pret.

η hor % ver %

116 19.8 14.5

408 69.5 12.2

11 1.9 11.6

29 4.9 10.8

587 100.0 12.5

0.2843

Present perfect

η hor % ver %

134 47.9 16.8

114 40.7 3.4

4 1.4 4.2

11 3.9 4.1

280 100.0 6.0

1.1754

Preterite (lexical)

η hor % ver %

133 6.0 16.6

1873 84.2 55.9

46 2.1 48.4

107 4.8 39.8

2225 100.0 47.3

0.0710

Preterite auxiliary

η hor % ver %

32 15.5 4.0

124 60.2 3.7

5 2.4 5.3

42 20.4 15.6

206 100.0 4.4

0.2581

Present (lexical)

η hor % ver %

274 27.5 34.3

599 60.1 17.9

10 1.0 10.5

56 5.6 20.8

997 100.0 21.2

0.4574

Present auxiliary

η hor % ver %

65 38.5 8.1

84 49.7 2.5

3 1.8 3.2

9 5.3 3.3

169 100.0 3.6

0.7738

All

η hor % ver %

800 17.0 100.0

3348 71.2 100.0

95 2.0 100.0

269 5.7 100.0

4703 100.0 100.0

0.2389

There can be seen to be a lot of variation again. According to the figures in Table 3.22, a present perfect verb in CONTCORP is equally likely to be followed by either a present perfect or a preterite form, while a preterite verb is many times more likely to be followed by another preterite form. Table 3.22 further shows that in the case of present perfect verbs the proportion of following verbs that are either in the present tense or present-auxiliary constructions is well above average, while in the case of the preterite that

Contextual analysis

171

Main clauses II 100%

80%

H

Present perfect

§f§

Preterite (lexical)

Β

Pluperfect

40%

20%

0%

"&¡

i1 1 - . Iβ , ιJι . I

60%

tdHH

Preterite auxiliary

Present perfect

[jjgjij

Preterite (lexical)

Present (lexical)

Following main clause

Figure 3.21. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms coded in main clauses according to verb form of following main clause.

proportion is below average. Present perfect clauses are also more likely than preterite clauses to be text-final, or at least have no identifiable verb form in any immediately following main clause, although here the difference is less marked. These findings confirm that the present perfect is particularly common in references to time which is not only new but contextually isolated. We shall look at the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite according to both preceding and following verb forms in some of the most numerous combinations. As can be seen from Table 3.23, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is at its highest in contexts where both the preceding and the following main clauses have present perfect verb forms, while the lowest ratio occurs in contexts between two preterite forms. In the former case the present perfect is nearly 1 1/2 times as frequent as the preterite; in the latter case the preterite is more than fifty times as frequent as the present perfect. The emerging pattern is highly consistent: in both the preceding and the following context the present perfect makes for higher and the preterite for lower ratios between the present perfect and the preterite, with the present tense occupying an intermediate position in both cases. Table 3.23 shows that of the 3348 main clauses with preterite verbs as many as 1222, i.e. 36.5 per cent, occur in contexts where they are both preceded and followed by other main clauses with preterite verbs. Such preterite sequences often denote sequences of bounded events, as in the following example:

172

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English > A . . . 127 I ||WR\OTE i t · 128 ||reasonably W — E L L • and I DEIIS/IGNED i t · 130 and did the ||L\AYOUT and e v e r y t h i n g · · 131 and ||got the DR\AWINGS • 132 ||T\ECHNICAL • · 133 ||DR\AWINGS «3 s y l l s » · · 134 and "IIthen they RYANG u p · 135 about ||six months L / A T E R · 136 ||THR\EE months L / A T E R · 137 and said · we've 11 got a rather :M\ORE {e||laborate MA:CH\INE • } • 138 «that» we'd ||like you to do «a» BRO*CH\URE* f o r · 139 so I IID/ID i t · · 140 and ||then AN/OTHER o n e · - 141 and 142 b *[mhm]* 141 >A ||TH\EN they _ s a i d · . . . [London-Lund]

C 0 3 036-043

129

Table 3.23. Distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in main clauses according to some combinations of verb forms in preceding and following main clauses. Absolute frequencies and ratios of the present perfect to the preterite. Vertical percentages. ("Any" = all possibilities combined) Coded verb form

Present perfect

Preterite

Perf.:pret.

Preceding-following Present Present Present Present

perfect-present perfect perfect-preterite perfect-present perfect-any

31 18 46 135 (16.9%)

Preterite-present perfect Preterite-preterite Preterite-present Preterite-any

27 24 28

Present-present perfect Present-preterite Present-present Present-any

24 36 108

Any-present perfect Any-preterite Any-present Any-any

21 50 32 135 (4.0%) 38 1222 245 111 (13.9%)

243 (30.4%) 134 (16.8%) 133 (16.6%) 274 (34.3%) 800 (100.0%)

1906 (56.9%) 34 216 169 547 (16.3%) 114 (3.4%) 1873 (55.9%) 599 (17.9%) 3348 (100.0%)

1.4762 0.3600 1.4375 1.0000 0.7105 0.0196 0.1143 0.0582 0.7059 0.1667 0.6391 0.4442 1.1754 0.0710 0.4574 0.2389

Contextual analysis

173

Even more numerous, however, are preterite sequences denoting (more or less) contemporaneous unbounded situations. One example: ERI 030-033 Zhou survived, when all Mao's other closest comrades were killed or purged, because, in the words of an embittered enemy, he was "smooth and round". But to those who met him, behind the political infighter, he was a tough and engaging character. He loved ballroom dancing, Charlie Chaplin and stiff drinks. (His secret for consuming all that maotai at state banquets was to knock it back quickly to keep it from touching the tongue or the back of the throat.) Unlike many colleagues, he lived frugally. [Economist] According to Table 3.23, the recorded present perfect constructions are contextually more evenly distributed. The two most frequent positions are between two present-tense main clauses and between a present perfect and a present tense, as in, respectively: LU3 006 Dear Sir, I understand that it was part of the agreement reached when you called at Head Office recently that the Bank should be provided with an undertaking, that £200. would be paid to the Bank within one month of your visit. So far no such undertaking has reached us and although we have heard from Messrs. Hay Brown & Co. regarding the breaking of the settlement it appears that.... [Survey/business letter, W.7.9.3] BS2 039 It has already been established that the grammars of creóles can be structurally quite distinct from those of their related superstrate languages. This has been clearly demonstrated within the postcreole continuum model (e.g. De Camp, 1971; Bickerton, 1975), where shifting between basilectal and acrolectal poles proceeds via the radical restructuring of underlying representations, not merely through the manipulation of low-level rules. What is new is explicit recognition o f . . . . ["Syntactic variation", p. 314] Sequences of two (or more) present perfect main clauses sometimes refer to what was classified as the same time located wholly in the past; those cases account for some of the present perfect forms expressing given past time referred to above (section 3.3.9, Table 3.14). In quite a few of those sequences the second (and any subsequent) present perfect form can be said to express an amplification of the meaning conveyed by the first present

174

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

perfect form. In this example as many as three present perfect forms (all but the first) can be associated with such amplification: HCl 009-012 Those hard-line ideas, which became sporadic policy in the Carter administration and a strategic crusade under President Reagan, have produced the opposite results in both areas. Since the 1970s the Soviet leadership has responded with its own unyielding policies in world affairs, broadening its war in Afghanistan, boycotting the Los Angeles Olympics, showing even less toleration in Eastern Europe and countering the U.S. military buildup and missile deployments. Instead of more national security, the U.S. hard line has yielded more international insecurity. Its consequences inside the Soviet Union have been equally baneful, even in sectors where hard-liners promised tangible results. [Herald Tribune] Another example, with just two consecutive present perfect forms, the second expressing a clear amplification of the first: RN1 007-008 A strike by American train drivers who were threatening to cripple the country's freight services from next week has been postponed at least for the next two months. President Reagan has used his special powers to order 40,000 men to continue work for sixty days, while an emergency board is set up to look into their complaints over pay and conditions. [BBC radio news] For the second (and any subsequent) present perfect form to express such amplification is in fact the prevailing pattern among the sequences of mainclause present perfect forms recorded in CONTCORP. Such sequences thus differ from sequences of preterite forms, which typically refer to situations forming a temporal sequence if the situations are bounded. The results set out in Table 3.23 confirm the impression that the preterite is overwhelmingly a verb form found in contexts orientated towards past time, while the present perfect is more frequent in contexts whose general orientation is towards present time. This does not, however, provide any justification for Weinrich's general claim to the effect that the primary function of these verb forms is not to express time but rather to act as linguistic signs of two different modes of communication, the preterite indicating narration, the present perfect indicating commentary (Weinrich 1970: 33; cf. also Weinrich 1964). That is turning the relationship on its head: the preterite is most common in past-time contexts because it expresses past time the way it does; the present perfect is common in present-time contexts for a similar reason.

Contextual analysis

175

In both types of context there is a lot of variation, both verb forms occurring in each context type. 90 In this section we have examined the ways in which the distribution of verb forms in main clauses correlates with verb forms in the context beyond the clause. We have seen that while a clear majority (56.9%) of the recorded preterite forms occur in the context of another preceding preterite main clause, only a small proportion of the present perfect forms (16.9%) are preceded by other present perfect forms. Nearly twice as many present perfect forms (30.4%) are preceded by the present tense, although the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is more than twice as high in the context of a preceding present perfect form (i.e. the present tense is a much more common context than the present perfect). These findings reflect the strong tendency for the preterite to refer to given time and the present perfect to new time. That the present perfect is particularly frequent in isolated references to past time is confirmed by the fact that only 16.6 per cent of the present perfect forms recorded in the main clauses of CONTCORP are followed by the preterite, while a similar proportion are followed by another present perfect form and twice as many by the present tense. In the case of the preterite as many as 55.9 per cent of the recorded cases are followed by other preterite forms. Comparison of the various textual divisions revealed a high degree of parallelism between BRPRINT and AMPRINT, while the dependence on the preceding verb form turned out to be less marked in NONPRINT (with the exception of radio news bulletins). We saw that as an indication of a more careful textual structure in the case of printed language.

3.3.12.2. Object that-clauses A total of 637 object ί/ιαί-clauses were recorded in CONTCORP (see Table 3.20). Of these 295 have conjunction that, 342 the zero conjunction. Conjunction that predominates in more formal texts, zero conjunction in less formal ones, especially in some of the spoken categories. Roughly threefourths of the recorded ί/ιαί-clauses occur at the highest level of embedding, i.e. with no clause (finite or non-finite) other than the matrix clause above them in the sentence structure. The following is a sample of the object ίΛαί-clauses recorded in CONTCORP, irrespective of the level of embedding: 91

176

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

ASI 015 Piddington and Minnett explained their observations by pointing out that rocklike materials which are likely to make up the surface of the moon would be partially transparent to radio waves, although opaque to infrared radiation. [BUC, J01 49] AFI 004 I just mean that I used to think about old Spencer quite a lot, . . . . [The Catcher in the Rye, p. 11] EN9 029 It now emerged that Mr Ferm had discussed how a "back-channel" for handling the submarine incidents could be set up; and that he had been given to understand that Russia would never admit that it had violated Sweden's territorial waters, no matter how clear the proof [Economist, p. 62] BDI 061 MEG. I thought you said you didn't sleep. [The Birthday Party, p. 15] C 0 3 135

410

and I said «well» ||one was [s] · !ST\YLIZED de_scription • • 411 and ||one was much more REAL!\ISTIC de_scription • - [London-Lund]

C 0 5 414 b

1045

**well I thought it it must** reflect on my character in some way that I was called after barleywater *until I ·* C 1046 *( - laughs)* b 1047 I discovered this vague connection and that that was the reason [London-Lund]

T42 004 [a:m] Aso they Ishould - [öi:] Ataxi 'driver 'said that _he would de:p\osit them# · Awith the department of 'English if he "!cVould# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.9.1e.3] LS6 080 I gather from Mandy Fisher that Celia has got in with the Dramatic 'Hack' Crowd. [Survey/social letter, W.7.31a.25] We shall consider verbal usage in the various types of subordinate clause by focusing on how the choice of verb form correlates with the wider linguistic context, especially the presence or absence of temporal specifiers in the same clause, the verb form of the matrix clause, and the distinction between given and new time. Table 3.20 showed that in the recorded object ί/ιαί-clauses the present perfect and the preterite between them make up 57 per cent of all constructions, as against nearly ninety per cent in main clauses, while the pluperfect is a lot more frequent in our object f/zaf-clauses than in main clauses.92 The un-

Contextual analysis

177

derlying figures further reveal that constructions with the modals would or should, or the contracted form 'd, are particularly frequent in the recorded object í/kzí-clauses, where they usually express time classified as future in the past. One typical function of the latter kind of object that-clause is to describe the content of a thought or intention expressed by the matrix verb. 93 Table 3.24 gives the correlations between some of the verb forms in the object ¿/u2i-clauses recorded at the first level of embedding and some of those in the respective main clauses. Figures for ίΛαί-clauses with preterite auxiliaries followed by infinitives are entered separately, the auxiliary in most cases being one of the set would!should!'d. In the case of the matrix clause the figures for all auxiliary constructions are combined, irrespective of tense. Table 3.24. Correlation between some verb forms in object that-clauses at first level of embedding and in superordinate (main) clauses. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. 77iflf-clause Main clause Present perfect

Present Preterite perfect (lexical)

PluPreterite perfect aux.+inf.

All

Perf.:pret.

η hor % ver %

4 57.1 5.9

2 28.6 0.9

0 0.0 0.0

1 14.3 0.8

7 100.0 1.4

2.0000

Preterite (lexical)

η hor % ver %

7 2.4 10.3

130 43.8 59.1

33 11.1 76.7

100 33.7 84.0

297 100.0 60.1

0.0538

Present (lexical)

η hor % ver %

Al 32.4 69.1

72 49.7 32.7

5 3.4 11.6

7 4.8 5.9

145 100.0 29.4

0.6528

Auxiliary + infinitive

η hor % ver %

7 25.9 10.3

10 37.0 4.5

2 7.4 4.7

5 18.5 4.2

27 100.0 5.5

0.7000

All

η hor % ver %

68 13.8 100.0

220 44.5 100.0

43 8.7 100.0

119 24.1 100.0

494 100.0 100.0

0.3091

As Table 3.24 indicates, the distribution of verb forms in object thatclauses varies a lot depending on the verb form of the main clause. The two most noteworthy rows in the table are those for the most frequent main-clause verb forms: the preterite and the (simple) present tense. The distributions for

178

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

constructions with those two verb forms in the main clause are illustrated in Figure 3.22. Comparison with Table 3.21 reveals that the tendency for the verb form in a first-level object that-clause to be identical with the verb in the main clause is weaker than that for a main-clause verb to be the same as the verb form in the preceding main clause. Indeed, the proportion of preterite forms is slightly greater in object fto-clauses if the main-clause verb is in the present tense than if the main-clause verb is also in the preterite. The reason for this can be seen to be that a vast majority of the object ί/ζαί-clauses with the pluperfect or preterite-auxiliary verb forms occur in constructions with preterite main-clause verbs. Just as the preterite-auxiliary forms typically refer to the future in the past, so the pluperfect forms tend to refer to time that is past in the past relative to the time associated with the verb in the main clause. If the main-clause verb is in the present tense, more than eighty per cent of the coded object ί/ιαί-clauses have either present perfect or preterite verb forms. Since in these constructions the matrix verb does not normally provide any past-time anchor for the object-clause to be orientated towards, there is a much smaller proportion of verb forms typically expressing relative past time, and the distribution of verb forms is closer to that in main clauses. However, the present-tense context associated with the main-clause verb does lead to a distinctly higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite than in main clauses.

Object that-clauses

Preterite (lexical)

Present (lexical)

Main-clause verb Figure 3.22. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in first-level object that-clauses according to main-clause verb.

Contextual analysis

179

The underlying figures show that, in object ί/ιαί-clauses as in main clauses, the present perfect is overwhelmingly a verb form used in references to new time, the preterite in references to given time (cf. Table 3.12), although in the recorded object ί/ιαί-clauses given time is in the majority of cases a question of time expressed in the matrix clause, which is then particularly likely to have a preterite verb.94 Most of the preterite clauses classified as expressing new time are specified; besides, most of the various kinds of indirect anchoring already reviewed are represented even among the recorded object ί/ζαί-clauses. In addition the following rather special preterite construction may be noted: C05 243

703

IIAANYWAY· 704 ||I suggested 'Ian · :tried to 'stay with :HVIM • [London-Lund]

Here the present subjunctive or should plus the simple infinitive might have been expected instead of preterite tried, whose use in this spoken source seems to be an instance of the ί/ιαί-clause verb adopting the tense of the matrix verb; Johansson (1979: 203) notes a clear tendency towards such tense agreement in similar ί/ζαί-clauses in British English (but not in American English). In this section we have seen that the use of the present perfect and the preterite in object ί/ζαί-clauses has a lot in common with that in main clauses. Major differences between verbal usage in object that-clauses and in main clauses result from the additional context which in the case of object í/zaí-clauses is provided by the matrix clause, seen most clearly in constructions with preterite matrix verbs. Some of the ways in which object that-clauses differ from main clauses are: (i) the proportion of verb phrases with the pluperfect or with modal auxiliaries is higher, reflecting a high incidence of clauses which express relative time; (ii) the proportion of preterite verbs is correspondingly lower; and (iii) a majority of the clauses expressing given time refer to the time given in the matrix clause. 3.3.12.3. Relative clauses A total of 626 adjectival relative clauses were recorded in CONTCORP. Of these 444 were classified as restrictive and 182 as non-restrictive (cf. Table 3.20).95 Again roughly three-fourths of the recorded clauses occur at the first level of embedding. We shall again look at a sample of the constructions recorded in CONTCORP, first of the restrictive variant:

180

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

NR6 022 Today, Duras divides her time between a sea-front apartment in the northwest of France, a rural cottage and a small dwelling on the Left Bank in Paris that she has rented for the last 40 years. [Newsweek] BS1 162 / will try to justify the approach I have taken towards illocutionary force against competing positions. [Principles of Pragmatics, p. 174] BF2 081 Unscrupulous - that was the word for him. The sort of fellow who would«'/ stick at anything - [The Body in the Library, p. 65] C 0 5 199

592

and he was there [?] and he was with - · he was working for the chap who wrote - · Martin Luther's Crusade for *the People* [London-Lund]

LUI 104 / am pleased to be able to support without hesitation her application for the post for which she has applied. [Survey/business letter, W.7.6.43] The following are some of the relative clauses which were classified as non-restrictive: NR4 001 . . . and he is operating in the homely, honorable tradition of the medieval mystery plays, in which a drunken Noah was berated by his termagant wife and the rude shepherds played out a knockabout farce before falling on their knees before the manger in Bethlehem. [Newsweek, p. 49A] EN2 003 Awkward for the heads of government of America, Japan, West Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada, who had hoped to spend their time at the London economic summit on June 7th-9th rejoicing that, at last, growth and inflation are nearly back to where they were in the halcyon 1950s and 1960s. [Economist, p. 12] BF1 077 Father Quixote went to find his housekeeper in the kitchen which served also as her bedroom, . . . . [Monsignor Quixote, p. 15] C 0 5 182

560

it was ||only my 'last YYEAR there / A C T U A L L Y · - 561 which would have II been WHVAT· 562 ||SIXTY-*_N/INE· * [LondonLund]

It could be seen from Table 3.20 that the present perfect is more frequent and the preterite less frequent in restrictive as compared with non-restrictive

Contextual analysis

181

relative clauses. If all relative clauses are taken into account, irrespective of the level of embedding, as they are in Table 3.20, this difference is statistically significant at the 5% level. 96 In this particular case, however, the underlying figures reveal great differences between BRPRINT, AMPRINT and NONPRINT. If one looks at distributions for all (adjectival) relative clauses in each of these separately, one finds that the tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be greater in the restrictive type of relative clause holds for BRPRINT and, to a lesser extent, for NONPRINT but not for AMPRINT, which displays the opposite tendency; of these, only the result for BRPRINT is statistically significant at the 5% level. 97 We shall again look at the correlation between the verb form of the embedded clause and that of the matrix clause. As in the case of object i/iaf-clauses, we shall confine our attention to clauses embedded at the first level. The figures appear in Table 3.25. The distributions follow largely the same pattern for the two types of relative clause. If we focus on the two most frequent types of main-clause verb phrase once more, it will be seen that in constructions with presenttense verbs in the main clause the present perfect is nearly as common as the preterite in the relative clause, whereas in constructions with preterite main verbs the preterite predominates in the relative clause as well. These distributions are illustrated in Figures 3.23 and 3.24. If we look for differences between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses that might help to explain the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite recorded in the former clause type (with the exception of AMPRINT), it may be noted that the underlying figures show the proportion of constructions referring to time given in the matrix clause to be distinctly higher in non-restrictive compared with restrictive relative clauses (again with the exception of AMPRINT). The difference in the proportion of time given in the matrix clause may be a reflection of the different functions of the two clause types: restrictive relative clauses restrict the reference of the antecedent by referring to information assumed to be known, which means that the information may be conveyed by a preceding sentence but not usually by the matrix clause of the same sentence; non-restrictive relative clauses typically bring in new information, which will often have its basis in the immediate linguistic context and hence may often be associated with the same time as that of the matrix clause. If the results for relative clauses are compared with those for object thatclauses noted above, it will be seen that in clauses embedded in preterite main clauses the frequencies of the preterite are higher, particularly in non-

182

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.25. Correlation between some verb forms in adjectival relative clauses at first level of embedding and superordinate (main) clauses. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present Preterite Plu- Preterite perfect (lexical) perfect aux.+inf.

Restrictive relative clause

All

Perf.:pret.

Main clause η hor % ver %

7 30.4 10.3

12 52.2 7.0

0 0.0 0.0

3 13.0 11.1

23 100.0 7.3

0.5833

Present perfect

η hor % ver %

4 2.6 5.9

100 66.2 58.1

17 11.3 68.0

21 13.9 77.8

151 100.0 47.8

0.0400

Preterite (lexical)

η hor % ver %

38 44.7 55.9

39 45.9 22.7

0 0.0 0.0

1 1.2 3.7

85 100.0 26.9

0.9744

Present (lexical)

η hor % ver %

15 60.0 22.1

7 28.0 4.1

0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0

25 100.0 7.9

2.1429

Auxiliary + infinitive

η hor % ver %

68 21.5 100.0

172 54.4 100.0

25 7.9 100.0

27 8.5 100.0

316 100.0 100.0

0.3953

All

Present Preterite PluPreterite perfect (lexical) perfect aux.+inf.

Non-restrictive relative clause

All

Perf.:pret.

Main clause η hor % ver %

1 8.3 4.2

7 58.3 8.4

0 0.0 0.0

1 8.3 10.0

12 100.0 8.8

0.1429

Preterite (lexical)

η hor % ver %

7 9.3 29.2

54 72.0 65.1

6 8.0 75.0

5 6.7 50.0

75 100.0 55.1

0.1296

Present (lexical)

η hor % ver %

12 37.5 50.0

14 43.8 16.9

0 0.0 0.0

2 6.3 20.0

32 100.0 23.5

0.8571

Auxiliary -l-infinitive

η hor % ver %

2 66.7 8.3

1 33.3 1.2

0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0

3 100.0 2.2

2.0000

All

η hor % ver %

24 17.6 100.0

83 61.0 100.0

8 5.9 100.0

10 7.4 100.0

136 100.0 100.0

0.2892

Present perfect

Contextual analysis

183

Restrictive relative clauses

Preterite (lexical)

Present (lexical)

Main-clause verb

Figure 3.23. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in first-level restrictive relative clauses according to main-clause verb.

Non-restrictive relative clauses

Preterite (lexical)

Present (lexical)

Main-clause verb Figure 3.24. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in first-level non-restrictive relative clauses according to main-clause verb.

restrictive relative clauses. On the other hand, the proportion of auxiliary constructions is much smaller in the recorded relative clauses, the proportion of the pluperfect being much the same as in the case of object í/íaí-clauses. Since, moreover, those auxiliary constructions which do occur in the recorded relative clauses tend to denote a clear modal meaning, the latter observation means that expressions of the future in the past are much less common in relative as compared with object ί/ιαί-clauses, while expressions of the past

184

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

in the past are largely the same. It is not, of course, very surprising to find that the frequent function of object ί/ζαί-clauses to express the content of a thought or intention associated with the matrix verb, through reference to the future in the past, has no common equivalent in the case of relative clauses. The underlying figures for relative clauses show that the present perfect is again a verb form whose chief contextual function is to refer to new time, while a majority of the recorded preterite clauses refer to time classified as given, in the matrix clause and/or a preceding sentence. When the preterite refers to new time, it is either accompanied by an adverbial or other specifier, or it can be associated with some form of indirect anchoring. The few cases where the present perfect refers to given time are mostly instances of the temporal reference extending up to the deictic zero-point, or at least not being clearly separate from that point. Another two of the present perfect relative clauses associated with given time occur in the following passage: BS2 082/085 Consider now what happens when sociolinguistic pressures encourage dialect convergence. In principle, one of two changetypes is likely to occur. Speakers of a vernacular A who seek to adapt to the norms of a prestige variety Β will have to execute either FOOTSTEP-FOLLOWING or STEP-RETRACING strategies. Footstep-following is required when Β has undergone a particular change and A hasn 't. Adaptation to the prestige model involves A speakers in the recapitulation of the change that has affected B. Step-retracing is required if vernacular A has undergone a change (whether this is contact-induced or due to 'normal' evolutive processes) which has left standard Β unaffected. Here adaptation to the standard entails undoing the change that has occurred in A. ["Syntactic variation", p. 324] This passage contains several instances of the present perfect expressing what was classified as "generic past time" during the coding of CONTCORP. The two verb forms romanised in relative clauses were both classified as expressing given generic past time. The reference is to a time which is "past" in the sense that it precedes another time which is either referred or alluded to. However, this other time is not the deictic zero-point or any other time that can be deictically determined, because what characterises this type of temporal reference is that it is to time which is outside, and independent of, the deictic universe of discourse that the rest of the text is

Contextual analysis

185

associated with (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.2.1, especially note 8). The reference is not to any particular point or period of time, even if it is to times which are envisaged as occurring in a given sequence relative to one another. In this section we have seen that the use of the present perfect and the preterite in relative clauses has a lot in common with that in main clauses and in object f/iaf-clauses. The ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is much as in object ί/ζαί-clauses, but the frequency of both verb forms is higher in relative clauses, because of a much smaller proportion of auxiliary verb phrases, whereas the proportions of pluperfect forms are more similar. This means that the expression of time-past-in-the-past is much as in object that-clauses, while references to the future in the past are rarer. The higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in restrictive compared with non-restrictive relative clauses (in BRPRINT and NONPRINT) has been related to a greater temporal independence of the immediate linguistic context in the case of restrictive clauses.

3.3.12.4. When-clauses As could be seen from Table 3.20, a total of 141 w/ien-clauses were recorded in CONTCORP.98 As with the other types of subordinate clause we have considered, approximately three-fourths of the recorded w/zerc-clauses are embedded at the first level. These are some of the w/zen-clauses recorded in CONTCORP: AFI 134 Ί passed English all right,'I said, 'because I had all that Beowulf and Lord Randal My Son stuff when I was at the Whooton School. ...' [The Catcher in the Rye, p. 14] SRI 033 . . . when he wanted to practise she packed him off to an outside porch. [Sunday Times] C03 020

100

well ||when I was · doing freelance A D V E R T I S I N G · H[öi:] ¡VADVERTISING _agency· 102 that I · ||sometimes did some WXORK _ f o r · · 103 *||R\ANG* m e · 104 and said [am] II we've got a CL'IENT • [London-Lund] 101

RN3 016 Nonetheless, he was in a buoyant mood when he briefly faced waiting newsmen. [BBC radio news]

186

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The constructions recorded with when-clauses have a much more uniform temporal structure than was the case with the subordinate clauses considered above. We have already seen that the vast majority of the w/ierc-clauses occurring in CONTCORP - roughly ninety per cent - have preterite verbs. Table 3.26, confined to clauses embedded at the first level, shows that nearly as many are embedded in preterite matrix clauses: most of the recorded constructions are preterite clauses embedded in preterite clauses. Table 3.26. Correlation between some verb forms in when-clauses at first level of embedding and superordinate (main) clauses. Horizontal and vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. W/ien-clause Main clause Present perfect

Present Preterite Preterite perfect (lexical) progressive

Pluperfect

All

Perf.rpret.

η hor % ver %

1 100.0 33.3

0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0

1 100.0 0.9

oo

Preterite (lexical)

η hor % ver %

0 0.0 0.0

81 93.1 83.5

3 3.4 100.0

2 2.3 100.0

87 100.0 82.1

0.0000

Pluperfect

η hor % ver %

0 0.0 0.0

3 100.0 3.1

0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0

3 100.0 2.8

0.0000

Auxiliary + infinitive

η hor % ver %

0 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 7.2

0 0.0 0.0

0 0.0 0.0

7 100.0 6.6

0.0000

All

η hor % ver %

3 2.8 100.0

97 91.5 100.0

3 2.8 100.0

2 1.9 100.0

106 100.0 100.0

0.0309

The rather special verbal distribution in w/ien-clauses follows from their most typical temporal function: to establish anchors for the respective matrix clauses to attach themselves to, the when-clause acting as a temporal adverbial in that matrix clause. This anchor can be linked with a temporal reference expressed in the preceding linguistic context, in which case the temporal reference of the when-clause was classified as being to given time, or the anchor established by the when-clause can be new in the context. The exact nature of the relationship between the temporal reference of the w/zen-clause and that of the matrix clause may vary, depending chiefly on the grammatical form and aspectual character of the two verbs." If both verbs are preterite, it is usually a question of contemporaneity, i.e. of varying

Contextual analysis

187

degrees of overlap, or of the two situations forming a pretty close temporal sequence. The latter will be the case if both situations are bounded (usually punctual), the situation denoted by the when-clause typically preceding that denoted by the matrix clause: "They left when John came." Usually if the when-clause verb is unbounded, and in all cases when it appears in the preterite progressive, the clause will refer to a period which encompasses (if the matrix verb is bounded and non-progressive) or is more or less co-extensive with (if the matrix verb is unbounded and/or progressive) the situation denoted by the matrix clause, as illustrated by, respectively, C 0 3 020 and RN3 016, reproduced above. 100 With a present perfect verb in the when-clause the temporal relationship between that clause and the matrix clause will usually be one of sequence, or sometimes of repeated contemporaneity, especially if the subordinate verb is unbounded (cf. "When I have visited them, she has always seemed very happy."). Of the three instances recorded of the present perfect in whenclauses, two occur in one of the passages quoted during our discussion of relative clauses. The three instances are: BS2 080/081 Footstep-following is required when Β has undergone a particular change and. A has η 't. ["Syntactic variation", p. 324] ENI 027 The cumbersome royal consensus in Riyadh has expected love and courage from the Americans, but when the Americans have taken risks and goofed the Saudis have often been the first to turn their backs. [Economist, p. 12] As in the relative clauses we considered from the same passage, the two verb forms in the when-clause of BS2 080/081 refer to generic past time. ENI 027, on the other hand, is placed within a universe of discourse centred on the deictic zero-point, the time referred to by the present perfect verb in the w/ien-clause being scattered over a period not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. Thus the present perfect forms recorded in w/ien-clauses express the same kind of time that the present perfect expresses in other clause types. Not surprisingly, this kind of time reference is much less common in w/zen-clauses than it is in most other contexts. In addition, present perfect w/ien-clauses may express time that is past in the future (cf. "When I've finished, I'll take a good, long rest."), in which case the reference of the w&en-clause is typically bounded and the construction denotes a future-time sequence. However, not a single instance of this was recorded in CONTCORP (although some do appear in HISTCORP, as we shall see later).101

188

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The two first-level clauses with pluperfect verbs are: C 0 3 050

175

IIwhen I'd WRMTTEN the - b o o k l e t · 176 «and» it was ||all \OVER • 177 I ||rang \ U P · - - 178 to the ||manager's • S E C R E T A R Y · 179 and ||said · «oh» I've ¡FUNISHED· · [London-Lund]

C 0 5 357

898

11 anyway Ί · I ||went and 'did a bit of _Christmas ":SH\OPPING • · 899 IIwhen I'd :FVINISHED • 900 ||when the SH\OPS /OPENED {a||bout N/INE • } • - -[London-Lund]

These when-clauses refer, respectively, to the end-point of the accomplishment denoted by C 0 3 050 and to the achievement denoted by C 0 5 357, both of them associated with given time. The effect of using the pluperfect is to emphasise that the situations referred to by when-clause and main clause definitely form a temporal sequence and that there is no question of even partial overlap; in the case of the accomplishment denoted by C 0 3 050, a preterite verb would be taken to refer to the whole of the verbal action, or possibly the action as being in progress, rather than the end-point denoted by the pluperfect. If we look at the question of specification in w/ien-clauses, the underlying figures for first-level clauses with preterite verbs reveal a consistent tendency for the proportion of specified clauses to be higher if the clause precedes rather than follows the main clause: nearly a third of preceding wAen-clauses contain some kind of temporal specification, as against less than a tenth of following w/zen-clauses.102 The preceding specified wften-clauses tend to express the kind of condensed information that is characteristic of many texts appearing in newspapers and news magazines. Constructions with such w/ien-clauses could be expected often to be replaced by two consecutive main clauses in spoken language, for example. Two of the constructions recorded in CONTCORP are: NN2 010 When Sakharov announced five weeks aso that he was beginning a hunger strike, his statement added one more strain to already tense East-West relations. [Newsweek] STI 016 When she went to Russia in 1921 (by herself because Russell, who had undertaken to take her with him, went off without her), she believed in it passionately simply because she believed in, and liked, the people she met. [Sunday Times]

Contextual analysis

189

Even unspecified when-clauses can be used to express the kind of condensed language often found in news reports: RN9 029 We're just getting details of an incident when Norwegian officials boarded a Soviet ice-breaker. [BBC radio news] EN3 005/007 The panic in Chicago subsided only when the Federal Reserve Board said it was prepared to meet any extraordinary liquidity requirements of Continental Illinois, and when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation promised that all depositors and other general creditors of the bank would be fully protected. [Economist, p. 13] In EN3 005/007 the when-clauses express a clear causal relationship, in addition to the purely temporal one. In some cases, typically with the whenclause following the matrix clause, the temporal meaning of the when-clause is clearly secondary, or barely noticeable, the chief semantic function of the clause being to denote cause or circumstance in a more general sense. 103 Such when-clauses are usually unspecified. Some examples: RN3 045 Later, after the Queen had gone, the mood changed when about 200 Aboriginals and their supporters tried to defy a ban on unauthorised marches. [BBC radio news] RN. 045 The inhabitants of the shantytown were clearly amazed at the sight of a police-led motorcade, complete with a Daimler limousine driving through their muddy, narrow streets, and even more so when out stepped a British princess. [BBC radio news] The following two constructions have the same kind of when-clause embedded below the first level: HB2 009 Two weeks ago more than 1,000 undergraduates at the University of Xiamen held a rally against a decision to spend 100,000 yuan (about $40,000) on beautifying the campus when the library was short of books, the students said. [Herald Tribune] C 0 4 043

155

[a:] · I || wondered 'why he was :so a'mazed *when* Ί came :\EARLY • - - [London-Lund]

In quite a few cases where a preterite w/zen-clause performs its primary function of establishing a past-time anchor for the matrix verb, the whenclause likewise expresses new time without being accompanied by any temporal specification. Some of those cases can be classified as denoting unique past time, or come under the other kinds of indirect anchoring we have iden-

190

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

tified, but in some of them no anchoring of any kind is identifiable. That use of the preterite is more common in w/zen-clauses than in any of the other clause types examined.104 In this section we have seen that the recorded w/ien-clauses differ from the other clause types we have considered in being completely dominated by preterite verb forms. There are two main reasons for this: in w/ien-clauses reference to time extending up to the deictic zero-point, or not being clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, is rare; and the requirement that the preterite should be accompanied by an explicit or implicit past-time anchor has been found to be relaxed in the case of preterite verbs appearing in whenclauses, the typical function of a when-clause being to establish an anchor for another, superordinate verb; relaxation of this requirement appears to be especially common in linguistic varieties characterised by a condensed style, such as journalese.

3.3.13. Verb forms according to some clause-level parameters During the analysis of CONTCORP a number of contextual factors were included in the coding. We shall look at some of the factors which can be regarded as parameters at the clause level, and their impact on the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite: aspectual character (section 3.3.13.1), clause structure (section 3.3.13.2), realisation type of subject (section 3.3.13.3),105 negation (section 3.3.13.4), interrogation (section 3.3.13.5), and voice (section 3.3.13.7). The combined effect of some of those parameters will be taken up in section 3.3.13.6.

3.3.13.1. Aspectual character The recorded constructions were classified in terms of the aspectual classes discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.6), where we used Vendler's labels. Besides the distinction between achievements, accomplishments (both bounded), activities and states (both unbounded), all predicates were marked as referring either to a single situation or to several separate situations. Constructions were classified as referring to several situations only if the situations were held to be temporally separate, i.e. two or more contemporaneous or overlapping situations were classified as single. In cases of doubt my general policy was to mark situations as single.

Contextual analysis

191

Not only the verbal meaning by itself but the meaning of the verb in its context was taken into account in assigning a construction to one or another of the eight classes. For example, the classification might be affected by the presence of an object, as we saw in Chapter 2. On the other hand, verbal aspect (i.e. the occurrence of a progressive verb form) was not generally taken into account, although it is clear enough that the progressive will serve to render an otherwise bounded predicate unbounded. That particular problem does not, of course, affect the verb forms at the focus of attention in this study: the (non-progressive) present perfect and preterite. We shall look at a passage from CONTCORP as an illustration of how the classification was carried out: C 0 3 324-327 941 but one «I» ||think one has to bear in mind the m e n ' s colleges have been going on «[f]» since the Middle : \ A G E S · - - [single activity] 942 the |[ women's colleges were - : founded at the end of the last :C\ENTURY· [several achievements] 943 IIweren't really ES!T\ABLISHED • 944 un||til about nineteen !TW\ENTY • [several achievements] 945 I think ||don't think women could !T\AKE de_grees • 946 un||til - as late as T H / A T · [single state] - - 947 in ||/EXTON • · [London-Lund] Obviously, these distinctions are not clear-cut in all cases. Most of the problems had to do with the division within either the bounded (i.e. between achievements and accomplishments) or the unbounded group (i.e. between activities and states), rather than with the major bounded/unbounded distinction itself. We shall concentrate on distributions recorded in main clauses. Table 3.27 gives the figures according to the four aspectual classes distinguished, separately for constructions classified as referring to single and to several situations. It can be seen from Table 3.27 that between them the present perfect and the preterite generally account for about ninety per cent of the constructions referring to single situations, the only notable exception being activity situations, where a substantial proportion of the verb forms appearing as "other" were recorded; the majority of those constructions are preterite progressive forms, which, not surprisingly, are commonly used with verbs denoting activities. Table 3.27 reveals that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is highest for achievements and lowest for states. In the predominant sub-group, that of constructions expressing reference to single situations, the second largest ratio was recorded for activities, the main reason for the dif-

192

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.27. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to aspectual class. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. (a) Single situations Aspectual class Achievement

η

% Accomplishment

η

% Activity

η

% State

η

% Sum

η

% (b) Several situations Aspectual class Achievement

η

% Accomplishment

η

% Activity

η

% State

η

% Sum

η

%

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

307 25.7

803 67.1

86 7.2

1196 100.0

0.3823

166 13.6

966 79.2

87 7.1

1219 99.9

0.1718

56 14.4

217 55.9

115 29.6

388 99.9

0.2581

93 6.6

1146 81.7

164 11.7

1403 100.0

0.0812

622 14.8

3132 74.5

452 10.7

4206 100.0

0.1986

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

92 42.6

89 41.2

35 16.2

216 100.0

1.0337

57 36.5

70 44.9

29 18.6

156 100.0

0.8143

22 25.6

32 37.2

32 37.2

86 100.0

0.6875

6 17.1

22 62.9

7 20.0

35 100.0

0.2727

177 35.9

213 43.2

103 20.9

493 100.0

0.8310

ference between those constructions and accomplishments being the lower proportion of the preterite and the higher proportion of the preterite progressive in the case of activities. 106 As regards the much less numerous constructions expressing reference to several situations, the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite are consistently much larger. The reason must be that since the reference of preterite verbs will usually be associated with particular past-time anchors, that reference will tend to be more sharply delimited than the reference of

Contextual analysis

193

(frequently unanchored) present perfect verbs. Hence preterite constructions will often lend themselves less well to reference to situations which are separate in time. The limiting case of this kind of reference will be reference which cannot be separated from the deictic zero-point, when the present perfect is usually the only available verb form, as we have seen (section 3.3.8). The figures given in Table 3.27 conceal the differences that were recorded among the three major divisions of CONTCORP. The most important difference is that AMPRINT shows its highest ratio between the present perfect and the preterite for activities, in the case of reference both to single and to several separate situations.107 The results set out in Table 3.27 are partly explained by correlations between aspectual class and two of the other parameters we operate with: the distinction between given and new time, and temporal location (see above, sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.8). For example, one reason for the very low ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in the case of states is that those situations are more likely than others to be associated with given time, and also more likely to be located wholly in the past. If the comparison is limited to single situations classified as referring to new time located wholly in the past, there are still some very marked differences in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite, but now achievements come out on top even in AMPRINT, with ratios between the present perfect and the preterite in all the three major subdivisions of CONTCORP several times larger than those for any other aspectual class, accomplishments displaying the second largest ratios. That means that in the case of the constructions where the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is most open - the constructions classified as denoting single situations and referring to new time located wholly in the past - the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is consistently higher with bounded than with unbounded situations. 796 such constructions were classified as referring to bounded situations. Of these 277 (i.e. 34.8%) are in the present perfect and 501 (62.9%) in the preterite. 323 similar constructions were classified as referring to unbounded situations, of which 14 (4.3%) are in the present perfect and 274 (84.8%) in the preterite. These distributions are illustrated in Figure 3.25. The marked difference in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite recorded according to the bounded/unbounded opposition in these cases points to what may well be an important reason for the differences noted in this section. If it is true that the present perfect is associated with "current relevance" more often than the preterite provided there are no other factors forcing the choice of verb form, then it is only reasonable

194

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Bounded/unbounded distinction 100%

80%

Bounded

Unbounded

Figure 3.25. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms according to bounded/unbounded distinction in main clauses referring to single situations associated with new time located wholly in the past.

that the present perfect proportion should be larger in the case of bounded situations, because these can more easily be thought of as having produced "results" which can be seen as relevant at the deictic zero-point. That applies especially to achievements, which often denote transition from one state to another. This does not mean that our findings can be taken as support for the claim that resultativeness, or current relevance more generally, is the basic factor distinguishing the present perfect from the preterite. Firstly, the most distinct difference in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite according to the bounded/unbounded opposition emerges when the comparison is confined to instances of new time located wholly in the past, i.e. when the most obvious of the other conditioning factors are neutralised; secondly, we have found that the preterite predominates irrespective of aspectual class what varies is the size of the predominance; thirdly, the "results" produced by the past situations under consideration are in most cases much vaguer and more elusive than in the constructions often adduced to corroborate currentrelevance theories; and fourthly, we have seen that the preterite can be just as "resultative" as any present perfect constructions can ever be claimed to be. However, in cases where the various time-referential conditioning factors we have identified do not clearly favour the use of one or the other verb form, there does seem to be a somewhat greater tendency to use the present perfect if the past situation is one that can be associated with current relevance.

Contextual analysis

195

3.3.13.2. Clause structure We shall next consider the correlation between verb form and clause structure. A distinction will be made between what were found to be the three most frequent clause structures: SV, SVO and SVC (the C standing for "subject complement"). Ditransitive constructions (SVOO) and transitive constructions with object complements (SVOC) were coded separately, as were constructions with existential there and catenative constructions, i.e. constructions with infinitive or gerundial clauses in object(-like) functions. These were not included in the classes to be considered here. On the other hand, all adverbial elements, nuclear and non-nuclear, obligatory and optional, are disregarded in this classification, so that, for instance, occurrences of the SVA pattern are subsumed under the label "SV". All constructions with BE or other copula(-like) verbs in main-verb functions were marked as SVC, including those where the complement is realised by an adverb (phrase) or a prepositional phrase.108 Our descriptions of the various clause patterns further ignore word order, so that, for instance, transitive constructions with fronted objects appear as SVO. The results can be studied in Table 3.28. They are illustrated in Figure 3.26. The lower ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in SVC clauses is striking, and consistent for all three of the major divisions of CONTCORP.109 The much smaller difference in the present perfect/preterite Table 3.28. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to clause structure. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

143 16.6

559 65.0

158 18.4

860 100.0

0.2558

489 19.5

1755 69.8

269 10.7

2513 100.0

0.2786

% SVC

η %

79 9.8

664 82.0

67 8.3

810 100.1

0.1190

All

η %

800 17.0

3348 71.2

555 11.8

4703 100.0

0.2389

SV

η

% SVO

η

196

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Clause structure

SV

SVO

SVC

Figure 3.26. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to clause structure.

ratio between SV and SVO is not statistically significant for CONTCORP as a whole, nor is it consistent across the major divisions, AMPRINT displaying a somewhat higher ratio for SV clauses.110 The present perfect/preterite differences recorded depending on clause structure show a high degree of correlation with the aspectual classes distinguished in the previous section. Here the following (predictable) pattern predominates in all three subdivisions of CONTCORP: (i) SVC clauses are highly overrepresented among states; (ii) SV clauses are overrepresented among achievements and activities; and (iii) SVO clauses are overrepresented among achievements and accomplishments. SVO clauses are thus most frequent in the aspectual classes with the highest ratios between the present perfect and the preterite, SVC clauses most frequent in the aspectual classes with the lowest ratios. In fact, if the aspectual-class factor is held constant, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite for SVC no longer deviates significantly from the other cases, nor is there any clear and consistent difference between SV and SVO. However, the converse relationship does not hold: if the clause-structure factor is held constant, the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite still varies markedly depending on aspectual class; in particular, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is consistently well above average for achievements and distinctly below average for states, in all the major clause structures.

Contextual analysis

197

The different distributions between the present perfect and the preterite recorded according to clause structure can thus be regarded largely as a formal, high-level confirmation of the deeper-level differences depending on aspectual class noted in section 3.3.13.1. Above all, the very low ratio between the present perfect and the preterite recorded in SVC clauses is a reflection of the fact that such clauses are much more likely to refer to states than clauses conforming to the other patterns.

3.3.13.3. Realisation type of subject Various features of the subject of each construction were also included in the coding of CONTCORP. Tables 3.29 and 3.30 set out the recorded verbal distributions according to the realisation type of the subject in respect of all main clauses where the subject was classified as either singular or plural; subjects headed by collective nouns and a few other borderline cases are excluded.111 The tables reveal great differences. One notable result is the overall difference between singular and plural subjects: the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is markedly higher with plural than with singular Table 3.29. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms according to subject type in main clauses with subjects classified as singular. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

214 20.4

712 67.9

122 11.6

1048 99.9

0.3006

% you

η %

51 25.2

123 60.9

28 13.9

202 100.0

0.4146

he/she/it

η %

89 9.9

692 76.7

121 13.4

902 100.0

0.1286

Other pronoun

η %

12 7.9

117 77.0

23 15.1

152 100.0

0.1026

Noun-headed

η %

186 15.5

909 75.6

108 9.0

1203 100.1

0.2046

All

η %

577 16.0

2616 72.4

419 11.6

3612 100.0

0.2206

/

η

198

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.30. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms according to subject type in main clauses with subjects classified as plural. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite.

we

η

% they

η

% Noun-headed

η

% All

η

%

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

23 13.4

119 69.2

30 17.4

172 100.0

0.1933

20 9.6

149 71.6

39 18.8

208 100.0

0.1342

129 26.2

328 66.7

35 7.1

492 100.0

0.3933

ill 19.5

619 68.3

110 12.1

906 99.9

0.2859

subjects. 112 As could be expected, the underlying figures show constructions with plural subjects to be more apt to refer to several separate situations, so that this difference can be related to that displayed by Table 3.27. There are further remarkable differences within each of the tables we are now concerned with, Tables 3.29 and 3.30. The types of singular subjects distinguished in Table 3.29 can be seen to fall into three groups: the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is highest for lst-and 2ndperson pronouns and lowest for 3rd-person pronouns {he, she, it and "other pronoun"), noun-headed subjects occupying an intermediate position. 113 The distribution of verb forms in those three groups of singular subjects is illustrated in Figure 3.27. The very distinct difference in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite within the singular group between 1st- and 2nd-person pronouns on the one hand and 3rd-person pronouns on the other hand is related to the difference already observed between reference to new time and to given time (above, section 3.3.7), as is again confirmed by the underlying figures. The 1 st- and 2nd-person pronouns, I and you, are typically used to express extra-textual, situational reference, and are characteristic of an interactive use of language. 3rd-person personal pronouns, on the other hand, commonly express anaphoric textual reference. The subjects listed as "other pronoun" consist largely of the four demonstratives that, this, those and these. Like he, she and it, these usually have anaphoric reference - hence the particularly low ratio of the present perfect to the preterite; evidently, if the subject has anaphoric reference, the reference

Contextual analysis

199

Singular subjects

60%

40%

20%

0%

ll 1st/2nd-person

3rd-pefson pronoun

Ί Noun-headed

Figure 3.27. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to realisation type of singular subjects. of the verb is also more likely to be to time given in the preceding context than it is in other cases. The underlying figures also show that constructions with 1st- or 2ndperson subjects are more likely to refer to time extending up to the deictic zero-point, or at least not clearly separate from that point, than those with 3rdperson subjects. This is another consequence of the high degree of situational integration characterising the use of 1st- and 2nd-person pronouns, and it further explains the differences in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite set out in Table 3.29. Some correlation between subject reference and aspectual character further helps to account for the recorded differences: according to the underlying figures, clauses whose subjects have personal reference are more apt than others to refer to situations classified as bounded, generally more dynamic than unbounded situations. Since, other things being equal, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite has been found to be distinctly higher for bounded than for unbounded predicates (cf. above, section 3.3.13.1), this contributes to the high ratios noted for constructions with subjects realised by 1st- or 2nd-person pronouns. The higher incidence of present perfect constructions in the case of you as compared with / (if real) 1 1 4 can be explained from a disproportionate number of interrogative constructions with subject you\ as we shall see later (section 3.3.13.5), the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is considerably higher in interrogative than in declarative constructions.

200

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

If we turn to the much less numerous group of constructions with plural subjects, we see that the lst-person pronoun again shows a higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite than the 3rd-person personal pronoun, although this time the difference is not statistically significant.115 Here, however, noun-headed subjects display a higher ratio than either of the pronoun classes. 116 The best way to explain the recorded figures for plural subjects is probably to view each class in relation to the respective singular class. That the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite would be lower for we than for / was to be expected, since we differs from I in not always having its reference fully determined by the speech situation itself, so that we can be assumed to be more closely attached to the preceding context. This must also be the reason why the ratio of the present perfect to the preterite is lower for we than for the varied class of noun-headed subjects. As for they, the recorded distribution is much the same as for 3rd-person singular pronouns. In both cases the low ratio between the present perfect and the preterite reflects a high incidence of references to given time. There is again some variation among the three major divisions of CONTCORP but none that is statistically significant. The most notable single result is perhaps that in AMPRINT the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is no higher than average (in fact it is slightly lower) for lst-person subjects (singular and plural), but here overall figures are low. In this section we have seen that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite varies significantly depending on the realisation type of the subject, more particularly on whether the subject is (a) singular or plural, (b) lst/2ndperson or 3rd-person, and (c) a pronoun or noun-headed. We have concluded that this variation is indirect evidence of the influence of the following factors: (i) the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is greater if the reference is to several, temporally separate situations than in other cases; that is related to the fact that (ii) the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is greater if the reference is to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point than if it is to time located wholly in the past; and (iii) the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is greater if the reference is to new time than to given time. The variation depending on subject type can thus be seen as more objective, if indirect, evidence of the impact of some of the other parameters we have studied.

Contextual analysis

201

As a concluding comment on the connections that have been uncovered in this section we may say that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite increases with the degree of situational integration and decreases with the degree of textual integration.

3.3.13.4. Negation Table 3.31 gives the figures recorded for the correlation of verb form and negation in main clauses. In addition to straightforward negative constructions, with not and auxiliary support, a group of semi-negatives is distinguished. Table 3.31. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to negation. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite.

Positive

η

% Negative

η

% Semi-negative

η

% Sum

η

%

Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

676 15.9

3116 73.1

470 11.0

4262 100.0

0.2169

93 29.2

164 51.4

62 19.4

319 100.0

0.5671

31 25.4

68 55.7

23 18.9

122 100.0

0.4559

800 17.0

3348 71.2

555 11.8

4703 100.0

0.2389

Semi-negatives are constructions which do not contain the negative particle not and thus do not require auxiliary support but may nevertheless be said to be negated, for example through the occurrence of an adverbial like never or no longer or a nominal like nobody or nothing.117 The different verbal distributions depending on negation are illustrated in Figure 3.28. If we compare regular negative constructions with positive ones, it can be seen that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is more than two and a half times as high in negatives. This difference is consistent across the major divisions of CONTCORP (although not so marked in AMPRINT), and must be seen as a reflection of the kind of temporal reference likely to be expressed by the two kinds of construction: in a positive construction

202

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Negation 80%-Τ"

fH

Present perfect

I

Preterite

Β

Other

60%

40%

20%

Positive

Negative

Semi-negative

Figure 3.28. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to negation.

the reference will frequently be to a specific point or period of time, in our case located prior to the deictic zero-point; in a past-orientated negative construction the reference can be expected more often to be non-specific, in the sense that the main point of the message will be that the situation has not occurred at all within a time span extending all the way up to the deictic zero-point rather than that it did not occur at a particular time in the past - and that, of course, is precisely the kind of temporal reference typically associated with the present perfect. The distribution of verb forms in semi-negative clauses is fairly close to that in regular negatives, obviously because they tend to express a similar kind of reference. 118 The difference in temporal location is confirmed by the underlying figures: negative and semi-negative constructions are much more likely to have been classified as expressing time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point than positive ones. In constructions referring to time located wholly in the past the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is in fact lower for negative than for positive cases, although here the number of recorded negative constructions is small and the difference not statistically significant. We shall have a look at some examples of the recorded negative and semi-negative constructions: HC2 032 [semi-negative] There was no hint that loosening of travel bans might offer a topic for fresh beginnings. [Herald Tribune]

Contextual analysis

ER2 012 She was not just a moll, she was a working gangster. p. 95]

203

[Economist,

BDI 009 MEG. ... I haven't seen him down yet. [The Birthday Party, p. 10] C 0 5 204 [semi-negative] 615 he's changed about the face he's not quite so bony and immature · oh I mean his face never looked immature but somehow it's got - i t ' s got older [London-Lund] T15 008 +1+ AdVidn't 'want to 'bring it 'in# unAless it was :fVairly 'certain* you were Agoing to be _able to _come and :pick it *!\up#* [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.7.31.5] LU2 119 / have not yet had the opportunity to contact my research tutor, Mr. =Name Name=, also of =Name=. [Survey/business letter, W.7.8.56] Two striking features of these examples are (i) that several of them are from text categories representing (imitations of) spoken English, and (ii) that most of them have personal-pronoun subjects. To find out to what extent these are real characteristics of the recorded negative and semi-negative clauses, distributions in the whole of CONTCORP were checked. Negative constructions showed a higher-than-average frequency in BRPRINT and AMPRINT novels and drama and in the telephone texts and (to a lesser extent) the texts representing face-to-face conversation. The proportion of negatives was lower than average not only in science, news magazines and newspapers but also in the letters category and, especially, radio news bulletins of NONPRINT. Negation thus seems to be most frequent in categories which can be associated with a high proportion of what we have referred to as situationally integrated language, which, as we saw in section 3.3.13.3, is also characterised by a high ratio between the present perfect and the preterite. As regards semi-negative constructions, they turned out to be much more evenly distributed over the various text categories. The distribution of negatives according to subject type also displayed some notable differences: the percentage of negatives is greatest in constructions with 1st- or 2nd-person subjects, which are precisely the constructions with the highest ratios between the present perfect and the preterite (cf. Table 3.29). In the case of lst-person subjects the percentage of negatives is 10.9 in main clauses, in the case of 2nd-person subjects it goes as high as 15.2, against an average of 6.8 per cent for all main clauses.

204

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

As for semi-negatives, they reach their highest percentage with the subject type labelled "other pronoun", which is explained by the fact that this group includes forms like no one, nobody, nothing. According to the underlying figures, constructions with 1 st- or 2nd-person pronouns as subjects are furthermore most frequent precisely in the text categories where the proportion of negatives was found to be at its highest, i.e. the categories representing spoken English or imitations of spoken English, where language can be expected to be highly situationally integrated. The two conditioning factors subject type and text category reinforce one another: each factor operates independently of the other, in the sense that the proportion of negatives is affected in the expected direction both by subject type and by text category if the other factor is held constant, with the result that the proportion of negatives is highest in constructions with lst-or 2nd-person subjects in the text categories representing (imitations of) spoken English. The question of whether the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in negative constructions obtains irrespective of subject type will be addressed below (section 3.3.13.6), after we have looked at interrogation. Besides, there is some possibility that the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in positive versus negative clauses may be affected by a purely formal factor: since negative (but not semi-negative) constructions require auxiliary support and the present perfect but usually not the preterite contains an auxiliary even in the positive, negation may be felt to cause less syntactic complication in the case of the present perfect, a difference which may contribute to the lower proportion of negatives in preterite as compared with present perfect constructions.

3.3.13.5. Interrogation We shall move on to consider the effect of a parameter which is related to negation, viz. interrogation. Table 3.32 gives the figures for the correlation of the declarative/interrogative distinction and verb form in main clauses, illustrated in Figure 3.29. Besides regular interrogative constructions, a class labelled "interrogative import" is distinguished. That class consists of constructions whose syntax is not interrogative but which nevertheless convey an interrogative meaning. A couple of examples from CONTCORP of constructions classified as expressing interrogative import:

Contextual analysis

205

Table 3.32. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to the declarative/interrogative distinction. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

Declarative

η %

746 16.7

3190 71.6

518 11.6

4454 99.9

0.2339

Interrogative

η %

45 21.7

131 63.3

31 15.0

207 100.0

0.3435

Interrogative import

η %

9 21.4

27 64.3

6 14.3

42 100.0

0.3333

Sum

η %

800 17.0

3348 71.2

555 11.8

4703 100.0

0.2389

Interrogation 80%

Declarative

Interrogative

Interrogative import

Figure 3.29. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to distinction declarative/interrogative/interrogative import. A D I 014 CHANCE: So you came right over to welcome Bird of Youth, p. 19] C O I 025

me home?

[Sweet

250

[s:m] - - y o u ' v e ||not heard !P\EEL .mentioned {in ||this C O N N = E X I O N • } • [London-Lund]

Table 3.32 reveals that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is distinctly higher with interrogative than with declarative constructions (although the difference is not so marked as that recorded for the

206

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

positive/negative distinction). In clauses with interrogative import the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is almost as high as in regular interrogative constructions.119 The reason for the recorded difference must be much the same as for negatives: as is confirmed by the underlying figures, interrogative clauses are much more likely than declarative ones to express reference to non-specific time, often located within a time span not (clearly) separate from the deictic zero-point. This is connected with the fact that interrogation is typical of an interactive use of language; hence interrogative constructions will often be characterised by a high degree of situational integration, which increases the proportion of references to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, and thus of the present perfect. Also, the same formal factor may be at work as was suggested for negation: the syntactic complication caused by (regular) interrogation may be felt to be less severe in combination with the present perfect compared with the preterite, since the present perfect includes an auxiliary even in declarative constructions. This may again contribute to the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in interrogative constructions, although the fact that the ratio is almost as high in constructions marked "interrogative import" suggests that this is at most a marginal conditioning factor. We shall have a look at a few of the interrogative constructions recorded in CONTCORP: ADI 107 PRINCESS: . . . Have I let go of my figure? [Sweet Bird of Youth, p. 26] SR3 030 Had the fake call been made by Wallace himself, trying to establish an alibi, or did "Qualtrough " deliberately lure Wallace away from his home? [Sunday Times] C 0 4 024

99

II what in 'fact did you :D\OB [London-Lund]

T02 011 [a:] Awhat was I 'going to :s\ay# · [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.7.2b.5] The underlying figures confirm that, like negation, interrogation is most common in the spoken text categories and categories aiming to imitate spoken language. In CONTCORP as a whole the categories with above-average proportions of interrogative constructions were found to be (in order of decreasing proportions) drama, telephone dialogue (by contrast, telephone monologue does not contain a single interrogative sentence), and face-toface conversation.

Contextual analysis

207

Because of the interactive language use that is characteristic of interrogative constructions, it is not surprising that the underlying figures show both regular interrogative sentences and sentences with interrogative import to be very much more frequent with 2nd-person subjects than they are with other subject types: with 2nd-person subjects the two types of interrogative constructions are indeed more frequent than declarative ones (41.5 per cent regular interrogative and 13.4 per cent interrogative import, as against 45.1 per cent declarative), and those interrogative constructions make up very nearly fifty per cent of all recorded interrogatives, in spite of the fact that 2nd-person subjects account for less than five per cent of all constructions. Besides, the proportion of interrogative constructions, but not of constructions with interrogative import, is also distinctly higher than average with subjects classified as "other pronoun", which is explained by the inclusion of forms like anyone, anybody, anything among those pronouns.

3.3.13.6. Negation, interrogation and realisation type of subject in combination Having seen that both negation and interrogation vary with subject type, and that they vary in much the same way, one may ask to what extent those variations account for the variation in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite according to subject type that was observed above (cf. Tables 3.29 and 3.30). We shall therefore have a look at the distribution of verb forms according to subject type in those main clauses that are neither negative (regular or semi-) nor interrogative (regular or by import). The figures appear in Table 3.33, which includes both singular and plural subjects. The figures show that there is still a marked variation in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite depending on subject type. The most conspicuous difference now is between 3rd-person pronouns - personal and "other" - on the one hand and all other subject types on the other hand.120 The reason for the lower ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in the case of 3rd-person pronouns is clearly that these tend to be more closely textually integrated, i.e. more attached to the preceding context, than other subject types. Hence the rest of the clause also tends to be more orientated towards the preceding context, including the temporal reference, which will be to given time more often than in other cases. This is confirmed by the underlying figures. As we have seen, the differences depending on subject type are reinforced by the differences depending on negation and interrogation, which make for

208

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Table 3.33. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms according to subject type in positive, declarative main clauses. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

1 st-person pronoun

η %

164 16.8

692 71.0

119 12.2

975 100.0

0.2370

2nd-person pronoun

η %

12 15.4

47 60.3

19 24.4

78 100.1

0.2553

3rd-p. personal pronoun

η %

85 10.1

639 75.8

119 14.1

843 100.0

0.1330

η

13 9.8

107 80.5

13 9.8

133 100.1

0.1215

326 20.2

1143 71.0

141 8.8

1610 100.0

0.2852

621 16.6

2695 72.0

425 11.4

3741 100.0

0.2304

Other pronoun

% Noun-headed

η

% All

η

%

an even higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in some of the subject classes where that ratio is at its highest even in declarative, positive clauses. What brings together the factors from this section associated with high ratios between the present perfect and the preterite is that they are characteristic of language used with a high degree of situational integration, which will often be language used interactively. Since such language has an above-average proportion of references to past time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, that explains the high ratios between the present perfect and the preterite that we have recorded.121

3.3.13.7. Voice The last clause-level parameter we shall take up is voice. The delimitation of this category is not obvious in all cases.122 Constructions in which a form of BE is followed by the past participle of a transitive verb, as in "The door is locked.", can be analysed in at least three ways: (i) it can be a straightforward dynamic passive (cf. "The door is locked by the caretaker at five o'clock every day.");

Contextual analysis

209

(ii) it can be analysed as a stative passive (cf. "The door is locked, so we can't get in."); and (iii) it can be analysed as a copular construction, with the past participle assigned an adjectival status as subject complement (an analysis that might be suggested by the co-ordination of the participle with a bona fide adjective as in "Is the door locked or open?"). The distinction between (i) on the one hand and (ii) and (iii) on the other hand is usually clear-cut, while there is no hard and fast line of division between (ii) and (iii). If the auxiliary occurs in the present tense, as in the above examples, the three analyses all led to the relevant constructions being classified as presenttense ones; hence they were excluded from the coding for this study in all three cases. However, a handful of similar constructions were recorded in CONTCORP which not only failed to satisfy the criteria for present-tense dynamic passives but also could not be classified as straightforward stative passives, since their reference had to be recognised as being at least partly to past time. These were analysed as passive present perfect forms, with the old perfect auxiliary BE (cf. the list of recorded verb forms in section 3.3.4 above), i.e. BE was taken to double as both passive and present perfect auxiliary. One example: there Ac\ould be a 'mark *'three by n/ow#* [About sewingmachine models.] A *Aw\ell# A mark* 'two is : discontinued a :l\ong 'time +a'go#+ [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.1e.l]

T18 001 Β

Because of the past-time specifier there can be little doubt about the analysis in this particular case, but the distinction is sometimes more difficult to draw. A total of six other constructions from CONTCORP were assigned a similar analysis, of which only two occurred in main clauses. Since in this chapter we shall continue to concentrate on the present perfect with the regular auxiliary HAVE, these constructions will not be included in the figures for passive present perfect constructions to be presented below. 123 A related, and much more frequent, problem occurred with preterite constructions: apart from the straightforward dynamic preterite passive, there were quite a few cases where it was difficult to determine whether a sequence of a preterite form of BE plus a past participle should be taken as a preterite SVC construction or as a stative preterite passive; in the latter case

210

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

it did not matter to the analysis whether the temporal reference could be said to be at least partly to the past in the past, since that type of construction would in any case be included in the coding as a preterite passive. One example of this type of construction is BF1 032 Thinking of all this for the hundredth time he nearly ran into a stationary black Mercedes which was parked round the corner on the main road. [Monsignor Quixote, p. 12] My policy in the coding of CONTCORP was to mark as (stative) preterite passives all such constructions where the preterite auxiliary was readily replaceable by the pluperfect, as in the case of BF1 032. Contextual factors which were taken as indications that a subjectcomplement analysis was preferable included modification of the past participle by intensifiers and the occurrence of bona fide adjectives in parallel with the past participle. One example: AS3 071 The coronary arteries were sclerotic and diffusely throughout their courses, . . . . [BUC, J15 77]

narrowed

During the coding of CONTCORP not only constructions with auxiliary BE but also similar constructions with other auxiliaries were accepted as passives, although those other auxiliaries turned out to be few and far between. Only three instances of the preterite passive with auxiliary GET were recorded, all of them in spoken sources: C 0 4 047

171

and ||if she 'got DEL/AYED *«4 sylls» • • [London-Lund]

C 0 5 095

302

I IIthink he got :paid for ['öi:] - «sort of» :odd W V E E K · that he ||did in OC1TVOBER· · [London-Lund]

303

T05 002 Β * A what h\appened#* A * A we 'got* :cut \off# · Β Ayes we d\id# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.7.2e.l] The following two constructions were among those classified as active, with the past participle taken as a subject complement: C 0 3 401 A

... - -

1225

«then» she ||got this assistant lectureship* at Q!\M • II but in the meantime got b 1227 *[m]* >A 1226 :M\ARRIED • - - [London-Lund] 1226

Contextual analysis

211

LS6 094 This would mean that by March '79 I would actually be earning some money, & able to pay my way & keep myself in the manner to which I have become accustomed. [Survey/social letter, W.7.31a.29] Clearly the last few sets of examples from C O N T C O R P represent borderline cases which have features in common both with prototypical passives and with prototypical subject-complement constructions. The problem is that in an analysis of this kind a dichotomy has to be imposed where the language really displays a cline. Table 3.34 sets out the distributions between the present perfect and the preterite according as constructions were classified as active or passive. 1 2 4 They are illustrated in Figure 3.30. It can be seen that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is distinctly higher in passive as compared with active clauses, i.e. present perfect constructions are more likely to be passive than preterite ones. 1 2 5 Since the preterite passive will include some instances of the stative passive, while the present perfect passive is (almost) exclusively dynamic, it might rather have been expected that the proportion of passives would be larger in the case of the preterite. Part of the explanation for the recorded distributions is that transitive constructions as such display a higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite than other constructions (see above, section 3.3.13.2). However, that is only part of the explanation, because the ratio is higher in passives even if the comparison is limited to transitive constructions. In order to get a clearer impression of the passive constructions recorded we shall look at some more examples of the passive main clauses occurring in CONTCORP: Table 3.34. Distribution of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to voice. Horizontal percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Present perfect

Preterite

Other

Sum

Perf.:pret.

687 16.0

3087 71.8

527 12.3

4301 100.1

0.2225

%

Passive

η %

113 28.1

261 64.9

28 7.0

402 100.0

0.4330

Sum

η %

800 17.0

3348 71.2

555 11.8

4703 100.0

0.2389

BRPRINT Active

η

212

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Voice

Active

Passive

Figure 3.30. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms in main clauses according to voice.

ASI 007 No attempts to measure the radio emission of the remaining planets have been reported, . . . . [BUC, J01 32] AS3 059 Extensive osteoporosis [BUC, J15 65]

with partial collapse of D8 was found.

BS2 015 It is within the general framework of transformational generative grammar that the panlectal identity hypothesis has been most clearly articulated. ["Syntactic variation", p. 310] SC2 017 The scheme was needed. [Sunday Times] BDI 109 STANLEY, /'ve - er - /'ve been offered a job, as a matter of fact. [The Birthday Party, p. 22] LS6 084 I got a massive Valentine card on Monday - very sentimental! I was rather mortified, largely because it hadn't occurred to me to return the compliment, so I got slaughtered over the 'phone yesterday (when I had plucked up enough courage to ring up). [Survey/social letter, W.7.31a.26] The sample suggests that passive constructions are unevenly distributed over the various text categories. Overall figures confirm that the passive proportion is especially large in the two science categories: in BRPRINT science 35 of 147 main clauses, i.e. 23.8 per cent, are passive; in AMPRINT science ninety out of 255 main clauses, i.e. 35.3 per cent, are passive. 126

Contextual analysis

213

The very large passive proportion in the AMPRINT science texts must be connected with the fact that all the three texts making up that category mainly report scientific experiments carried out in the past, the reporting being largely done without mention of any agent (cf. the two examples from AMPRINT science included at the beginning of the above sample). The BRPRINT science texts are more discursive. To find the reason for the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in passive constructions it was checked whether there is any correlation between the active/passive opposition and the other parameters we have considered. The figures revealed that the distribution between the active and the passive varies both with the distinction between aspectual classes (beyond the variation following from different clause structures) and with the distinction between given and new time: the passive frequency is well above average in situations classified as achievements, and below average in states; the passive is further particularly frequent in references to new, especially single, time. 127 Basic thematic principles may go some way towards explaining the second of those correlations: in sequences of references to given time the agent will also be given more often than in other cases, and hence tend to be expressed by the (usually initial) subject, as is typical of active constructions; in references to new time the agent can be expected to be thematically more varied, and its expression in the clause (if it is expressed) also more varied, which is characteristic of passive constructions. As for the positive correlation noted between the passive and achievements, and the negative correlation between the passive and states, there may again be a connection with fundamental thematic principles: in transitive constructions referring to states the object of the (underlying) active construction will often be a subordinate clause or some other nominal denoting a third-order entity - many of these objects are that-clauses - and carry a major part of the information load, so that initial position would be less likely. In constructions referring to achievements, on the other hand, the subject (of the active construction), typically denoting an agent participant, will often be more prominent, and thus well suited to be placed non-initially. Hence transitive constructions referring to achievements lend themselves better to passivisation than those denoting states. Since the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is higher than average both in achievements and in references to new time (cf. above, sections 3.3.13.1 and 3.3.7), these correlations help to explain the higher ratio recorded for passive as compared with active constructions. However, when those factors are held constant, there is still a pretty consistent tendency for

214

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be higher in passive constructions. In an attempt to find the reason for this the active/passive distribution was examined according to clause structure. The passive proportion turned out to be lower in SVO clauses than in more complex transitive clauses (SVOO, SVOC and catenatives with nomináis): 128 in main clauses conforming to the former pattern the percentage of passives is 14.0, in those conforming to one of the latter it is 23.8. 129 One may speculate that a possible reason for this difference could be that in terms of number of clause elements a passive construction will be less complex than an active construction with the same underlying syntactic pattern, so long as any optional elements - including passive fry-phrases are disregarded, i.e. the valency will be one lower in the surface passive construction - cf. "I've been offered a job." versus "Somebody has offered me a job.". The increased proportion of passive constructions in the case of the more complex transitive patterns may thus be seen as a reflection of a tendency to limit the degree of overall syntactic complexity. The fact that in this sense the clause structure of a passive construction is simpler than that of the corresponding active construction may help to explain the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in passive constructions: the pressure against a more complex verb phrase may be felt less strongly in clauses with a simpler structure, since overall syntactic complexity will be more limited. At the level of the verb phrase, finally, the use of the present perfect passive may be facilitated by the fact that a present perfect verb phrase is in any case periphrastic and that the form of the main verb remains the same in the active and the passive - cf. "John has done the job." versus "The job has been done", as against "John did the job." versus "The job was done.". Within the verb phrase a passive preterite form is clearly a more complex, and in a sense heavier, construction than an active preterite; in the case of the present perfect the active/passive balance is more even. This may have contributed further to the more frequent use of the passive in the case of the present perfect as compared with preterite verb forms, i.e. to the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in the case of passive constructions. In this section we have seen that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is distinctly higher in passive as compared with active constructions. The following reasons for this difference have been pointed out: (i) The ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is in any case higher than average in transitive constructions (even in the active).

The elicitation test

215

(ii) The proportion of passive constructions is above average in the aspectual classes where the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is high (even in active constructions), especially in achievements. (iii) The proportion of passive constructions is above average in references to new time, especially contextually isolated time, where the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is also particularly high (even in active constructions). In addition, the following (admittedly somewhat speculative) factors have been suggested to explain the difference in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite according to voice which still remains after the first three factors have been isolated: (iv) At the clause level the lower (surface) valency of a passive construction may help to explain the higher frequency of the present perfect, syntactically more complex than the preterite. (v) At the level of the verb phrase adoption of a passive form, syntactically more complex than the active, may be felt to be a less drastic complication if the verb form is in the present perfect rather than in the preterite, since a present perfect verb phrase will in any case be periphrastic and the form of the main verb remains unaltered. We have now come to the end of our investigation into the use of the present perfect, the preterite and other perfect/preterite verb forms in CONTCORP. 130 Some of the areas of usage where the corpus investigation produced less than conclusive results were among those singled out for attention in the elicitation test, to be presented in our next major section.

3.4. The elicitation test In this section we shall look at the results of the elicitation test that was carried out to supplement the corpus investigation. The informants made up two groups of about equal size, one group being speakers of American English, the other of British English. They were all undergraduate students, at Brown University, Rhode Island, USA, and Cambridge, England, respectively. The exact number of participants in the test was eighty for American English and 93 for British English. 131 In the test the informants were provided with a booklet containing a total of 34 pairs of constructions, each pair consisting of a present perfect (in a

216

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

few cases pluperfect) and the corresponding preterite construction, and asked to indicate their judgment of the acceptability of each construction on a scale from 1 ("completely unacceptable") to 5 ("perfectly OK"). Although the test was done in writing, the participants were asked to base their judgments on the kind of language they would use in their own speech, for instance when speaking with friends. In previous elicitation testing attempts have often been made to conceal from the informants what the grammatical point being tested was (see e.g. Greenbaum 1977 and Greenbaum - Quirk 1970), in order to ensure that what one obtained was the intuitive response of native speakers, rather than their ideas about what they ought to say or write. In my case the present perfect/preterite pairs I wanted to test were presented to the participants without any attempt to conceal the fact that it was the contrast between these two verb forms that was at the focus of attention, although I made a point of not using any grammatical terminology in the introduction to the test. The test results demonstrate that the reliability of the test was nevertheless very good, in that constructions which are grammatically similar also obtained very similar test results (see for instance the scores for constructions (1) and (2) below). The 34 pairs of constructions included in the test (some of them taken from the existing literature) were distributed over five pages. The order of these five pages was varied in the booklets given to the participants in the test, but the content of each page remained the same. Below the constructions from the test will be reordered, and presented in groups according to the kind of temporal reference they can be said to express, with the present perfect (sometimes pluperfect) sentence invariably given first,132 and with average scores given separately for the British and the American informants. A letter in the rightmost column will indicate that the recorded British/American English difference is statistically significant according to the f-test, 133 the particular letter chosen showing the significance level (a: ρ < 0.05; b: ρ < 0.01; c: ρ < 0.001).

3.4.1. Time located wholly in the past We shall look first at constructions containing adverbials that denote time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, starting with two constructions in which the adverbials express straightforward, easily definable past-time reference:

217

The elicitation test

la b

/ have seen John yesterday. / saw John yesterday.

BrE 1.4 5.0

AmE 1.4 5.0

2a b

I have seen Mary last night. I saw Mary last night.

1.3 5.0

1.4 5.0

With the adverbials yesterday and last night both groups of informants gave top scores to the preterite constructions and very low scores to the corresponding present perfect constructions, thus confirming that in such cases the standard view of the distribution of the two verb forms still holds for speakers on both sides of the Atlantic. If the temporal reference expressed by the adverbial is less distinct, the picture soon becomes more varied, as can be seen from the next set of examples: BrE AmE 3a That problem has been solved long ago. 3.1 2.3 c b That problem was solved long ago. 4.9 4.8 4a b

They have stopped selling them recently. They stopped selling them recently.

4.2 4.5

3.8 a 4.5

5a

It has recently been discovered that breathing can be a health hazard. It was recently discovered that breathing can be a health hazard.

4.8

4.3 c

4.2

4.4

3.6

2.7 c

4.4

4.6

b 6a b

She knows Africa very well, because she has lived there recently. She knows Africa very well, because she lived there recently.

7a b

Yes, John is here. I have just seen him. Yes, John is here. I just saw him.

4.8 3.4

3.4 c 4.7 c

8a

I know Mary is around somewhere - I have just talked to her. I know Mary is around somewhere — I just talked to her.

4.2

2.4 c

b

3.8

4.8 c

In all these constructions the temporal reference as specified by the adverbial is to past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, and yet the present perfect scores are consistently higher than they were for (1) and (2). Very generally it can be said that the more distinct the indication of past

218

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

time, the more marked the preference for the preterite. Long ago denotes a time that will usually be held to be further removed from the deictic zeropoint than either yesterday or last night, but the reference is less distinct, and that can be seen to influence the choice of verb form somewhat in favour of the present perfect. Recently is also vague in its temporal reference but will usually be taken to denote a time closer to the deictic zero-point than long ago, as will, even more obviously, just. As regards the relationship between British and American English, it is noteworthy that the present perfect scores are without exception higher for British English, and the difference statistically significant in each case. With the two constructions with just - (7) and (8) - the preterite variant was judged significantly more acceptable by the American informants. British English can be seen to prefer the present perfect in the two constructions with just and in one of the constructions with recently, whereas American English has the higher score for the preterite variant throughout this set. There is nevertheless a close parallel between the two varieties: American English is consistently somewhat more favourable towards the preterite variant and less favourable towards the present perfect compared with British English. It may be wondered what the reasons are for the variations among constructions with the same temporal adverbial: both British and American English take a markedly more positive view of the present perfect construction (5a) than of (4a), and more positive of (4a) than of (6a). Likewise, British and American English both have higher scores for the present perfect construction with just in (7a) than for that in (8a). Concerning the two constructions with just first, it may be significant that the difference in form between the present perfect and the preterite is more distinct with the irregular verb in (7) than with the regular verb in (8): in (8) the only difference between the two verb forms is the presence or absence of the auxiliary have, which in the spoken language will usually appear in a highly reduced form. The way the sentences were printed in the test the present perfect auxiliary was invariably given in its uncontracted form, in order not to prejudge the strong/weak opposition in the corresponding spoken utterances. Contracted auxiliaries might have led to higher present perfect scores, especially for some constructions where the strong form of the auxiliary would be particularly unlikely in speech. The assumption that such factors may affect the choice of verb form, perhaps especially in American English, was corroborated by the fact that after the test some of the American informants said that with some constructions they would have preferred a form "between" the present perfect, as given in the test, and the preterite.

The elicitation test

219

In the case of construction (8) some of the participants in the test may have seen the difference between (a) and (b) not as one between two different forms of the verb TALK but between the presence or absence of the auxiliary have, and some may have felt that the uncontracted auxiliary was too far removed from the weak form they would normally use in their own speech, and from the contracted auxiliary they would often use, and see, in writing. This may have led some to give a higher score to the preterite construction and a lower score to the present perfect construction than they would otherwise have done. With the irregular verb SEE in (7), where the preterite and the past participle are distinct, the choice is more obviously one between two different forms of SEE. The test results may be interpreted as an indication that when that is the case speakers of both British and American English are apt to take a somewhat more positive view of the present perfect variant and a slightly less positive view of the preterite alternative than in other cases where either verb form may occur. If we turn to the three constructions with recently, similar considerations may explain the higher present perfect scores for (5) than for either (4) or (6) : in the latter two constructions the contrast can again be seen as one between inclusion or omission of the perfect auxiliary, whereas the passive form of (5) makes the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite more distinct. As regards the difference recorded between (4) and (6), the most plausible explanation may be that recently is taken to refer to a more distinct past time in (6): living in a particular place is a situation that does not normally change very often, while (4) rather seems to refer to the kind of everyday situation that is often associated with the more immediate temporal context. Before we turn our attention to constructions in which the reference is specified as being to time extending from the past all the way up to the deictic zero-point, we shall look at a couple of cases where the reference expressed by the temporal adverbial does not belong clearly to one or the other type: 9a b 10a b

I have seen Mary yesterday and today. I saw Mary yesterday and today.

BrE 3.5 4.3

/ have talked to Peter today. I talked to Peter today.

3.9 4.8

AmE 3.2 4.4 3.5 a 4.8

It can be seen that with both constructions the preterite variant is preferred. In only one case is there a statistically significant difference between British

220

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

and American English. The reason for the higher preterite scores is probably that even though the temporal adverbials themselves denote time that is not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, the verbal situations are seen as located wholly in the past.

3.4.2. Time extending up to the deictic zero-point Time extending from the past up to the deictic zero-point is the temporal reference type most strongly associated with the present perfect verb form. We shall first look at some constructions where an adverbial denotes such time but where the verbal situation itself is nevertheless located wholly in the past. In one construction of this set - (13) - there is no overt adverbial denoting temporal location in the same sentence; instead the temporal location is indicated by the preceding sentence. In construction (14) the contrast is between the preterite and the pluperfect rather than the present perfect, and the temporal reference extends up to a past reference point rather than to the deictic zero-point. 11a b

I have been to the opera three times this month. I went to the opera three times this month.

BrE 4.6 3.7

AmE 4.7 4.0

12a b

You and I have met before, haven't we? You and I met before, didn't we?

4.7 3.3

4.8 3.5

13a b

That show is still on. I have seen it twice. That show is still on. I saw it twice.

4.8 3.5

4.7 3.8

14a

I was at Mary's party yesterday. She had painted all the ceilings since her last party. I was at Mary's party yesterday. She painted all the ceilings since her last party.

4.1

3.5

2.2

3.7

b

(14) is a rather special construction in our context because of the contrast with the pluperfect. The very marked British/American English difference recorded here is highly noteworthy, suggesting that the higher frequency of the preterite in American English is not confined to cases where the alternative is a construction with the present perfect but extends to cases contrasting with the pluperfect. As regards the other three constructions of this set, it is noteworthy (i) that no clear differences between British and American English were recorded,

The elicitation test

221

and (ii) that there is a consistent preference for the present perfect. These findings are strong evidence that in constructions where the verbal situation is located within a time span specified as extending up to the deictic zero-point, both the main varieties of present-day English prefer the present perfect, even when the verbal situation itself belongs to a past time that is separate from the deictic zero-point. Our figures also demonstrate, however, that both British and American English find the preterite much more acceptable in such cases than they find the present perfect in constructions containing a clear specification of past time (cf. constructions (l)-(2) above). In the next set of examples not only the temporal specifier but also the verbal situation can be associated with time extending up to the deictic zeropoint. It should be borne in mind that negative constructions were analysed in this way provided they conveyed an assertion that the verbal situation did not occur at any time within the time span delimited by the specifier (corresponding to a logical analysis involving external negation and the existential quantifier, or internal negation and the universal quantifier - cf. Chapter 2, section 2.7.2.2).

15a b

I love this place. I have lived here all my life and wouldn 't dream of moving. I love this place. I lived here all my life and wouldn't dream of moving.

BrE 4.9

AmE 4.9

2.1

2.4

16a b

/ have lost ten pounds since I started swimming. I lost ten pounds since I started swimming.

4.8 2.3

4.7 3.3 c

17a

Mary has not written to us since she moved to Brazil. Mary did not write to us since she moved to Brazil.

4.9

4.9

1.7

1.9

I live in New York but I have never seen the St. Patrick's Day Parade. I live in New York but I never saw the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

4.9

4.9

1.8

2.2

b

18a b

What characterises these constructions is a clear preference for the present perfect throughout, in both British and American English. We can see that the preterite scores are here distinctly lower than they were in the previous set. This means that if not only the temporal specifier but also the verbal

222

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

situation itself is associated with time extending up to the deictic zero-point, that leads to an even stronger predominance of the present perfect. The only construction here that stands out slightly from the rest is (16b), where for one thing there is a statistically significant difference between the two varieties, and where secondly the recorded score is somewhat higher than for the other preterite constructions of this set, especially in American English. Why, for instance, is the score for (16b) markedly higher than that for (17b), both constructions being modified by smce-clauses? Two factors may be pointed to, both of which may have contributed to the recorded difference. Firstly, the difference between the form of the present perfect and that of the preterite is greater in (17) than in (16), since LOSE has identical preterite and past participial forms, while the corresponding forms of WRITE are distinct; moreover, the full, uncontracted present perfect auxiliary of (16a) might seem objectionable to some, while the uncontracted auxiliary is the expected form in the negative (17a), where even the corresponding preterite construction requires an auxiliary - cf. (17b). We have already seen that lack of a marked formal distinction between the present perfect and the preterite is conducive to higher scores for the preterite, especially in American English. Secondly, the verbal meaning more obviously extends up to the deictic zero-point in (17b) than in (16b), a difference which is connected with the positive/negative opposition and which further helps to explain the more marked preference for the present perfect in the case of (17) compared with (16).134

3.4.3. Current relevance? Resultativeness, or current relevance more generally, was one of the conditioning factors I wanted to test on the informants. In the next set of examples there is no overt temporal specification forcing the choice of verb form, but the context indicates that the intended reference time - although not the time associated directly with the verbal situation itself - extends up to the deictic zero-point. In each case the context makes it clear that the past situation referred to is held to be currently relevant: 19a b

I'm going to lunch now. Have you had yours? I'm going to lunch now. Did you have yours?

BrE 4.7 2.3

AmE 4.0 c 3.6 c

223

The elicitation test

20a b 21a b

Spain is a nice country. I know some people who have been there. Spain is a nice country. I know some people who were there.

4.8

4.8

3.0

3.1

/ can't come with you, because I haven V finished my paper. / can't come with you, because I did«'t finish my paper.

5.0

4.9 a

2.5

3.9 c

Here again there is a clear and consistent preference for the present perfect. It may be noted that the formal difference between the two verb forms is distinct in all these cases, either because the construction is interrogative or negative, or because the main verb is irregular. Although the element of current relevance is strong in all the constructions of this set, the fact that the present perfect score is consistently the higher is also explainable in terms of a time-referential theory of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite, the present perfect being selected in the absence of any past-time anchor, separate from the deictic zero-point, for the verbal situation to attach itself to. What creates problems for a current-relevance theory is that the preterite is preferred in other cases which seem equally resultative but which contain past-time specifiers. A clear example of that from our elicitation test is (6), considered above, where the preterite was preferred in both British and American English: "She knows Africa very well, because she lived there recently." It is noteworthy that even as vague a past-time specifier as recently is sufficient for the current-relevance factor to yield. This is further evidence that even if current relevance is a factor that may lead to the selection of the present perfect if there are no other factors which force the choice of verb form, it is not the basic factor distinguishing the present perfect from the preterite.

3.4.4. Special adverbs In Chapter 2 (section 2.3.3.3) it was mentioned that certain adverbs have been claimed to affect the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in a direction that does not follow directly from the temporal meaning of those adverbs. The adverbs neverlever/always were also considered in section 3.3.8.2 of this chapter. Construction (18) above brought in the

224

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

adverb never. Here are two more constructions with similar adverbs denoting frequency/length, which in the context imply time extending up to the deictic zero-point: 22a b 23a b

You speak remarkably good French. Have you ever lived in France? You speak remarkably good French. Oid you ever live in France? Is John in prison?? Well, I have always had my suspicions about him. Is John in prison?? Well, I always had my suspicions about him.

BrE 4.8

AmE 4.9

3.2

4.1 c

4.4

4.1 a

4.5

4.2

Despite the claim that the occurrence of an adverb of this set makes the selection of a preterite verb form more likely, it can be seen that in the case of (22) the present perfect is preferred by the American as well as the British informants, while in the case of (23) the score is slightly higher for the preterite construction in both varieties. The most likely reason for the difference recorded between (22) and (23) may be that (22) is interrogative, so that an auxiliary is required even in the preterite construction while the present perfect auxiliary could not appear in any weak or contracted form. The current-relevance factor may also have been at work: that factor is stronger in (22) than in (23). Two other adverbs are also of special interest to the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite. It has sometimes been pointed out that constructions with already and yet, which most speakers of British English would consider typically to take the present perfect, may occur with the preterite in American English (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.3.1, and above, sec-

24a b

When John graduated, he had already known Sue for two years. When John graduated, he already knew Sue for two years.

BrE 4.8

AmE 4.4 b

2.2

2.6

25a b

Have you finished the book already? Did you finish the book already?

4.9 1.5

4.6 c 4.1 c

26a b

Have you told them the news yet? Did you tell them the news yet?

4.9 1.9

4.8 b 4.3 c

225

The elicitation test

27a b

When I called Joan, she had not finished her essay yet. When I called Joan, she did not finish her essay yet.

4.1

4.8 c

1.2

1.7 c

The two preterite constructions where the contrast is with the present perfect (rather than the pluperfect), (25) and (26), display the greatest British/American English difference recorded for the whole test: American English judges these to be almost as acceptable as the corresponding present perfect constructions, British English rejects them. Our findings thus confirm that there is a clear-cut difference between the two varieties in such cases.135 However, the claim that this difference extends to constructions where the temporal reference is to time-past-in-the-past (cf. Vanneck 1958: 239, who has an example with yet) appears to be unfounded: in the case of constructions (24) and (27) both British and American English show a very clear preference for the pluperfect variant - even though the preterite sentences were given somewhat higher scores by the American informants than by their British counterparts.

3.4.5. Unique past-time reference The last set of constructions from the elicitation test all refer to past time which is clearly separate from the deictic zero-point without being supported by any overt temporal specification, and yet the preterite is preferred: BrE 3.1 4.8

AmE 2.5 b 4.9

28a b

Do you know who has written this book? Do you know who wrote this book?

29a

This cake is delicious. Have you made it yourself? This cake is delicious. Did you make it yourself?

2.6

1.6 c

4.9

4.9

30a b

That's a nice picture. Who has painted it? That's a nice picture. Who painted it?

2.4 5.0

1.9 b 5.0

31a b

Look, who has spoilt my drawing? Look, who spoilt my drawing?

3.9 4.4

2.6 c 3.2 c

32a b

The cake is all gone. Who has eaten it? The cake is all gone. Who ate it?

4.4 4.5

3.6 c 4.9 c

b

226 33a b 34a b

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

Surely, it is Shakespeare who has written The Tempest. Surely, it was Shakespeare who wrote The Tempest. My old bicycle now looks brand new. George has painted it. My old bicycle now looks brand new. George painted it.

1.5

1.6

4.9

5.0

4.0

3.0 c

4.3

4.7 b

These constructions can be seen as instances of reference to unique past time. They each refer to a bounded situation in the past which can be viewed as having brought about a state whose present validity is taken to be a fact: since the book/cake exists, somebody must have written/made it at some time in the past, etc., although nothing need be known about when in the past that action took place. The last construction - (34) - does not really belong in this set: to paint a bicycle can hardly be called a unique situation, even by our extended definition, since a crucial criterion of uniqueness is still that the situation can have occurred only once, and a bicycle may easily be painted several times. Unlike most of the constructions included in this set, (34) has a predicate which refers to a repeatable activity (cf. our discussion of Inoue's perfect theory in Chapter 2, section 2.4.2). Even so, both the American and, less markedly, the British informants prefer the preterite construction, probably because the present look of the bicycle acts as a sufficient indication that the action is placed wholly in the past and hence cannot be located at any time within a period extending all the way up to the deictic zero-point. It is noteworthy, however, that the present perfect score for (34) is higher than for some of the other constructions of this last set. Furthermore, (32) is at best a marginal member of the set of constructions referring to unique past time, as the link between the past action of eating a cake and the cake's present state of being gone is less direct than that link is with more central members of the set: a cake can be gone without having been eaten, whereas a book must have been written, a cake must have been made, a picture must have been painted. This can be seen to be reflected in the recorded scores: the differences between the preterite and the present perfect scores are smaller for (32) - indeed, in British English it is negligible - than for the other constructions. The recorded difference is at its greatest with construction (33). But then (33) is not simply an instance of unique past-time reference, since the underlying subject Shakespeare clearly functions as a past-time anchor, leading

The elicitation test

227

unambiguously to the selection of a preterite verb form. That explains why the present perfect/preterite difference is much greater here than in the case of (28), with the same lexical verb WRITE. (31) also calls for a comment. This is the only construction where both the present perfect and the preterite variant came out with significantly lower scores in American than in British English. That is clearly because SPOIL used in this sense is not current in American English. Hence the American informants reacted against the choice of this particular lexical verb.

3.4.6. Significance of test results We shall compare the overall results of our elicitation test for British and American English. The test comprised a total of 34 construction pairs, i.e. 68 constructions. A statistically significant British/American English difference was recorded for exactly half of these, i.e. 34. Among the constructions displaying a significant difference were the three with a pluperfect verb form. If we focus upon the present perfect and the preterite, we end up with 31 constructions for which the test yielded a statistically significant difference between British and American English. Table 3.35 sets out the distribution of those constructions between the present perfect and the preterite and according as the higher score was recorded for either American or British English. Table 3.35. Distribution of constructions from elicitation test with statistically significant difference between British and American English. Higher score

British English

American English

Sum

Present perfect Preterite

η η

18 1

0 12

18 13

Sum

η

19

12

31

Table 3.35 demonstrates certain facts very clearly: Present perfect constructions with a significant British/American English difference consistently display the higher score in British English. (ii) Preterite constructions with a significant British/American English difference consistently display the higher score in American English. Hence the British/American English difference is not merely a question of the present perfect being more acceptable in British English but also of the preterite being judged less acceptable by speakers of British English.136 The one apparent exception is construction (31), with the lexical verb (i)

228

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

SPOIL, which is not current in this sense in American English, as has already been noted. (iii) A majority of the constructions for which a statistically significant difference was recorded are nevertheless present perfect constructions in other words, the difference in acceptability is greater for the present perfect than for the preterite. (iv) Hence a majority of the constructions with a statistically significant difference between British and American English have the higher score in British English, which means that the constructions preferred in British English are regarded as less acceptable in American English than vice versa. This may be taken as an indication that typical American English forms are considered more generally acceptable than typical British English ones, which in turn is a result of the fact that the influence of American English on British English is stronger than the influence in the opposite direction (cf. Johansson 1979). The elicitation test as a whole confirms that in the most clear-cut cases the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite follows the same lines in British and American English. If the temporal reference is specified as being to past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, the preterite is selected. If the reference is to time extending up to the deictic zero-point, the present perfect is used in both varieties. The preference for the present perfect has been found to be particularly strong if not only the time denoted by the temporal specifier but also that associated with the verbal situation itself extends up to the deictic zero-point. In many cases where the temporal reference is more vague, the test reveals a marked tendency for the present perfect to be judged more acceptable and the preterite less acceptable in British English compared with American English. That is true of constructions containing temporal adverbials realised by just and especially already and yet\ of constructions which clearly invite a reading in terms of current relevance and which do not contain any contextual features forcing the choice between the present perfect and the preterite; and it has been found to be true of constructions which fall under an extended concept of unique past-time reference. However, with constructions of the latter type a clear preference for the preterite has been recorded even in British English. Although the current-relevance factor has been seen to influence the choice of verb form in some cases, this factor has been found to yield to the timereferential factor, which has been confirmed as the main factor behind the present perfect/preterite variation.

Summary

229

Some evidence has been uncovered to suggest that at least in American English the preference for the preterite increases if the presence or absence of the present perfect auxiliary is the only formal difference between the two verb forms, i.e. if the forms of the preterite and the past participle are identical and the construction is positive and declarative. If this is correct, it is a highly noteworthy indication that the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite is not always perceived as a clear choice between two distinct verb forms.

3.5 Summary In this chapter we have reported the results of our extensive investigation into the use of the present perfect and the preterite, and other past-referring verb forms, in present-day English. This investigation has consisted of (i) a frequency analysis of occurrences in the Brown University Corpus of American English (BUC) and the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English (LOB), (ii) a detailed contextual analysis of CONTCORP, a corpus of contemporary English collected for this study, and (iii) an elicitation test with speakers of British and American English. The preterite has been found to be considerably more frequent than the present perfect in nearly all the texts examined. The ratio varies a great deal, depending on the variety of English and on text type, but in most cases the frequency of the preterite is several times that of the present perfect. A clear British/American English difference has been uncovered: the present perfect is more frequent in British than in American English, the preterite is more frequent in American than in British English. The evidence is overwhelming in all the three major parts of the investigation: The tagged versions of LOB and BUC show the preterite of lexical verbs to be more frequent in the latter corpus and have and has to be more frequent in the former (cf. sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). A frequency count of eight of the most common lexical verbs also yielded distinctly higher figures for the present perfect in LOB (but no significant difference in the case of the preterite) (cf. section 3.2.3 with subsections). The British/American English difference in the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite is also striking in CONTCORP. In the division of (printed) American English, AMPRINT, the present perfect accounts for only 9.8 per cent of recorded verb forms, the preterite for as much as 76.2 per cent; in the division of printed British English, BRPRINT, the corresponding

230

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

percentages are 19.7 and 61.9 (cf. section 3.3.4). Thus the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is more than twice as large in BRPRINT as in AMPRINT. The frequency of the pluperfect is also distinctly higher in fact, more than twice as high - in BRPRINT compared with AMPRINT. The figures for the present perfect and the preterite in the division of nonprinted British English, NONPRINT, are close to those in BRPRINT, even if the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is slightly lower in NONPRINT. Although the British/American English distinction recorded in CONTCORP may well be exaggerated, the figures leave no doubt that there is a clear difference in the frequency of the present perfect and the preterite between British and American English. The difference between British and American English is reflected in the fact that several of the parameters which lead to clear differences in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in BRPRINT and NONPRINT do not have any similar impact in AMPRINT. The difference between British and American English is further confirmed by the elicitation test (cf. section 3.4 with subsections), where there is a consistent tendency in all the cases where a statistically significant difference was recorded for the present perfect to be judged more acceptable in British English and the preterite more acceptable in American English. The basic functional distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is nevertheless largely the same in British and American English. If the reference is determined as being to a point or period of time located wholly in the past, either through a temporal specifier in the same clause or because it is given in the preceding context, the preterite is the standard verb form in both varieties. If, on the other hand, the reference is to time which extends from the past up until the deictic zero-point, the present perfect is usually preferred in both varieties. This is demonstrated by the analysis of CONTCORP (cf. sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 with subsections), and also very clearly by the elicitation test, which shows much the same results for British and American English in those clear-cut cases (cf. sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). Few exceptions from that basic functional distribution have been found in the case of the present perfect. In fact, CONTCORP contains only one single instance of the present perfect combining with what can be called a clear and specific determination of past time separate from the deictic zero-point:

T47 006 A C

if Aif you could :ask him to be :fairly [a] "IswVift a'bout 'that# Λ Ι !w\ill#

Summary

231

beAcause [am] · J ' v e had !no re:pl\y ΛΙ · I mean I've Asent the 'first 'letter a'bout :three mVonths a'go# and the Alast 'one a'bout a :mVonth a'go# and I've Ahad !no re'ply at +\all#+ [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.9.2e.6]

A

It is noteworthy that this one example was recorded in a spoken source. As was pointed out in section 3.3.8.1, it further helps to explain the occurrence of the present perfect in this construction that the reference is to two temporally separate situations and that more straightforward present perfect forms occur in the immediate linguistic context. The distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is more varied in references to situations which do not extend up to the deictic zeropoint but on the other hand are not attached to any anchors denoting distinct past time. It is particularly in this border area that differences between British and American English emerge. For example, there are many adverbial temporal specifiers which commonly co-occur with the present perfect as well as with the preterite. These specifiers differ from those only combining with the preterite in expressing a vague and indeterminate recent past time, so that the separation from the deictic zero-point is less clear-cut. Among the most frequent of these adverbs are just and recently, both included in the elicitation test. The test shows that in constructions with adverbs of this set there is a clear, and statistically significant, tendency for the present perfect to be judged more acceptable in British than in American English (cf. section 3.4.1). In the case of the particular adverb just there is also a converse tendency for the preterite to be considered more acceptable in American English. In CONTCORP, too, there is a clear tendency for the present perfect to be more common with just in the British material (in fact not a single instance was recorded in AMPRINT), even though overall numbers are small (cf. section 3.3.6.1). Other adverbial specifiers which tend to be treated differently in the two main varieties of English include always, never and ever (cf. sections 3.3.6.5 and 3.4.4). Here again the elicitation test reveals a clear tendency for the present perfect to be more common, and the preterite less common, in British compared with American English. While in most cases British/American English differences in verbal usage with such adverbs are a matter of degree, the difference is much more clearcut in the case of the two adverbs already and yet. When these are orientated towards present time, the present perfect is the norm in British English, while

232

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

American English often chooses the preterite. It is noteworthy, however, that the one instance contained in CONTCORP of already used in this sense in combination with the preterite was recorded in the spoken British English material (cf. section 3.3.6.2): T25 017 C [3:m] • Aall it [i.e. the price of property] can !p\ossibly d/o# C is Ago " ! !\up# · it *A{c\an't 'go _down} c Β * A y\up# · Β Ar\ight# · Β Ar\ight#* (C ":nVow#* c cos it Aalreadv "!w\ent down th/ank you# [Survey/telephone dialogue, S.8.2a.l9] The elicitation test nevertheless makes it very clear that this combination is generally considered unacceptable in British English, while the American informants give almost as high scores to the preterite as to the present perfect in such constructions (cf. section 3.4.4). Besides the use of straightforward temporal adverbials, there are numerous other ways of establishing past-time anchors for preterite forms to attach themselves to. For one thing, they can be established through other constituents in the same clause, such as subjects (cf. section 3.3.6.6), objects (cf. section 3.3.6.7) and others (cf. section 3.3.6.8). The temporal reference can also be left unspecified in the same sentence but be specified in the wider linguistic context (cf. section 3.3.10.1). Various kinds of more indirect past-time anchoring, without any overt linguistic expression, have also been identified (cf. sections 3.3.10.2-3.3.10.5) One particularly noteworthy type of indirect anchoring is that labelled unique past time (cf. section 3.3.10.5). The occurrence of unspecified preterite forms to express such time has been found to be more widespread than is often recognised. While the use of the preterite in such cases is standard in both British and American English, the two varieties differ in their assessment of the acceptability of the present perfect alternative, the American participants in the elicitation test consistently giving lower scores to the present perfect variant of such constructions (cf. section 3.4.5). In addition a number of preterite constructions occur in CONTCORP where the reference is to what was classified as new time but no temporal specification, explicit or implicit, is identifiable (cf. section 3.3.10.6). In many such cases the reference is to a (frequently bounded) situation acting as the initial link in a past sequence of events, the existence of (possibly po-

Summary

233

tential) subsequent links apparently being a sufficient indication of separation from the deictic zero-point for the preterite to be used without any further anchoring. Unspecified preterite forms make up a much larger proportion of all references to new time in AMPRINT and NONPRINT than in BRPRINT, and thus help to account for the lower ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in American compared with British English, and also for the somewhat lower ratio in spoken compared with written British English. The difference between speech and writing seems to be due to a tendency for such preterite uses to be more frequent in texts which can be said not to be very carefully composed, as is the case with many spoken texts. The current-relevance factor, which plays a crucial part in many previous attempts to account for the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in English, has been found to be of less importance, since it clearly yields to the time-referential factor in cases of conflict. However, in constructions with no explicit specification of past time there appears to be a stronger tendency to use the present perfect if the past situation is associated with current relevance, especially in British English (cf. section 3.4.3). Thus, while the functional distribution of the present perfect and the preterite is pretty clear-cut and consistent in both British and American English in the most straightforward cases, the two varieties differ in their use of the two verb forms in many cases where the reference is not clearly specified as being either to time located wholly in the past or to time extending up to the deictic zero-point. It is the differences which occur in these instances that account for the fact that overall the present perfect is distinctly more frequent, and the preterite correspondingly less frequent, in British compared with American English. Various differences in their contextual distributions follow from the purely time-referential differences between the present perfect and the preterite. For instance, the present perfect and the preterite tend to perform different thematic functions (cf. section 3.3.7): the preterite is used above all to refer to foregrounded events, especially in narrative contexts, where the preceding context will provide the past-time anchoring usually required by the preterite; the present perfect, on the other hand, is often used of backgrounded events, especially events which are temporally isolated in the context. Also, there are considerable differences in the frequencies of the two verb forms according to clause type, because of the various ways in which verbal usage depends on the matrix clause in the case of subordinate clauses, and on the preceding (and following) sentences in the case of main clauses. While the present perfect and the preterite between them account for close to ninety

234

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

per cent of the recorded past-referring verb forms in main clauses, the corresponding percentage for object ΐ/ζαί-clauses is just over 55 (cf. section 3.3.12 with subsections). In when-clauses, on the other hand, the preterite predominates completely, that verb form alone making up very nearly ninety per cent of recorded cases. Because of the time-referential differences between the present perfect and the preterite, there are further considerable differences in their distribution over text types. That is seen very clearly from the distinction between the informational and fictional text categories of LOB and BUC (cf. section 3.2 with subsections): the present perfect is more frequent in the informational categories, the preterite in the fictional ones. There are similar differences between the various text categories of CONTCORP (cf. sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.11 with subsections). The prevailing tendency is for the present perfect to be more frequent in texts which are generally orientated towards present time, the preterite in texts which are orientated towards past time. The preterite forms tend to appear in sequence to refer to sequences of past events. The present perfect more often occurs in the company of other verb forms to refer to new past time, especially to past situations which are temporally isolated. If present perfect forms appear in sequence, the second (and any subsequent) form often denotes what can be called an amplification of the situation denoted by the first present perfect form, rather than a sequence of new events. The fact that the present perfect is used in references to time not (clearly) separate from the deictic zero-point and the preterite in references to time located wholly in the past further leads to distinct differences in their correlations with certain clause-level parameters. In particular, there is a strong and consistent tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be higher in negative and interrogative constructions than in other cases (cf. sections 3.3.13.4 and 3.3.13.5). That, and its general tendency to refer to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, leads to the present perfect being particularly frequent in contexts which can be said to be characterised by a high degree of situational integration, and by an interactive use of language. Because of its tendency to refer to given time, the preterite, on the other hand, is most frequent in contexts with a high degree of textual integration. That in turn has consequences for the kind of subject realisation type the two verb forms tend to combine with (cf. section 3.3.13.3). The present perfect reaches its highest frequencies in clauses where the subject is either a 1st- or a 2nd-person personal pronoun, the preterite in clauses where the subject is realised by a 3rd-person personal pronoun.

Summary

235

Subject type is one of the conditioning factors which seem to be less influential in American English: in AMPRINT the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is much the same for lst-person subjects as in other cases. That may be an indication that the tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be higher in the interactive use of language characteristic of situationally integrated texts does not affect American as much as British English. This would agree with the tendency also noted for the British/American English difference in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite to be most distinct with situations which do not extend up to the deictic zero-point but on the other hand are not attached to any clear past-time anchors. Further differences in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite are detectable depending on aspectual character (cf. section 3.3.13.1). Although there are here obvious correlations with other conditioning factors, there is a clear tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be larger in references to bounded compared with unbounded situations (especially states), particularly in the case of new time located wholly in the past. This can be seen as an indication that in such contexts the present perfect is more likely than the preterite to be associated with current relevance: the point about referring to new past times, especially contextually isolated ones, may often be to draw attention to their relevance to the present situation, and such relevance is more easily associated with bounded than with unbounded situations. The differences depending on aspectual character affect the correlation between verb form and clause structure: the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is at its highest in SVO clauses and distinctly below average in SVC clauses (cf. section 3.3.13.2). It also has consequences for the correlation between verb form and voice (cf. section 3.3.13.7), the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite being distinctly higher in passive than in active constructions, although here again there are correlations with several other conditioning factors. The higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in passive clauses further seems to be connected with a tendency to limit the degree of syntactic complexity, the additional complexity caused by passivisation being more distinct in the case of the preterite as compared with present perfect forms. Finally it may be noted that there is some evidence to suggest that the structure of the verb phrase and its immediate surroundings may have a bearing on the choice of verb form. Especially in the spoken language the distinction between the two verb forms is not always entirely clear-cut, since the quality of any auxiliary may be reduced to a sub-auditive level.

236

The use of the perfect and the preterite in present-day English

The strongest evidence that the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite is not always perceived as clear-cut is provided by some of the constructions included in the elicitation test (cf. section 3.4 with subsections). The scores for the present perfect variants of those constructions seem to be lower, especially in American English, if the construction is such that for one thing the full, uncontracted auxiliary would be unlikely to occur in informal speech, and secondly the preterite and past participial forms are identical. By comparison the present perfect scores are higher in some cases where the uncontracted auxiliary would be expected even in informal speech, such as negative and interrogative constructions, and also in some cases with distinct preterite/past participial forms. This may be seen as highly significant evidence that in constructions with verbs having identical preterite/past participial forms and where the auxiliary is apt to be contracted, the present perfect and the preterite are not always seen as two clearly separate verb forms, objections against an uncontracted auxiliary sometimes being sufficient reason for the preterite to be selected in cases where the present perfect would be the expected verb form. The findings reported in this chapter are in broad agreement with the tentative theory developed in Chapter 2. It has been confirmed that the fundamental difference between the present perfect and the preterite is definable in time-referential terms, various subsidiary differences, such as that involving current relevance, being inferable from that fundamental difference. At the same time it has been noted that the use of the preterite without any explicit past-time anchoring is more common than has often been assumed. That verb form is frequently linked with various forms of indirect anchoring instead, or there is no identifiable anchor. The latter use of the preterite appears to be quite common especially in not very carefully composed language, and more so in American than in British English. What further light our findings in this chapter may shed on our theory of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite is a question to which we shall return in Chapter 5, after we have looked at the historical material in Chapter 4.

4. The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

4.1. Introduction In this chapter we shall study the development of verb forms containing at least one of the features "preterite" and "perfectness" in the history of English, from Old English to the present day. As before the main focus will be on the present perfect and the preterite. We shall begin by reviewing previous work (section 4.2 with subsections). Most of what has been written about these verb forms in earlier English consists of scattered references in more general treatments of the development of the English language. Some more detailed treatments of tense and related matters also exist, often focusing on particular stages of that development. In some cases publications within the field of general linguistics will also be relevant to our topic. The major part of this chapter (section 4.3 with subsections) will be devoted to a presentation and discussion of the results of our investigation of the corpus of historical English (HISTCORP) collected for this study.137 To facilitate the comparison, results for the most directly comparable divisions of CONTCORP will also be brought in. The presentation will largely follow the same pattern as that of CONTCORP in Chapter 3. At the end of this chapter (section 4.4) we shall sum up our historical findings and suggest an explanation of the way the present perfect and the preterite have developed and still seem to be developing in English.

4.2. Previous work 4.2.1. Why historical language studies? For many years it was common for linguists to insist on a strict separation of synchronic and diachronic language studies, under the strong influence of Saussure (1916). During the past few decades, however, a new school of historical linguistics has emerged, consisting largely of people who argue

238

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

that such a separation is an unwarranted straitjacket and who emphasise that the two dimensions of language studies can help to shed light on one another, and in particular that insight into the diachronic dimension can be used to further our understanding of the state of the language at any one time. Kiparsky (1980) distances himself from the extreme view that the whole idea of synchronic linguistics can be rejected, endorsing "the hard-won Saussurian insight that the role of an element in the linguistic system is something in principle absolutely independent of its historical origin". Kiparsky adds: "In all other respects, however, I do think the separation of synchrony and diachrony is useless and simply tends to get in the way." (Kiparsky 1980: 411) In a prefatory note the editors of Lehmann - Malkiel (eds.) (1982) state: "Linguists are coming to understand that if problems are examined in isolation from the dimension of time affecting all human activities, such isolation, as well as their views of language, may be as artificial as the context in which they are treated." (Lehmann - Malkiel (eds.) 1982: ν) Givón (1979a, 1979b, 1984) also emphasises the central role of diachronic explanations, pointing out that "language never rests, it is always in the middle of change . . . . S o that often, in order to really understand why syntax is the way it is and how it performs its complex coding functions, one must investigate the ways in which syntax - through childhood, history or evolution came to be what it is. . . . Ultimately, therefore, the study of syntax from a functional-typological perspective cannot become fully systematic without being closely integrated with the study of linguistic evolution." (Givón 1984: 44-45) Labov (1982) refers to the two assumptions that underlie language studies which use the past to explain the present and the present to explain the past. One of those assumptions is the uniformitarian doctrine: "that the events that produced the historical record are the same type as those that can be observed operating around us today . . . ." The other assumption is "the traditional position of historical linguistics: that we understand some element of linguistic structure when we understand how it came to be", for which Labov refers to Jespersen (1924). Greenberg (1979), finally, argues against the view expressed in Kiparsky (1968b), that historical evidence is to be seen largely as an aid in deciding questions of synchronic theory. Instead Greenberg maintains that "diachronic factors enter at a number of levels and often in a complex way, as an integral and at least equal partner with synchronic factors, in the over-all explanatorytheoretic structure of linguistic science." (Greenberg 1979: 279)

Previous work

239

According to this view there can be said to be at least three main reasons for the study of the historical dimension of language: (i) The historical development leading up to the present state of any given language is interesting in itself, and can be seen as part of the explanation of the present state of the language. This is the view that was prevalent in traditional historical linguistics. (ii) On the assumption that some of the basic rules of a language remain unaltered over time, a look into the past history of the language will lead to greater insight into those basic rules, and hence also to greater insight into the workings of the contemporary language. As Greenberg puts it, "diachrony involves the comparison of more than one state, and from a greater investment you get a greater return." (Greenberg 1979: 284) (iii) The ultimate object of linguistic study should not be limited to the state of any one language at any one time but should rather be taken to be the fundamental characteristics of human language in general. Even if a study is confined to one particular language, it enhances the generality of the study if its scope is widened to comprise the historical dimension.

4.2.2. The origin of the perfect construction The history of the perfect construction in English can be traced all the way back to the earliest written records. Up until well into the Modern English period what became the perfect auxiliary alternated between a BE verb (WESAN, BEON) and HAVE (HABBAN); to begin with BE was the rule in intransitive constructions, HAVE in transitive ones. In what can be assumed to have been the original construction BE or HAVE still had their main-verb force and the past participle was adjectival in meaning and function, acting as a complement of either the subject (in intransitive constructions with BE - as in "He is come.") or the object (in transitive constructions with HAVE - as in "He has the fish caught."). In early cases the adjectival character of the participle can be seen from the fact that it is often inflected for case/gender/number concord with the subject/object noun phrase; and in transitive constructions the participle frequently follows the object. Gradually the main-verb function shifted from BE/HAVE to the following participle, whose loss of adjectival status was reflected in the fact that its concord inflection was more and more often dropped. This development was well under way by the time the earliest surviving texts were recorded.

240

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Some examples quoted from Traugott (1972: 93-94), with both inflected and uninflected participles, will illustrate the early constructions. First transitive with HAVE; the translations are Traugott's and bring out the fact that HAVE still denoted possession: wiotona de ... da bec eallœ befullan geliornod hœfdon [uninflected participle] 'of-wise-men who . . . those books completely learned had' da (he) pas boc haefde geleornode [inflected participle] 'when (he) that book 138 had in-a-state-of-learnedness, Intransitive, mutative: Hie waeron cumen Leonidan to fultume [uninflected participle] 'they were come to-Leonitha as help=they had come to help Leonitha' Craccuse waeron monege cyningas ... to fultume cumune [inflected participle] 'to-Craccus were many kings . . . as help come' The development of a periphrastic perfect construction was shared by most other Germanic languages and also by many Indo-European languages outside the Germanic group, all using auxiliary verbs with meanings similar to those of BE and HAVE. The change in word order that occurred at an early stage in the development of the English perfect construction can be seen as an instance of a more general tendency towards what Stockwell (1977), following Vennemann (1974), calls "exbraciation". 139 This term refers to the "sentence brace" (German "Satzklammer") commonly formed by an auxiliary and a main verb in Old English and other Germanic languages (including modern German), with an SvO(V) order. When exbraciation takes place, nominal (or adverbial) elements are removed from within the brace and placed in post-verbal position, so that the auxiliary and the main verb form one continuous element. In the case of the English perfect with a transitive main verb, this means that the past participial main verb moves from a post-object position to the pre-object position familiar from Modern English: "He has the fish caught." becomes "He has caught the fish.". Also, this change of word order conforms to Behaghel's Law, which says that there is a general tendency for auxiliary verbs to move to a position next to the main verb, and thus for the two verbs to form one continuous constituent (cf. Hock 1991: 332).

Previous work

241

4.2.3. When is BE/HAVE+past participle a perfect? Various criteria have been employed to distinguish the new periphrastic verb form from the earlier construction where the past participle functions as either subject or object complement. While most writers hesitate to draw any hard and fast line between the two constructions, seeing the emergence of the present perfect verb form as a gradual development, Traugott (1972: 93-94), in a strict transformationalist framework, takes the distinction between the uninflected and the inflected participle to mark a clear-cut contrast between a true perfect construction and a construction with an adjectival participle.140 Within the framework of traditional grammar, Wattie (1931: 131) also attaches great importance to the opposition between inflected and uninflected participles in Old English, regarding constructions with uninflected participles as the most direct forerunner of the modern perfect construction. Visser (1966, 1973) may seem to take a similarly radical view of the changes that have occurred in the use of this construction since its first appearance in English. In his case it is the change of word order that is taken to mark the beginning of the perfect construction. Visser maintains that the shift in the placement of the past participle from post-verbal to mid position was accompanied by a fundamental change in temporal meaning, holding that before the shift the temporal orientation was definitely towards present time, since the shift, completed at the beginning of the Modern English period, the orientation has been towards past time (see especially Visser 1973: 2192). Mustanoja refers to Hoffmann's (1934) view that it is not until early Middle English that constructions with BE and HAVE can be seen as true perfects but adds that this view has not been universally accepted and that there are many who regard numerous Old English combinations with those auxiliaries as real perfects and pluperfects (Mustanoja 1960: 499). Mitchell (1985) examines the distribution of various combinations of HAVE, object and past participle according to word order and the distinction between inflected and uninflected participles. His conclusion is that even in Old English constructions with the uninflected participle are more frequent141 (Mitchell 1985: 284), and also that in main clauses the modern word order was already well established in Old English (Mitchell 1985: 287). Mitchell displays a sound scepticism of the categorical distinction made by certain other writers between constructions of this type which can be regarded as true perfects and constructions which cannot. He endorses Mustanoja's (1960) view that some Old English constructions with HAVE or BE can be regarded as early instances of the present perfect (Mitchell 1985: 296).

242

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Traugott (1992) also adopts a much less categorical attitude than Traugott (1972) towards the emergence of the perfect verb form and the significance of the alternation between inflected and uninflected participles in that respect. She now argues that the fact that even in the earliest records HABBAN could be used both transitively with objects that were not accusative, and intransitively, suggests that it could be an auxiliary. Traugott (1992) maintains that "It is difficult to say whether the inflected forms were understood with truly adjectival (that is, stative) meanings, as the presence of inflection suggests, especially since the inflected forms are sometimes co-ordinated with non-inflected participles" (Traugott 1992: 191). Her conclusion, however, is still that "it is reasonable to assume" that, since the inflected forms occur only with accusative objects, they were adjectival in meaning as well as in form. 142 In a recent treatment of the emergence of the perfect in English which is close to the thinking underlying this study, Denison (1993: 340-341) lists several criteria as supportive of a perfect analysis of constructions consisting of HAVE and a lexical past participle: (i) adjacency of HAVE and the participle; (ii) no adjectival inflection on the participle; (iii) similar patterns in a non-stative context; (iv) similar patterns with subjects that cannot be possessors; (v) similar patterns with objects that cannot be possessed; and (vi) similar patterns with verbs that do not take an accusative direct object. Criteria (iii)-(vi) are said to be consistent with the idea that HAVE is transparent to verbal restrictions, so that meaning and complement structure come from the verb appearing in the past participle, which can be seen as a characteristic of true perfect constructions. Such an approach means that no one criterion is given exclusive status as the defining criterion of the perfect; instead one is prepared to consider different criteria and assess the way they co-occur in particular instances. Many writers would define the present perfect as the verb form resulting from the semantic shift from present- to past-time reference of constructions consisting of HAVE/BE in the present tense plus a past participle, and accept constructions with both postposed and mid-positioned participles, and also with both inflected and uninflected participles, as possible realisations of the present perfect. That is the definition adopted in this study. This view of the emergence of the present perfect in English is corroborated by the fact that the Old English word order change from postposed to mid-positioned participles can be seen as part of a more general tendency towards exbraciation (see the end of section 4.2.2): to see this development as an instance of exbraciation implies that the past participle is regarded as mainly verbal, rather than adjectival; hence it is also reasonable to regard

Previous work

243

some Old English constructions with HAVE and a past participle in postobject position as true perfects. Our view of what constitutes a perfect construction does not always make it possible to draw a hard and fast line between the present perfect and other, related constructions. Rather than being a weakness in the linguistic description, such difficulties of classification reflect the fact that the emergence of the present perfect was a gradual development. The distinction between the present perfect and other patterns is more blurred with BE than with HAVE constructions. This is connected with the fact that the sequence of a present-tense form of BE followed by a past participle can give expression to at least four different syntactic constructions (cf. our discussion of the passive in Chapter 3, section 3.3.13.7): (i)

It can be a straightforward present-tense (dynamic) passive of a transitive verb - cf. "The door is locked by the caretaker at five o'clock every day.". (ii) It can be a present-tense construction analysed as either a stative passive or as a copular construction with BE followed by a past participle functioning as subject complement - cf. "The door is locked, so we can't get in.". As we saw in Chapter 3, the distinction between the stative passive and the copular pattern is far from clear-cut. (iii) As we also saw in Chapter 3, some constructions which may seem similar to those under (ii) must be said to refer at least partly to past time, in which case they were classified as present perfect passives with BE doubling as both perfect and passive auxiliary - cf. "He is (=has been) chosen captain.". This type of construction was much more frequent in earlier than in present-day English, where it is only a marginal phenomenon. (iv) A sequence of present-tense BE followed by a past participle can be an active present perfect construction, mainly in the case of intransitive verbs - cf. "He is come.". Again this type of construction was much more common in earlier English. The line between types (ii) and (iii) is not always easy to draw. The difference is basically one of temporal reference, to either present or past time, but in practice it will often be possible to claim that the reference is to past-action-cum-present-state. If the reference is taken to be at least partly to past time, constructions of this type are covered by the perfect definition adopted in this study. They are the passive present perfects with BE appearing in the tables below. During the coding of HISTCORP constructions in which the past participle was modified by intensifiers or was co-ordinate

244

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

with bona fide adjectives were all analysed as type (ii), and hence not included among the coded constructions (so long as BE appeared in a present-tense form). Constructions of type (iv) are the most central ones to our concern, since they offer the most obvious parallel to the most frequent kind of present perfect construction with HAVE. Type (iv) is clearly related to type (ii), the essential difference again being one of temporal reference, to either past or present time. Evidence of the close relationship between the two constructions is provided by the survival into present-day English of constructions with "be gone" as in "The money is gone.". Rydén - Brorström (1987: 211) add present-day examples like "He has/is changed.", "He has/is recovered.", "He has/is turned fifty.", "The sun has/is set.", "The bird has/is changed." (fig.). They might have included the very common "I have/am finished (with the book).". In the analysis of HISTCORP a liberal interpretation was adopted of the requirement that the reference of a perfect construction should be at least partly to past (anterior) time. Even so the present perfect with BE turned out to be numerically much less important than that with HAVE. For that reason, and because of the difficulty of drawing any hard and fast dividing line between the present perfect with BE and related presenttense constructions, most of our attention will continue to be focused on the present perfect with HAVE, which can be seen as a more direct ancestor of the present perfect construction (with auxiliary HAVE) that exists in present-day English.

4.2.4. Latin influence? Since the periphrastic perfect construction already existed in Latin, it has sometimes been suggested that the subsequent development of the same construction in Germanic languages, including English, may have been due to Latin influence. This suggestion is dismissed by Benveniste (1971; see also 1968), who says that this is a question which one cannot hope to settle on empirical grounds but argues that the periphrastic perfect was too well established at an early stage in various Germanic languages, such as Old Icelandic and Old High German, for Latin influence to have been a possible source. Benveniste (1971: 179) maintains that for Latin to have determined such a profound transformation in the Germanic verb a prolonged period of Germano-Latin bilingualism would have been necessary, and concludes that the acquisition of

Previous work

245

a transitive perfect with HAVE was an autonomous development in the Germanic languages which owed nothing to Latin influence. Β en veniste instead points to the close parallelism between the perfect and the passive constructions, and sees the existence of the latter as having prepared the ground for the emergence of the former. Traugott also rejects the possibility that the emergence of the perfect construction in English may have been due to Latin influence, although she thinks the new English verb form is very likely to have been reinforced by the existence of a Latin equivalent (Traugott 1972: 92 f.η.).

4.2.5. Did the present perfect emerge as a replacement for ge-l In Old English, as in many other early Germanic languages, ge- was a productive prefix, mainly on verbs but also on nouns and on other word classes. When used with verbs, one of its chief functions was to denote perfective aspect. It was regularly used as a marker of the past participial form of verbs, but it was also common with other verb forms. The decline in the use of ge- as a general verbal prefix started in Old English times. Some writers have linked the emergence and growth of the present perfect with that decline. Traugott says that because of its multiple uses, ge- was not a very efficient perfective marker and that the present perfect developed as an alternative expression of perfective meaning (Traugott 1972: 91-92). Quirk - Wrenn (1955) also see the present perfect and the prefix ge- (and other verbal prefixes) as alternative expressions of perfectiveness. Of the relationship between the present perfect and the preterite in Old English they say that the present perfect, formed with either BE or HAVE, does not refer to a different time from the preterite "but to the same time regarded more specifically as perfective", adding, however, that "In OE the perfective aspect could equally well be expressed with the simple preterite form" (Quirk Wrenn 1955: 79). In present perfect constructions the prefix ge- (y-) was often retained on the participial, main verb even when it was dropped in other cases. Whether the growth of the present perfect should be seen as conditioned by the general loss of this prefix will depend on whether perfectiveness can be said to be a meaning associated especially with the present perfect verb form. In Chapter 3 we saw that, other things being equal, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is distinctly higher with bounded as compared with unbounded predicates in present-day English, although the use of the present

246

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

perfect is by no means limited to such predicates (cf. section 3.3.13.1). What the situation may have been at earlier stages in the development of English is one of the questions we shall bear in mind during our analysis of HISTCORP later on in this chapter.

4.2.6. Relationship between BE and HAVE perfects In the earliest recorded instances the main rule is that transitive perfect constructions take auxiliary HAVE, intransitive ones take BE, in agreement with the historical origin of the two combinations. What happens over the centuries is that the HAVE construction gradually encroaches upon more and more of the functional territory originally occupied by the present perfect with BE, until HAVE becomes the sole perfect auxiliary (with the exception of certain idiomatic remnants of the BE construction) in fairly late Modern English. There may be reason to see the spread of auxiliary HAVE in perfect constructions as conditioned, or at least reinforced, by the increasingly important role of BE as the passive auxiliary, HAVE being preferred in perfect constructions to avoid confusion with the passive (cf. Einenkel 1916: 28 and Mustanoja 1960: 501). The perfect auxiliary BE is often said to occur most typically with mutative verbs, defined by Rydén - Brorström (1987: 22) as verbs denoting "a change or transition of some kind, which is basically of two types: (a) change of place or position (as with come, go, run, etc.) and (b) change of state or condition (as with become, grow, etc.)." Rydén - Brorström add that "Not a few of these verbs - which may be called Action and Process verbs, respectively belong to either type (for example go, run, turn) and most verbs evolve a scale of primary and secondary senses, 'concrete' and 'abstract'". Even mutative verbs frequently occur with HAVE at an early stage if the emphasis is definitely on (past) action rather than (present) state, as when the verb is modified by a noun phrase denoting extent or measure ("He has/is gone three miles.", "He has/is gone the same way.") or is followed by an object-like noun phrase ("He has/is entered the room.", "He has/is passed the house.") (examples from Rydén - Brorström 1987: 23). Of Fridén's claim that in this type of construction HAVE is generally used (Fridén 1948: 4243), Visser (1973: 2043) says that it "has too many exceptions for it to be accepted unqualified". Most people would probably analyse the last two examples quoted from Rydén - Brorström (with ENTER and PASS) as transitive constructions.

Previous work

247

These constructions then go to demonstrate that the rule that transitive constructions take auxiliary HAVE is not absolute. Mustanoja states that practically all transitive verbs use HAVE by early Middle English but records several Middle English instances of transitive verbs which, contrary to the general rule, appear in the present perfect construction with BE (Mustanoja 1960: 500-501). As we shall see below, a couple of such constructions were also found in HISTCORP (section 4.3.5). As regards the increasing use of HAVE with intransitive verbs, Fridén refers to Hoffmann's (1934) conclusion that this combination appears earlier with terminative - corresponding broadly to our term "bounded" - than with durative - roughly, unbounded - verbs (Fridén 1948: 41). 143 The various claims made about the sort of intransitive verb that first becomes common with auxiliary HAVE can be related to the semantic relationship between present perfects with BE and with HAVE: as is often pointed out, the present perfect with BE continues to denote (present) state more clearly than does that with HAVE, whose shift to a verb form denoting unequivocal past time is more marked. Indeed, it may well be argued that the construction with auxiliary BE never attains the status of a full present perfect form, i.e. a form whose reference is definitely to past time (cf. our discussion in section 4.2.3 above).

4.2.7. Sketch of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite from Old English to present-day English The verbal system of Old English was much less complex than that of Modern English, consisting mainly of the two (inflectional) tenses, the present and the preterite. Hence the preterite performed most of the functions later taken over by the present perfect, the pluperfect and other periphrastic forms. However, the simple present tense was used in some Old English constructions where the present perfect would be the expected verb form in present-day Standard English, with stative verbs expressing past time extending up to the deictic zero-point. The following example is quoted from Traugott (1992: 182): "Efne min wif is for manegum wintrum untrum." (from Ai If rie 's Lives of Saints), which Traugott translates as "Indeed my wife has been sick for many years.". This use of the present tense is reminiscent of that current in present-day French, German and Swedish, for example, and also Irish English (see Chapter 2, section 2.1.4). As regards the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite, the development in Old and Middle English is generally characterised by the present

248

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

perfect gradually taking over more and more of the functions it performs in present-day English, although numerous instances have been recorded from historical English of the present perfect being used in constructions from which it would be barred in later English and would still be barred today. This is pointed out by several of the linguists dealing with the historical development of the present perfect in English. Brunner says that the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite was less settled in Old and Middle English than it is in present-day English, although the main tendency was for the preterite to be used in functions which would later require the present perfect. He refers to the fact that in his Latin grammar JElfric uses the English preterite to translate the various past-time verb forms, including the Latin present perfect (Brunner 1962: 300), and that in the Wycliffite Bible the preterite is still used to translate the Latin present perfect (Brunner 1963:

86).144 Brunner (1962: 300) also quotes examples from Old and Middle English of the present perfect being used where present-day English would have the preterite, to denote time attached to a past-time adverbial: le eom Higelaces mœg ond mago-pegn; h aebbe ic mœrôa fela ongunnen on geogofre. {Beowulf mit) Ί am Hygelac's kinsman and thegn; I have attempted many glorious actions in my youth.' 145 And homward he shall telle othere two Of aventures that whilom han bifalle. (Chaucer, General Prologue 794f.) 'And on his way home he will tell the other two Of adventures that formerly have happened.' In the case of the last construction one may question whether present-day English would really require the preterite, since whilom was a very vague past-time adverb. Several writers agree with Brunner that the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite failed to conform to any clear rules in earlier English. Among these writers are Einenkel (1916: 30), who says that in some cases the only motivation for the variation is apparently to enliven the narration ("den Gang der Erzählung zu beleben"), Mustanoja (1960: 507), who suggests that the use of the present perfect may sometimes be due to metrical considerations, and Fridén (1948). The examples adduced as evidence that

Previous work

249

the present perfect once combined with past-time adverbials in a way that would be unacceptable today are not always convincing: for instance, the one from Chaucer's General Prologue already quoted from Brunner also appears in several other writers. Visser (1966: 749) also takes the line that in Old and Middle English the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite was less clear-cut than it is today, each being found in constructions where the other would now be required. He lists examples where the variation seems to be conditioned by the rhyme pattern (Visser 1966: 713) or the metre (Visser 1966: 717—718). Bauer (1970b: 143-144) thinks many other writers have exaggerated the differences between the period he investigates - the latter half of the 14th century - and the present day, and emphasises that the rules for the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite were essentially the same then as they are today, although he acknowledges that differences do occur. The question of foreign influence on Middle English has attracted a great deal of interest. Zimmermann (1968) examines in detail the Latin influence on several texts from early Middle English, among them some that are included in HISTCORP: the "Ancrene Wisse", "Sawles Warde" and La3amon's Brut. Zimmermann's general conclusion is that the choice of verb form in English was fairly free of foreign influence, even in the case of texts that are translations of Latin or French originals. Trnka (1930) attaches more importance to foreign influence, maintaining that "The influence of French on Caxton and other English translators was undoubtedly also responsible for the relatively frequent use of the English perfect in the function of the preterite." (Trnka 1930: 29), although he points out that on the other hand the preterite was used freely of actions extending up to the deictic zero-point in early Modern English (Trnka 1930: 31). Mustanoja (1960: 504) compares different stages of Middle English: examining the A and Β texts of La3amon's Brut he finds that many of the preterite forms in the former are replaced by present perfect forms in the latter. He sees this as evidence of the increasing frequency of the present perfect in Middle English.146 An early contribution to the study of the development of the tenses and other verb forms in English is that of Caro (1896, 1899). Caro (1899) makes a detailed distinction between different kinds of past reference time and gives the verb forms, including the present perfect and the preterite, that were used to express each at various stages in the history of English. Like several later writers, Caro points out that in Middle English the present perfect combined with past-time specifiers in a way that it is not capable of doing today. That had already been demonstrated by Gräf (1888).

250

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

In spite of the fact that the time span covered by the Modern English period is already longer than that of Middle English, most writers have little or nothing to say about the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite specifically in Modern English, the general assumption apparently being that the growth of the present perfect at the expense of the preterite continues, in English as in so many other languages. However, Görlach (1991), in his treatment of early Modern English, does deal also with tense usage. He makes the point that at that time the presentday rules for the distribution of verb forms used to express past time "were not yet obligatory", and claims that the preterite was often used where the present perfect would be required today. According to Görlach (1991: 111), "a strict semantic differentiation" of the present perfect and the preterite became established in the early 18th century. Visser, furthermore, covers the period all the way up to the 20th century, maintaining that it was only after Shakespeare's time that the present rules for the distribution of the two verb forms became the norm (Visser 1966: 751). Visser's view of the present-day norm for the use of the present perfect is of the current-relevance variety, while he sees the preterite as being preferred "when the past event is circumstantially related" (Visser 1966: 751), which seems to mean essentially the same as our claim that the preterite is generally used when the situation is tied to a past-time anchor. Visser (1973: 2197) nevertheless notes deviations from this norm even in later Modern English. One of his examples of the present perfect used with past-time specification is identical with one from Sheridan, School for Scandal which is included in HISTCORP as 791 030 and will be referred to below. Some of the others are: I have delivered it an hour since. (Shakespeare, All's well that ends well, 1601) ... which I have forgot to set down in my Journal (Pepys' Diary, 1669)

yesterday.

The Englishman ... has murdered young Halbert ... morning. (Scott, Monastery, 1820)

yesterday

I have been to Richmond last Sunday. (Galsworthy, In Chancery, 1920) Visser refers to suggestions that the reason for the choice of a present perfect verb in such cases is that the specifier is only added as a kind of afterthought, but that seems unlikely, since all the examples are from written

Previous work

251

sources, where it can be expected that the writer would make any amendments he considered desirable (with the possible exception of Pepys' Diary). A more convincing explanation is that also suggested by Visser, that such combinations of verb form and specifier were less objectionable in earlier Modern English. It may be significant that the majority of Visser's examples are from fairly early Modern English, although Visser's method does not allow any statistical conclusions: a lot of the attention is focused on more or less exceptional cases but no attempt is made to find out how exceptional they are. It is noteworthy that the last of the examples quoted from Visser is from the beginning of the 20th century.147 The many examples quoted by Visser and others of the present perfect being used in earlier English where it would be unacceptable today leave two possibilities open: the distinction between the two verb forms was less settled before than it is today, each having occurred in constructions where it would later be barred, i.e. earlier usage deviated from present-day usage in both directions; or the use of the present perfect has started to decrease, the preterite now being required in some cases where the present perfect was allowed in earlier English, i.e. earlier usage deviated from present-day usage in just one direction. The question of the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in late Modern English is taken up by Vanneck (1958) and Defromont (1973). Vanneck's concern is with modern colloquial American English, where he notes signs that the distinction between the two verb forms is beginning to break down, the preterite being used in cases where the present perfect has been seen as the norm. Vanneck's assumption that this represents a new development is questioned by Visser (1966: 754), who regards it as more likely that the extended preterite uses noted in present-day American English represent "Mayflower English", i.e. that they are remnants of uses that were common in earlier British English. Defromont points to two possible reasons for the decline of the present perfect: the weakness of the present perfect auxiliary in English and the fact that the preterite and the past participle are identical in form for the vast majority of English verbs. 148 Whether it is true that the growth of the present perfect, largely at the expense of the preterite, that occurred in Old and Middle English has been arrested, perhaps even reversed, in Modern English will be the most central question facing us during our analysis of HISTCORP. If that question can be answered in the affirmative, it will mean that the development of the present perfect in English is crucially different from that observable in a

252

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

number of other languages, where the synthetic form has been ousted, or is in the process of being ousted, by the periphrastic form. Among these other languages are German, French, Italian, Romanian, Russian and several others, Indo-European and other.

4.2.8. An example from Wulfstan As an illustration of the difference in the use of the present perfect and the preterite between Old English and present-day English we shall look at a passage from one of the texts from HISTCORP, Wulfstan's Address to the English. First for the Modem English translation of this passage in Whitelock (ed.) (1955: 855) (based on the Wulfstan manuscript included in HISTCORP; see Appendix III): Understand well also that now for many years the devil has led astray this people too greatly and there has been little loyalty among men, though they spoke fair enough; and too many wrongs prevailed in the land, and there were never many men who sought after a remedy as zealously as one should; but daily evil was piled on evil and wrongs and many lawless acts committed far too widely throughout all this people; also we have on that account suffered many losses and insults, and, if we are to experience any improvement, we must then deserve better of God than we have previously done. For with great deserts have we merited the miseries which oppress us, and with very great deserts must we obtain relief from God if henceforward things are to start to improve. Our extract from Wulfstan contains a number of references to time which extends up to the deictic zero-point, i.e. the kind of reference time typically associated with the present perfect in present-day English. It is noteworthy that even some of the preterite verbs in Whitelock's translation refer to such time. In the Old English original all but one of these references are expressed by preterite verb forms: Understandad eac georne pœt deofol pas peode nu fela geara dwelode to swype, and pœt lytle getreowpa waeran mid mannum, peah hy wel spaecan, and unrihta to fela ricsode on lande; and naes a fela manna pe smeade ymbe pa bote swa georne swa man scolde, ac dœghwamlice man ihte yfel cefter odrum and unriht rserde and unlaga manege ealles to wide gynd ealle pas peode. And we eac for pam habbaö fela byrsta and bysmara gebiden,

Contextual analysis

253

and, gif we œnige bote gebidan scylan, ponne mote we pees to Gode erniari bet ponne we cer pysan dydan. For pam mid mielan earnungan we geearnedan pa yrmda pe us on sittad, and mid swype micelan earnungan we pa bote motan œt Gode gerœcan, gif hit sceal heonanford godiende weordan. (Whitelock (ed.) 1967: 86) The distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in Wulfstan is typical of the general situation in Old English: occurrences of the present perfect are much less frequent than in present-day English; and in the cases where that form is used it would generally also be used in present-day English. However, in the vast majority of cases where present-day English would select the present perfect, Old English has the preterite.

4.3. Contextual analysis of the present perfect and the preterite in the history of English As in the case of contemporary English, we shall consider the distribution of past-referring verb forms, mainly the present perfect and the preterite, in earlier English according to a number of contextual parameters. Those parameters will largely be the same as for contemporary English, although the presentation in this chapter will be somewhat briefer. Throughout this chapter we shall study the development of the present perfect and the preterite by comparing results from the various periods that HISTCORP is divided into. For ease of comparison relevant results from CONTCORP will in several cases be included in tables and figures. We shall start out by outlining the composition of HISTCORP in section 4.3.1; the detailed description of the texts and editions that go to make up this corpus is provided in Appendix III. In section 4.3.2 we shall present some constructions with HAVE or BE followed by past participles which were not analysed as perfects, and in section 4.3.3 some of those which were, to give the reader a chance to assess how the definition of the perfect was interpreted during the coding of HISTCORP. Overall frequencies of the various constructions that were included in the coding will be set out in section 4.3.4. The distribution between the two perfect auxiliaries, HAVE and BE, will be taken up in section 4.3.5. Although to distinguish text categories extending over several centuries is a somewhat problematic matter, some attempt to break the recorded figures down into text categories will be made in section 4.3.6.

254

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

We shall then go on to study the correlation between verb form and some of the parameters we operate with: adverbial and other specification (section 4.3.7), the distinction between given and new time (section 4.3.8), and temporal location, i.e. the distinction between time located wholly in the past and time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point (section 4.3.9 with subsections). The effect of some combinations of the last few parameters will be considered in section 4.3.10, and then we shall see how the distribution of verb forms and specifiers used to express new past time has changed over time in section 4.3.11. In section 4.3.12 (with subsections) we shall look into the distribution of verb forms according to clause type: main clauses (4.3.12.1), object thatclauses (4.3.12.2), relative clauses (4.3.12.3), and when-clauses (4.3.12.4). The various clause-level parameters we operate with will be taken up in section 4.3.13 (with subsections): aspectual character (4.3.13.1), clause structure (4.3.13.2), subject type (4.3.13.3), negation (4.3.13.4), and voice (4.3.13.5). Our corpus findings will be summarised in section 4.4, where we shall focus upon the way in which the effects of some of the main conditioning factors of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite have developed over time, and finally offer an explanation of the development of the present perfect and the preterite in English.

4.3.1. Composition of HISTCORP The purpose of collecting a historical corpus was to make it possible to follow the development of the verb forms under investigation in this study from Old English up until the present day. In order for diachronic changes to stand out more clearly it was decided to use texts concentrated as far as possible in periods of fifty years distributed over 200-year-intervals, i.e. to go back first to texts of 200 years ago, written within the period AD 1750-1800, then to AD 1550-1600, to AD 1350-1400, to early Middle English (c. AD 1200), and finally to Old English. From each period a total of just over 1,000 verb phrases were collected, each made up of a preterite and/or a perfect form. In the analysis of HISTCORP all such forms were coded, including those referring to present or future time. In that respect the coding of HISTCORP was different from that of CONTCORP. To facilitate comparison between contemporary and historical English, occurrences with present- or future-time reference will be omitted from most of the tables to be presented below.

Contextual analysis

255

A diachronic comparison of this kind is not without its problems. For one thing, the samples of texts will never be exactly parallel. There will always be differences between texts from different periods, if only because the modes of writing change, the topics dealt with change, etc. To draw a hard and fast line between purely linguistic changes on the one hand and extralinguistic changes affecting language on the other hand is both practically and theoretically difficult: many of the changes that take place in language are inextricably intertwined with changes in society and in the purposes for which language is employed. That is obviously true of lexical changes, but it may also be true for example of the temporal reference expressed by language, in that many of the historical texts that are available to us deal with events located in a fairly distant past, whereas contemporary English is often concerned with the more immediate situational context, including the immediate past. Up to a point such differences may explain variations in the use of verbs and other elements involved in the expression of time. Another problem is that in a diachronic comparison the texts from the various periods should ideally be taken from what can be regarded as a continuation of the same dialect. It is generally held to be difficult to trace the direct ancestry of standard Modern English any further back than the early 15th century (see Samuels 1963, 1972). It seems reasonable to assume that in spite of the problems a diachronic comparison as broad as the one we are concerned with may nevertheless be capable of yielding valid results. Hence it was decided to take HISTCORP all the way back to the Old English period, to the West Saxon dialect of the time beginning with King Alfred, i.e. the late 9th and the 10th centuries. The Old English section of HISTCORP consists of ten such texts. Early Middle English was a time when the use of English for written purposes was in decline, Latin and French having largely taken its place. This section of HISTCORP is made up of five texts, viz. (extracts from) the Peterborough Chronicle, the "Ancrene Wisse", "Sawles Warde", The Owl and the Nightingale, and La3amon's Brut. The next section, from AD 1350-1400, represents a time when English was regaining its position as the natural written language of England. It was also a time which saw increasing standardisation of written English, and a time when the English language was displaying a richness and vitality unknown in any earlier period, above all in the writings of Geoffrey Chaucer. Included in HISTCORP from this period are three Chaucer texts, plus The Equatorie of the Planetis (which may or may not have been written by Chaucer), 149 and texts from Chambers - Daunt (eds.) (1931) and Hudson (ed.) (1978).

256

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

The section from AD 1550-1600 takes us into the Modern English period. This is the time of Shakespeare, and represents another high point in the use of English, in both fictional and non-fictional writings. Printing is now well established, and the existence of a national standard language is not in doubt. Two hundred years on, in AD 1750-1800, English was beginning to make itself felt as a world language. It was the time of the American Revolution, which was accompanied by a strong sense also of a separate linguistic identity in the former American colonies, expressed with particular vehemence by Noah Webster. Interest in, and concern for, the state of the English language were strong in Britain as well during this time, which saw the publication of the first major English dictionary, by Samuel Johnson. Although American English had not had much time to develop as a variety distinct from the British standard, HISTCORP includes a separate section of American English from this period ("1750-1800AmE"), in addition to that representing British English ("1750-1800BrE"), paralleling the division of the written part of CONTCORP. As has already been pointed out, it is impossible to match exactly texts from different periods in terms of text categories. Some attempt was nevertheless made to include related text categories in the various periods making up HISTCORP. Whether differences in verbal usage across such category divisions remain stable over time is one of the questions that will be posed below. In the compilation of CONTCORP only prose texts were used. It was not found possible to adhere strictly to this principle for HISTCORP, since many historical texts are either in verse, or alternate between prose and verse. Detailed information on the texts and editions used and other aspects of the composition of HISTCORP is provided in Appendix III, which also gives the codes that will be used to denote these texts with quotations from HISTCORP. These codes differ from those used for CONTCORP in being wholly numeric, the first digit indicating the period to which the text belongs: codes beginning with the digit 0 are for texts from Old English, an initial 1 stands for the period from early Middle English, 3 for AD 1350-1400, 5 for AD 15501600, and 7 for AD 1750-1800BrE, while codes beginning with the digit 8 represent texts from AD 1750-1800AmE. The manner of quoting from HISTCORP will be much the same as for CONTCORP (cf. section 3.3.2). Some of the historical texts will be rendered in a somewhat simplified form: the macrons used in some of these texts to indicate vowel length (as in œr) will be omitted; the italicisation occurring in some of the texts from AD 1350-1400 to indicate expanded abbreviations will be omitted; and "f" will be replaced by a regular "s".

Contextual analysis

257

The analysis of HISTCORP was carried out according to the same principles as that of CONTCORP, for which see section 3.3.3.

4.3.2. Constructions with BE/HAVE and past participle not analysed as perfects The distinction between present perfect constructions and corresponding constructions analysed as taking participial complements was discussed in section 4.2.3 above. Placing the constructions occurring in HISTCORP on one or the other side of the dividing line was not always easy. According to the definition we have adopted, the main basis for the distinction is whether the temporal reference is to present or to past (or past-in-past etc.) time, but since the reference can sometimes be said to be to past-action-cum-present-state, problems were bound to arise. During the analysis of HISTCORP my policy was to interpret the definition of the perfect broadly and to code as perfects constructions where the reference could be said to be at least partly to a past (anterior) situation, even though it is clear enough that some of them are no more than marginal members of the perfect category as it is known today. Cases which were analysed as non-perfect included ones where the participle was clearly adjectival because it occurred in co-ordination with a bona fide adjective or was modified by an adjectival intensifier. Several borderline cases remained where the decision had to be taken on more arbitrary grounds. Since constructions with participial object complements and others with participles postposed to objects are comparatively rare while subjectcomplement constructions are much more frequent, most of the problematic cases concerned constructions which would either be classified as (usually passive) present perfects with BE, or as present-tense passive or subjectcomplement constructions. Hence the present perfect with HAVE, which is more central to our concern in this study, was not so much affected by the difficulties of classification. The following passage from Wulfstan's Address to the English contains an exceptional concentration of combinations of a present-tense BE verb and a past participle that were analysed either as present-tense passives or as present-tense subject-complement constructions, rather than as instances of the present perfect, and hence not included in the coding. These verb forms are rendered in roman type:

258

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

006

On hœpenum peodum ne dear man forhealdan lytel ne micel pees pe gelagod is to gedwolgoda weordunge; and we forhealdad œghwœr Godes gerihta ealles to gelome. And ne dear man gewanian on hœpenum peodum inné ne ute œnig pœra pinga pe gedwolgodan broht biö and to lacum betaeht biö; and we habbad Godes hus inne and ute clœne berypte. And Godes peowas syndan mcepe and munde gewelhwœr bedaelde; . . . . ["Wulfstan's Address", p. 86] 'Among heathen peoples one dare not withhold little or much of what is appointed to the worship of false gods; and we everywhere withhold God's dues all too often. And one dare not among heathen peoples curtail within the sanctuary or outside any of the things which are brought to the false gods and delivered for sacrifices, and we have entirely despoiled God's houses inside and out. And the servants of God are everywhere deprived of respect and protection; . . . .' [Translation from Whitelock (ed.) 1955: 855]

If BE (or HAVE) occurred in the preterite in similar constructions, they were of course coded but not as perfects. Below are listed some examples from HISTCORP of constructions where a past participial verb was analysed as adjectival and the verb phrase coded as the preterite (rather than the pluperfect). First for constructions where HAVE was seen as a main verb, taking a postposed past participle: 102 064 For monie (mare hearm is!) beod Samsones foxes, pe hefden pe neb euchan iwend frommard oper, ant weren bi pe teiles iteiet togederes, . . . . ["Ancrene Wisse", p. 231] 'For many (the greater the harm is!) are Samson's foxes, which each had their face turned away from the other, and had been (were) tied together by their tails.' 716 019 All this happened under the cannon of Lille, whence the enemy was continually firing on our troops, but without effect, as we had not a single man either killed or wounded. [Observer] 891 044 LOVEYET. ... I would not have him apprized of my arrival; for I wish to try if he would know me; . . . . ["Politician Outwitted", p. 366] 102 064 was analysed as a straightforward object-complement construction. In the others HAVE occurs in its function of denoting "cause" or "involvement", in which case the implied subject of the participial verb is not identical with that of HAVE.

Contextual analysis

259

Then for the more numerous BE constructions with subject complements: 002 029 . . . for pœm dœt land waes eall gebun on opre healfe pcere eas. ["Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan", p. 18] .. because that land was completely inhabited on the other side of that river.' 007 010 . . . ond peer abrcecon an geweorc inne on pcemfenne; sceton feawa cirlisce men on, ond waes samworht. ["Last Wars with the Danes", p. 34] ' . . . and there [they] stormed a fortress in the fen; a few peasants were inside, and [it] was only half finished.' 102 130 A leaf di wes mid hire fan biset al abuten, hire lond al destruet, ant heo al poure, inwid an eordene castel. ["Ancrene Wisse", p. 239] Ά lady was completely surrounded by her enemies, her land all laid waste, and she herself destitute in an earthen castle.' 104 198/199 Pe Ni3tingale was igremet, An ek heo was sumdel ofchamed, . . . . [The Owl and the Nightingale, p. 76] 'The nightingale was irritated, And also she was somewhat ashamed, . . . .' 345 013 ... and also pat Ion Baptist was clopid wip a mantil of gold and golden heer as sum men peynten hym. [Wyclifftte Writings, p. 84] ' . . . and also that John the Baptist was clothed in a mantel of gold and golden hair, as some men paint him.' 581 003 ... that it was doubted whether he were more bound to Nature ["Euphues", p. 184]

....

782 084 His person was well formed, and his face marked with the lines of thinking. [The Vicar of Wakefield, p. 35] 801 057 The Greek language suffered little or no change in these particulars, for about a thousand years; and the Roman was in a great degree fixed for several centuries. [Webster, p. 35] The constructions in the above list should be compared with those that were actually recognised as BE perfects, some of which will be given in the next section.

260

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

4.3.3. Some early constructions analysed as perfects We shall look at some of the perfect constructions recorded in the early periods (for overall frequencies, see section 4.3.4). I The present perfect with HAVE These are the seven constructions from Old English analysed as instances of the present perfect with HAVE, only the first of which takes an inflected participle:150 006 013 . . . and we habbaô Godes hus inne and ute clcene berypte. ["Wulfstan's Address", p. 86] ' . . . and we have completely despoiled God's houses inside and out.' 001 039 For deem we habbaô nu œgder forlaeten ge done welan ge done wisdom, . . . . ["State of Learning", p. 6] 'Therefore we have now lost both the wealth and the wisdom . . . .' 006 010 And we eac for pam habbaô felá byrsta and bysmara gebiden, . . . . ["Wulfstan's Address", p. 86] 'And also, we have therefore suffered many losses and insults . . . .' 006 082 . . . and geearnian us pa mcerpa and pa myrhda pe God hasfö gegearwod pam pe his willan on worolde gewyrcad. ["Wulfstan's Address", p. 93] ' . . . and earn for ourselves the glories and the joys that God has prepared for those who do his will in the world.' 009 002 Mceg ic be me sylfum sodgied wrecan, sipas secgan, hu ic geswincdagum earfodhwile oft prowade, bitre breostceare gebiden haebbe, . . . . ["Seafarer", p. 165] Ί can utter a true lay about myself, relating my journeys, how I often endured days of toil and a time of hardship, and have felt bitter care at heart, . . . .' 009 015 For pon him gelyfed lyt se pe ah life s wyn gebiden in burgum, . . . , 151 ["Seafarer", p. 166] 'Hence he who has experienced the joy of life in great houses . . . scarcely believes . . . .' [As translated in Whitelock (ed.) 1955: 803]

Contextual analysis 00. 072

261

. . . and nu oper cwom mihtig mariscada, wolde hyre mœg wrecan, ge feor hafaö fœhde gestaeled, . . . . ["Beowulf", p. 105] ' . . . and now another mighty evil-doer came, wanted to avenge her kinsman, and has carried the feud far, . . . .'

All the 46 present perfect constructions with HAVE from the next period have uninflected participles. Two examples: 102 080 Sende eider penne oper word pet ha haueö imaket hire, as pah ha were biuoren hire, eadmodliche venie. ["Ancrene Wisse", p. 233] 'Let each then send word to the other that she has humbly made her Venia, as if she were with her.' 103 014 "... forte binden ant to drahen into inwarde helle hwuch se he mei preouin purh his boc, pet is on euch sunne enbreuet pet he wid wil oper wid word oder wid were wrahtte in al his lif-side, bute pet he haueö ibet earpon wid sod schrift ant wid deadbote. ' ["Sawles Warde", p. 250] ' . . . in order to bind and to draw into the midst of hell whosoever he may prove guilty through his book, in which each sin has been described that he committed with will or with word or with work in all his lifetime, unless he may previously have repented of it with true shrift and penance.' II The present perfect with BE Compared with the present perfect with HAVE, a somewhat larger proportion of the recorded perfect constructions with auxiliary BE have inflected participles, a sign that their transition to genuine perfect constructions is less obvious in some cases. Two of the present perfect constructions with auxiliary BE from Old English have inflected participles, one of which is: 009 021 Dagas sind gewitene, ealle onmedlan eorpan rices; . . . . ["Seafarer", p. 168] 'The days have passed, all the glories of the earthly kingdom.' The following two present perfects with BE are also from Old English. The first is active, the second is an example of the construction classified as the passive variant of the present perfect with BE:

262

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

006 034 . . . and œgper is geworden on pysan earde: . . . . ["Wulfstan's Address", p. 88] ' . . . and both have happened in this country: . . . .' 002 058 . . . and on pœm sciprapum, pe beoö of hwœles hyde geworht, and of seoles. ["Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan", p. 19] .. and in ship's ropes, which have been (are) made of whales' hides, and of seals'.' Of the present perfect constructions with BE recorded in the period from early Middle English one, another passive, has an inflected participle: 103 019 Pet fur ham forbearned al to colen calde, pet pich ham forwalled adet ha beon formealte, . . . . ["Sawles Warde", p. 251] 'The fire consumes them all to dead coals, the pitch boils them until they have been (are) melted.' III The pluperfect with HAVE Of the pluperfect constructions recorded with auxiliary HAVE in the Old English section, one has an inflected participle: 007 042 . . . ac hi haefdon pa heora stemn gesetenne ond hiora mete genotudne; . . . . ["Last Wars with the Danes", p. 35] ' . . . but they had then completed their term of service and used up their provisions; . . . ' A couple of examples of other pluperfect constructions with HAVE, the first from Old English, the second from early Middle English: 007 093 Pa se cyning hine pa west wende mid pœre fierde wid Exancestres, swa ic œr sœde, ond se here pa burg beseten hasfde, . . . . ["Last Wars with the Danes", p. 37] 'When the king turned west with the army towards Exeter, as I said before, and the Danish army had laid siege to the borough, . . . ' 105 042 pa Grickes hefden Troye: mid teone bi-wonen. [Lajamon, p. 4] 'The Greeks had conquered Troy with mischief.' IV The pluperfect with BE Six of the pluperfect constructions with auxiliary BE recorded in Old English have inflected participles. The first example is active, the second passive: 001 014 Swœ clœne hio waes oôfeallenu on Angelcynne dœt swide feawa wœron behionan Humbre de ... . ["State of Learning", p. 5]

Contextual analysis

263

'So completely it had (was) declined in England that there were very few on this side of the Humber who . . . .' 004 055 . . . pcet heora geleafa wurde awend eft to Gode fram pam wipersœce pe hi to gewende wœron. ["Oswald", p. 79] ' . . . that their faith might be turned again to God from the apostasy that they had been turned to.' In the next period four of the recorded pluperfect constructions with BE have inflected participles. Again the first example is active, the second passive: 105 218 . . . seodden heore faderes beiene.' ford weoren i-farene. [La3amon, p. 786] ' . . . after their fathers both had travelled on (were departed/dead).'' 103 025 Ich habbe bigunne to teilen of ping pet Ich ne mähte nawt bringe to eni ende, pah Ich hefde a pusent tungen of stele ant talde adet ha weren alle forwerede. ["Sawles Warde", p. 251] Ί have begun to speak of things which I could not bring to an end even if I had a thousand tongues of steel and spoke until they all had been (were) worn out.' One other example, finally, of the pluperfect with BE from early Middle English: 101 041 Enmang pis was his nef e cumen to Eng le land, Stephne de Biais; . . . . ["Chronicle", p. 54] 'Meanwhile his nephew, Stephen of Blois, had come to England, Some of the constructions classified as perfects in these early periods are obviously borderline cases, and could alternatively have been classified as taking participial complements. That problem affects constructions with BE more often than it affects HAVE constructions, as we have seen (cf. our discussion in section 4.2.3 above).

4.3.4. Overall frequencies We shall look at the distribution of the various constructions in HISTCORP analysed as perfect/preterite verb forms. In the case of the most central verb

264

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.1. Distribution over periods of perfect/preterite verb forms recorded in HISTCORP. Vertical percentages. Up to 1550-1600.

Pres. perf./HAVE active passive

Old English η % 7 0.7 7 0.7 0 0.0

Present perfect/BE active passive

12 7 5

Preterite active passive

1.2 0.7 0.5

832 81.6 789 77.4 43 4.2

Early η 46 46 0 39 12 27

MidEng % 4.5 4.5 0.0 3.8 1.2 2.7

761 74.8 730 71.7 31 3.0

1350-1400 η % 78 7.6 65 6.4 1.3 13

1550-1600 η % 136 13.2 126 12.2 10 1.0

5.9 0.7 5.2

14 7 7

1.4 0.7 0.7

622 60.9 541 52.9 81 7.9

564 521 43

54.5 50.4 4.2

60 7 53

Pluperfect/HAVE active passive

22 22 0

2.2 2.2 0.0

20 20 0

2.0 2.0 0.0

28 25 3

2.7 2.4 0.3

47 44 3

4.5 4.3 0.3

Pluperfect/BE active passive

19 10 9

1.9 1.0 0.9

19 5 14

1.9 0.5 1.4

11 7 4

1.1 0.7 0.4

2 1 1

0.2 0.1 0.1

Preterite prog. Pres. perf. prog. Pluperfect prog. Prêt, subjunctive Prêt. aux. simple inf. Prêt. aux. perf. inf. Prêt. aux. prog. inf. Pres. aux. perf. inf. Perfect infinitive Perfect -ing

3 0 0 32 92 0 0 0 0 0

0.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 49 83 1 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 8.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 0 0 33 155 18 0 2 11 0

0.4 0.0 0.0 3.2 15.2 1.8 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.0

3 0 0 32 199 17 0 1 12 7

0.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 19.2 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.7

Sum

1019 100.0

1018 100.1

1022 100.1

1034 100.0

forms a subdivision will be made between active and passive constructions. The figures can be studied in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. 1 5 2 It can be seen that in Old English the preterite is very much the predominant verb form in references to past time, accounting for more than eighty per cent of the constructions recorded from that period. One of the things which characterise that period is the complete absence of many of the more complex verbal constructions that occur in later English. As we have seen, however, some present perfect forms, both with HAVE and, especially, with auxiliary BE, do occur even in Old English. The pro-

Contextual analysis

265

Table 4.2. Distribution over periods/varieties of perfect/preterite verb forms recorded in HISTCORP. Vertical percentages. 1750-1800.

Present perfect/HAVE active passive Present perfect/BE active passive Preterite active passive Pluperfect/HAVE active passive Pluperfect/BE active passive Preterite progressive Present perfect progressive Pluperfect progressive Preterite subjunctive Preterite auxiliary simple infinitive Preterite auxiliary perfect infinitive Preterite auxiliary progressive infinitive Present auxiliary perfect infinitive Perfect infinitive Perfect -ing Sum

1750-1800BrE η % 144 14.2 129 12.7 15 1.5

1750-1800AmE η % 185 18.3 159 15.7 26 2.6

11 7 4

1.1 0.7 0.4

17 3 14

1.7 0.3 1.4

571 508 63

56.3 50.1 6.2

508 443 65

50.3 43.9 6.4

45 40 5

4.4 3.9 0.5

49 42 7

4.9 4.2 0.7

4 3 1

0.4 0.3 0.1

4 0 4

0.4 0.0 0.4

5 2 0 10 168 23 0 10 6 15

0.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 16.6 2.3 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.5

14 0 1 12 174 16 0 14 5 11

1.4 0.0 0.1 1.2 17.2 1.6 0.0 1.4 0.5 1.1

1014

100.1

1010

100.1

portion of the present perfect with HAVE then increases steadily throughout the period covered by Tables 4.1 and 4.2, whereas the proportion of the present perfect with BE peaks in Middle English. Most of the present perfect constructions recorded with BE are instances of the rather special passive variant of that construction; the proportion of active present perfects with BE never goes above 1.2 per cent (in the section from early Middle English). Pluperfect constructions undergo a similar development to that of the present perfect, although here the variation is not quite so marked as in the case of the present perfect.

266

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

The growth of (active) present perfect and pluperfect forms is accompanied by the general growth of more complex perfect/preterite verb forms: the first passive present perfect constructions with HAVE were recorded in the period 1350-1400, as were the first passive variants of the pluperfect with HAVE and the first perfect infinitive constructions; the first perfect -ing constructions occur in 1550-1600, while the first present perfect progressive form does not appear until 1750-1800 (in British English). To facilitate the diachronic comparison we shall bring in the figures from the most directly comparable sections of CONTCORP - BRPRINT and AMPRINT - to be referred to as, respectively, "CONTBrE" and "CONTAmE". Since in the case of CONTCORP only past-referring verb forms were recorded (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.3), non-past-referring constructions will be excluded from HISTCORP as well. That reduces the number of constructions from each period/variety to a little less than 1,000. The overall figures showing the development of past-referring perfect/preterite verb forms from Old English all the way up to present-day English are set out in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. The figures still demonstrate that the proportion of occurrences of the present perfect (with auxiliary HAVE) increases sharply, mostly at the expense of the preterite, from Old English until the beginning of the Modern English period. This increase then levels off in Modern English; in American English there is even a marked decline in the frequency of the present perfect over the past two centuries. The distribution of verb forms recorded for each period/variety will of course depend (i) on the composition of the corpus section from that period/variety in terms of text categories, and (ii) on the particular texts making up each text category. Any problems for a diachronic comparison following from differences to do with (i) can only be eliminated by studying developments within individual text categories. As regards variations within text categories, the effect of any peculiar figures recorded for any one text will in most cases be limited, because of the fairly large number of texts included from most text categories. As we saw in Chapter 3, however, there is a remarkable difference in the present perfect/preterite distribution in CONTCORP between the British and the American English sections of the science category, where the number of texts is much smaller than usual: there the present perfect is nearly ten times more frequent in British than in American English, and the preterite nearly three times more frequent in American English. Clearly, the recorded figures reflect characteristics of the particular texts making up those categories more than any general difference in the distribution of the present perfect and the

Contextual analysis

267

Table 4.3. Distribution over periods of recorded perfect/preterite verb forms. Nonpast-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect (with HAVE) and the preterite. To 1550-1600.

Present perf./HAVE active passive

Old η 7 7 0

Present perfect/BE active passive

12 7 5

Preterite active passive

English % 0.7 0.7 0.0

Early MidEng η % 46 5.0 46 5.0 0 0.0

1.2 0.7 0.5

39 12 27

4.3 1.3 2.9

824 83.3 781 79.0 43 4.3

725 694 31

79.1 75.8 3.4

1350-1400 η % 78 8.6 65 7.2 1.4 13 60 7 53

6.6 0.8 5.8

603 66.6 523 57.7 80 8.8

1550-1600 η % 136 15.8 126 14.7 10 1.2 14 7 7

1.6 0.8 0.8

538 62.6 496 57.7 42 4.9

Pluperfect/HAVE active passive

22 22 0

2.2 2.2 0.0

19 19 0

2.1 2.1 0.0

27 24 3

3.0 2.6 0.3

47 44 3

5.5 5.1 0.3

Pluperfect/BE active passive

19 10 9

1.9 1.0 0.9

19 5 14

2.1 0.5 1.5

11 7 4

1.2 0.8 0.4

2 1 1

0.2 0.1 0.1

Preterite progressive Present perfect prog. Pluperfect prog. Preterite subjunctive Prêt. aux. simple inf. Prêt. aux. perfect inf. Prêt. aux. prog. inf. Pres. aux. perf. inf. Perfect infinitive Perfect -ing

3 0 0 24 78 0 0 0 0 0

0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 20 47 1 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 0 0 12 85 13 0 2 11 0

0.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 9.4 1.4 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0

916

100.0 0.0634

Sum Perf.:pret.

989 99.9 0.0085

906 99.9 0.1294

3 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.5 90 10.5 7 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.1 10 1.2 7 0.8 859 99.9 0.2528

preterite between British and American English science texts. In this case the difference is great enough to have some impact on the overall figures for CONTBrE and CONTAmE. When those figures are brought into the diachronic comparison we are now engaged in, it might therefore be argued that the science category should be excluded from the two contemporary sections. If that is done, the figures for CONTBrE and CONTAmE will be as shown in Table 4.5, which also repeats the figures for 1750-1800.

268

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.4. Distribution over periods/varieties of recorded perfect/preterite verb forms. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect (with HAVE) and the preterite. 1750-1800 and the present day.

Present perf./HAVE active passive

1750-1800BrE % η 144 16.4 129 14.7 15 1.7

Present perfect/BE active passive Preterite active passive Pluperfect/HAVE active passive Pluperfect/BE active passive Preterite progressive Pres. perf. progressive Pluperfect progressive Preterite subjunctive Prêt. aux. simple inf. Prêt. aux. perf. inf. Prêt. aux. prog. inf. Pres. aux. perf. inf. Perfect infinitive Perfect -ing Ambiguous Sum Perf.:pret.

1750-1800AmE η % 185 21.7 159 18.6 26 3.0

1.3 0.8 0.5

17 3 14

2.0 0.4 1.6

546 62.0 484 55.0 62 7.0

493 429 64

57.7 50.2 7.5

11 7 4

CONTBrE η % 371 19.7 314 16.7 57 3.0 0 0 0

CONTAmE η % 155 9.8 126 7.9 29 1.8

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0

1166 61.9 1065 56.6 101 5.4

1210 1064 146

76.2 67.0 9.2

42 37 5

4.8 4.2 0.6

46 39 7

5.4 4.6 0.8

97 84 13

5.2 4.5 0.7

40 38 2

2.5 2.4 0.1

4 3 1

0.5 0.3 0.1

4 0 4

0.5 0.0 0.5

0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0

5 2 0 1 77 19 0 9 5 15 0

0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 8.8 2.2 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.7 0.0

14 0 1 0 52 12 0 14 5 11 0

1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.1 1.4 0.0 1.6 0.6 1.3 0.0

33 15 1 4 131 39 3 14 6 1 2

1.8 0.8 0.1 0.2 7.0 2.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1

39 14 1 1 109 6 1 8 1 2 1

2.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 6.9 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1

880 100.2 0.2637

854 100.0 0.3753

1883 100.2 0.3182

1588 100.3 0.1281

It will be seen that 1750-1800 now comes out as the period with the highest proportion of present perfect forms in British as well as American English, i.e. the frequency of the present perfect shows a decline over the past two centuries in both varieties, in sharp contrast to the development that was observable in Old and Middle English.

Contextual analysis

269

Table 4.5. Major verb forms when science texts are disregarded in CONTCORP. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect (with HAVE) and the preterite. 1750-1800 and the present day. 1750-1800BrE η % Present perf./HAVE 144 16.4 129 14.7 active 15 1.7 passive Present perfect/BE active passive Preterite active passive Pluperfect/HAVE active passive Pluperfect/BE active passive All Perf.:pret.

1750-1800AmE η % 185 21.7 159 18.6 26 3.0

CONTBrE η % 193 12.2 179 11.3 14 0.9

CONTAmE η % 136 10.5 9.2 119 17 1.3

11 7 4

1.3 0.8 0.5

17 3 14

2.0 0.4 1.6

0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0

546 484 62

62.0 55.0 7.0

493 429 64

57.7 50.2 7.5

1071 988 83

67.7 62.5 5.2

951 887 64

73.3 68.4 4.9

42 37 5

4.8 4.2 0.6

46 39 7

5.4 4.6 0.8

96 84 12

6.1 5.3 0.8

39 37 2

3.0 2.9 0.2

4 3 1

0.5 0.3 0.1

4 0 4

0.5 0.0 0.5

0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0

880 100.0 0.2637

854 100.0 0.3753

1581 100.0 0.1802

1297 100.0 0.1430

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the development of the present perfect (with auxiliary HAVE) and the preterite when non-past-referring verb forms are excluded from HISTCORP (as well as from CONTCORP) and science texts are excluded from CONTCORP. Because of the problems arising from the different compositions of the sections representing the various periods/varieties of our corpus, we shall look at distributions in some text categories separately (section 4.3.6), after we have had a closer look at the distribution of HAVE and BE perfects.

270

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Development to 1600 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Old English

Early Middle English

1350-1400

1550-1600

Figure 4.1. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms from Old English to 1550-1600.

Development since 1750 80% -

60%

-

40% -

20% -

1750-1800BrE

1750-1800AmE

CONTBrE

CONTAmE

Figure 4.2. Relative frequencies of major past-referring verb forms over last two centuries. British and American English. Science texts disregarded in CONTCORP.

Contextual analysis

271

4.3.5. Distribution of HAVE and BE perfects It can be seen from the tables we have considered that if the rather special passive variant of the BE perfect (present perfect and pluperfect) is disregarded, the predominance of auxiliary HAVE in perfect constructions is marked even in the section from early Middle English, and overwhelming from 1350-1400 onwards. In active constructions the position of the present perfect with HAVE as the clear number-two form, after the preterite, to refer to past time is unchallenged from early Middle English all the way up to present-day English. Passives aside, it is in intransitive constructions that the rivalry between the two perfect auxiliaries is of the most interest, since the occurrence of auxiliary BE was very largely confined to such constructions.153 Table 4.6 sets out the figures for the (active) constructions in HISTCORP analysed as conforming to the SV clause pattern, from Old English up to the beginning of the Modern English period. Table 4.6. Auxiliaries HAVE and BE in present perfect and pluperfect constructions conforming to the SV clause pattern. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period. HAVE:BE ratios. Old English η % Present perfect/HAVE Present perfect/BE HAVE:BE Pluperfect/HAVE Pluperfect/BE HAVE:BE All SV

0 6

0.0 2.3

0.0000 3 9

1.1 3.4

0.3333 266

26.9

Early MidEng η % 7 12

3.6 6.1

1350-1400 η % 6 5

4.2 3.5

1550-1600 η % 23 15.9 4 2.8

0.5833

1.2000

5.7500

3 4

4 5

7 1

1.5 2.0

0.7500 196 21.4

2.8 3.5

0.8000 143

15.8

4.8 0.7

7.0000 145 16.9

Although the small number of constructions makes it necessary to treat the figures for each section of Table 4.6 with caution, the trend is clear enough for both the present perfect and the pluperfect: in intransitive constructions the predominance of auxiliary BE in Old English is complete for the present perfect and strong for the pluperfect; from then on the relative importance of HAVE increases rapidly, the two auxiliaries reaching a state of near balance in the section from 1350-1400 and the predominance of auxiliary HAVE being overwhelming from the beginning of the Modern English period.

272

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

As can be seen by comparison with the preceding tables, a majority of the BE constructions not conforming to the SV pattern are passives. However, a few are of type SVC, and in the section from 1350-1400 there are even a couple of constructions classified as active transitive (SVO) with the present perfect and auxiliary BE, and also one with the pluperfect with BE. The two SVO constructions with the present perfect and BE are: 302 096 . . . Ί this is to seyn, pat w[h]an any sterre fix is passed the lyne Meridional, than by-gynnyth it to descende, & so doth the sonne. [Astrolabe, p. 25] ' . . . this is to say that when any fixed star has passed the meridional line, then it begins to descend, and so does the sun.' 343 021 And, pow it be doute, it is lythli to trewe Crystis puple pat pe founderes of pe almesse housis for here uenimous dotaciun ben for pe most part passid pe brode way. [Wycliffite Writings, p. 26] 'And, though it may be doubted, it is easy to see for the true people of Christ that the founders of the almshouses for the most part have gone the broad way for their venomous endowments.' And the construction with the pluperfect with BE: 302 078 . . . 1 & fond pat it was passed 8 of the clokke the space of 2 degrees . . . . [Astrolabe, p. 17] ' . . . and found that it had passed 8 o'clock by the space of 2 degrees . . . .' Since all these have the lexical verb PASS, they may be seen as a precursor of the construction with the preposition past in present-day English (they might even be analysed as having main verb BE and preposition passed, in a variant spelling of past). In 343 021 pe brode way might be analysed as an adverbial element rather than as an object. It is noteworthy that no other, more straightforward transitive perfect constructions with auxiliary BE were recorded in HISTCORP. That suggests that the other constructions of this type that have been discussed in the literature (see above, section 4.2.6) have a very low frequency of occurrence.

4.3.6. Verb forms according to text category To divide a set of texts into text categories can be difficult enough even at any one stage in the development of a language. When the texts are sepa-

Contextual analysis

273

rated by temporal gaps of two centuries, it is clear that the problems will easily multiply. In our analysis of HISTCORP and CONTCORP some text categories were nevertheless recognised as extending over several periods. In Tables 4.7 and 4.8 some of the largest text categories from the most recent sections of our corpus are distinguished, and the distribution of the major verb forms given for each period/variety in which that text category was distinguished during the compilation of the corpus; in most cases the text categories recognised from CONTCORP were carried no further back than to, at most, the beginning of the Modern English period. In these and the following tables the figures for the present perfect are only those for constructions with auxiliary HAVE, and passive as well as active constructions are included. For the corresponding overall figures one should look to the figures recorded for the present perfect with HAVE and the preterite in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 above. In Tables 4.7, 4.8 and a number of the following tables showing the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite the statistical significance of the change recorded in any period compared with the preceding period will be indicated by a letter just after the figure for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite. An a means that the change is significant at the 5% level, a b that it is significant at the 1 % level, and a c that it is significant at the 0.1% level, all according to the Chi-square test. In the case of the period 1750-1800, the results recorded for both 1750-1800BrE and 1750-1800AmE will be compared with those for 1550-1600. Table 4.7 (a), giving the figures for the texts taken from the news columns of newspapers and news magazines (all the newspaper texts from 1750-1800 were placed here), shows the same trend as overall: the present perfect proportion declines over the past two centuries in American English but increases in British English; in 1750-1800 the present perfect is more frequent in American than in British English, but in the present-day section that relationship has been reversed. Since the letters in HISTCORP are all social rather than business ones, although published (but written, one must assume, without any thought of publication), it was thought best only to include the figures for social letters from CONTCORP in Table 4.7. Also, in this case we have no texts from CONTAmE. As for British English, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite can here be seen to drop somewhat over the last two centuries, although the change is not statistically significant. During the coding of the fiction (novels) texts direct speech, which makes up a substantial proportion of some of those texts, was specially marked, in

274

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.7. Main verb forms in some text categories I. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Press/news 1750-1800BrE η % 12 11.9 Present perfect Preterite 71 70.3

1750-1800AmE η % 19 18.3 55 52.9

CONTBrE η % 56 19.5 166 57.8

CONTAmE η % 40 12.4 221 68.6

101 100.0 0.1690

104 100.0 0.3455

287 100.0 0.3373

322 100.0 0.1810

Present perfect Preterite

1550-1600 η % 10 11.1 58 64.4

1750-1800BrE η % 32 17.1 110 58.8

1750-1800AmE η % 27.7 49 99 55.9

CONTBrE η % 101 16.8 395 65.6

All Perf.:pret.

90 100.0 0.1724

187 100.0 0.2909

177 100.0 0.4949 b

602 100.0 0.2557

Present perfect Preterite

1350-1400 η % 7 3.6 148 75.1

1550-1600 η % 5 2.5 142 70.6

All Perf.:pret.

197 100.0 0.0473

201 100.0 0.0352

All Perf.:pret. (b) Letters/social

(c) Fiction (novels)/narrative

1750-1800BrE η % Present perfect 8 4.6 Preterite 124 71.3

1750-1800AmE η % 1 0.6 120 71.0

CONTBrE η % 0.0 0 198 75.6

CONTAmE η % 1 0.6 126 78.8

174 100.0 0.0645

169 100.0 0.0083

262 100.0 0.0000 b

160 100.0 0.0079

All Perf.:pret.

HISTCORP as in CONTCORP. In Tables 4.7/4.8 the figures recorded for fiction are again divided into direct speech and narrative, the latter term used widely (as in Chapter 3), to include all passages that are not direct speech. It can be seen that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is much higher for direct speech than for narrative, as was found to be the case when we looked at CONTCORP. The recorded figures mean that even

Contextual analysis

275

Table 4.8. Main verb forms in some text categories II. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Fiction (novels)/direct speech 1550-1600 _n % 16 22.9 29 41.4

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

70 100.0 0.5517 1750-1800BrE η % 3 25.0 6 50.0

1750-1800AmE η % 7 25.0 21 75.0

CONTBrE η % 34 24.5 80 57.6

CONTAmE η % 4 10.0 32 80.0

12 100.0 0.5000

28 100.0 0.3333

139 100.0 0.4250

40 100.0 0.1250

(b) Drama

Present perfect Preterite

1550-1600 η % 55 25.1 127 58.0

All Perf.rpret.

219 100.0 0.4331

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

1750-1800BrE η % 47 29.6 83 52.2

1750-1800AmE η % 22 14.1 104 66.7

CONTBrE η % 31 15.4 132 65.7

CONTAmE η % 7.2 29 312 77.4

159 100.0 0. 5663

156 100.0 0.2115 a

201 100.0 0.2348 b

403 100.0 0.0929 b

in earlier English the preterite is the tense typically used for narration. The direct speech of fiction, on the other hand, is often characterised by the kind of situational integration typical of everyday conversation, which explains the higher ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. The other category purporting to represent conversational rather than written English, drama, also displays ratios between the present perfect and the preterite mostly above those for the other categories. Here, too, the present

276

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

perfect proportion decreases over the past two centuries in British as well as in American English, and in this case the trend is distinct - and statistically significant - in both varieties. Since, for obvious reasons, HISTCORP does not contain any spoken English, this is the best evidence we have of the development of the spoken language. Since, moreover, speech can generally be assumed to be more innovative than written language, the figures recorded for the direct speech of fiction and for drama are especially noteworthy as a pointer to the present, and future, development of the relationship between the verb forms we are concerned with. As far as the development in British English from 1750-1800 to the present day is concerned, the same trend of a decline in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite has also been observed for two of the three text categories which are straightforward representations of written English (cf. Table 4.7). All in all, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite decreases in British English from 1750-1800 to the present day in four of the five text categories distinguished, including the two categories where the development over the past two centuries is statistically significant (fiction/narrative and drama). It is only the category made up of news texts from newspapers and magazines that displays a continuing increase in the present perfect/preterite ratio from 1750-1800 to the present day for British English. The comparatively low ratio for 1750-1800BrE in that text category may be explained by a high proportion of sequences of events located at a fairly distant past time, while modern news reporting is more concerned with the immediate past, due to the drastic improvement in communications. In the other cases where both periods/varieties are represented the ratio goes down from 1750-1800 to the present day in British as well as in American English. Although not all the individual developments are statistically significant, they are remarkable for their consistency. This result is at variance with that obtained earlier on in this chapter, when all text categories were considered together and the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite were found to continue to increase (slightly) from 1750-1800BrE to CONTBrE. As was pointed out, a problem with that kind of comparison is that variations in the textual composition of each period/variety are concealed. An additional problem was the lopsided distributions between the present perfect and the preterite in the contemporary science texts. In the present section those problems have been eliminated, or at least reduced, by limiting the comparison to individual text categories. Since the texts included in this comparison account for 45 per cent of the present

Contextual analysis

277

perfect/preterite forms recorded in CONTBrE and for as much as 56 per cent of those in CONTAmE (plus some - social letters - from NONPRINT), the result is highly noteworthy: when similar texts are compared from different periods, there is a tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to go down over the past two centuries in British as well as American English. One reasonable interpretation of our frequency findings is that the use of the present perfect has now peaked not only in American English but also in British English, although the decline is evidently more marked in American English. What our material demonstrates beyond any doubt is that the rapid advance of the present perfect that is observable in English from the earliest extant texts through Old and Middle English - and which has continued in a number of other languages until the present perfect has reached a position of clear predominance over the preterite - has been arrested in English within the Modern English period.

4.3.7. Specification and verb form Temporal specification, by adverbial or other constituents, is a crucial contextual factor in any discussion of the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite, as we have seen. Table 4.9 sets out the figures for clauses recorded (a) without any temporal specification in the same clause, (b) with the temporal specification expressed by a non-clausal adverbial in the same clause, and (c) with the temporal specification expressed by an adverbial clause. In Table 4.10 the three most frequent types of non-clausal adverbial specifiers are listed separately - (a) deictic, (b) relative, and (c) frequency/length (for definitions of these adverbial types, see Chapter 3, section 3.3.6). As regards clauses with no overt temporal specification, comparison with Tables 4.3 and 4.4 reveals that these have ratios between the present perfect and the preterite that stay remarkably close to those for all constructions combined in all sections. No great discrepancies between the two series of ratios could be expected, since unspecified clauses make up a clear majority of recorded constructions, but it is nevertheless noteworthy that the result we recorded for present-day English holds even for earlier English: throughout the recorded history of English the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is about the same in unspecified clauses as in all clauses combined; in other words, temporal specification is no less frequent in present perfect than in preterite clauses.

278

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

If we look at the less numerous group of clauses with specification by non-clausal adverbials, the difference becomes more noticeable: from 13501400 onwards the present perfect/preterite ratio is distinctly higher in clauses specified by non-clausal adverbials than it is either in unspecified clauses or in all clauses put together, i.e. non-clausal temporal adverbials are considerably more frequent in present perfect than in preterite clauses. Table 4.9. Main verb forms according to specification. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) No specification in same clause

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η % 6 0.9 542 80.9 670 67.7 0.0111

Early MidEng η % 38 5.3 560 78.7 712 77.7 0.0679 c

1350-1400 η % 46 7.3 407 64.2 634 70.0 0.1130 a

1550-1600 η % 100 15.4 403 62.2 648 75.4 0.2481 c

1750-1800BrE η %

1750-1800AmE η % 128 21.6 338 57.1 592 69.3 0.3787 b

CONTBrE η % 226 17.4 817 63.0 1296 68.8 0.2766

CONTAmE η % 99 8.4 909 77.4 1174 73.9 0.1089 c

89 15.0 373 62.7 595 67.6 0.2386

(b) Specification by non-clausal adverbial

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

Old English η % 1 0.5 186 86.1 216 21.8 0.0054

Early MidEng η % 8 5.7 103 73.6 140 15.3 0.0777 b

1350-1400 η % 26 15.3 109 64.1 170 18.8 0.2385 a

1550-1600 η % 29 21.6 79 59.0 134 15.6 0.3671

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

1750-1800BrE η % 49 24.4 112 55.7 201 22.8 0.4375

1750-1800AmE η % 50 25.9 105 54.4 193 22.6 0.4762

CONTBrE η % 100 25.9 226 58.5 386 20.5 0.4425

CONTAmE η % 45 14.2 232 73.0 318 20.0 0.1940 c

Contextual analysis

279

Table 4.9. (continued) (c) Specification by adverbial clause

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

Old English η % 0.0 0 72 93.5 77 7.8 0.0000

Early MidEng η % 0 0.0 29 93.5 31 3.4 0.0000

1350-1400 η % 1 2.5 33 82.5 40 4.4 0.0303

1550-1600 η % 2 5.6 27 75.0 36 4.2 0.0741

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

1750-1800BrE η % 3 7.0 30 69.8 43 4.9 0.1000

1750-1800AmE η % 3 7.5 32 80.0 40 4.7 0.0938

CONTBrE η % 7 8.6 54 66.7 81 4.3 0.1296

CONTAmE η % 4 7.0 40 70.2 57 3.6 0.1000

Concerning the extent to which this trend holds up across the distinction between different types of adverbials, Table 4.10 shows that in all sections except Old English the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is distinctly higher than average in clauses containing deictic adverbials or frequency/length adverbials, while there is no very consistent tendency in constructions with relative adverbials. In the last two periods the ratio is highest in the category of adverbials denoting frequency/length, where the present perfect and the preterite are about equally frequent, except in CONTAmE. The high ratios between the present perfect and the preterite recorded here clearly reflect the fact that reference to time extending up to the deictic zero-point is frequently expressed by constructions with present perfect verbs and adverbials denoting length of time. What the figures recorded in Table 4.10 (a) do not reveal is that even in HISTCORP there is a very marked difference between the deictic adverbials occurring with the present perfect and those occurring with the preterite. The vast majority of the latter denote past time pure and simple, while the deictic adverbials combining with the present perfect are a lot more varied, quite a few of them denoting extended present time or past time extending up to the deictic zero-point. Some examples of such present perfect constructions: 334 020 And thus yet hiderward hath the Mairaltee ben holden as it were of conquest or maistrye, . . . . [London English, p. 34] 'And thus yet, so far the office of mayor has been conducted as if by conquest or force . . . .'

280

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.10. Main verb forms according to type of adverbial specification. Non-pastreferring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Specification by deictic adverbial Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

25.0 75.0 0.4 0.3333

3 37.5 2 25.0 8 0.9 1.5000

7 29.2 12 50.0 24 2.8 0.5833

1750-1800AmE η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

37.0 51.9 3.2 0.7143

19 27.9 41 60.3 68 3.6 0.4634

6 13.3 35 77.8 45 2.8 0.1714 a

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

4.8 76.2 4.6 0.0625

4 8.0 41 82.0 50 5.5 0.0976

5 12.8 28 71.8 39 4.5 0.1786

1750-1800AmE η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

24 31.2 40 51.9 77 4.1 0.6000 a

9 13.0 49 71.0 69 4.3 0.1837

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

8 22.9 17 48.6 35 3.9 0.4706

10 27.8 19 52.8 36 4.2 0.5263

1 3 4

0 0.0 19 82.6 23 2.3 0.0000 1750-1800BrE η %

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Early MidEng η %

17 36.2 25 53.2 47 5.3 0.6800

10 14 27

(b) Specification by relative adverbial Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

0 0.0 107 91.5 117 11.8 0.0000 1750-1800BrE η %

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

4 7.8 27 52.9 51 5.8 0.1481

2 32 42

9 19 40

22.5 47.5 4.7 0.4737

(c) Specification by frequency/length adverbial Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

0 0.0 34 75.6 45 4.6 0.0000

Early MidEng η % 3 26 40

7.5 65.0 4.4 0.1154

Contextual analysis

281

Table 4.10. (continued) 1750-1800BrE η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

19 21 48

39.6 43.8 5.5 0.9048

1750-1800AmE η % 16 16 40

40.0 40.0 4.7

1.0000

CONTBrE η % 17 31.5 18 33.3 54 2.9 0.9444

CONTAmE η % 14 29.8 24 51.1 47 3.0 0.5833

334 050 And nought oonlich vnshewed or hidde it hath be by man now, but also of bifore tyme the moost profitable poyntes of trewe gouernaunce of the Citee, . . . . [London English, p. 35] 'And not only now but also in former times it has been concealed or hidden by man, the most profitable matters of true governance of the City, . . . .' 502 049 Touching the former, their strict keeping of our tenure statute and law is spoken of by all, but hath in it more then men have as yet attained to know, or perhaps ever shall attaine, . . . . [Hooker, p. 64] 591 084 BRUTUS: Ay, Casca. Tell us what hath chanced to-day, That Caesar looks so sad. [Julius Caesar, p. 31] 791 051 Mrs. Can. My dear Lady Sneerwell, how have you been this century? [School for Scandal, p. 19] 7-2 001

/ hope you have by this time got over a little of your Yorkshire bustle, after escaping so much to your credit from the bustle of Westminster. [Burke, p. 40]

891 064 HARRIET. You dislike every good thing I have mentioned this morning, . . . . ["Politician Outwitted", p. 369] Similar specifiers would be fully acceptable in present perfect constructions even in present-day English, none of them denoting specific past times clearly separate from zero. However, some specifiers that do denote such time were recorded in combination with the present perfect; those constructions will be taken up below (section 4.3.9.1). As regards cases of specification by adverbial clause, finally, Table 4.9 (c) makes it clear that these have present perfect/preterite ratios which are consistently much lower than those for all constructions combined. This is because most of the temporal clauses recorded serve as anchors establishing past reference points, leading to a high proportion of preterite forms. 154

282

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

The great variety of adverbial temporal specifiers helps to explain how it can be that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is in several cases lower than average in verb phrases not accompanied by any such specifier: frequency/length adverbials in particular, and also many deictic adverbials, denote the sort of time that is frequently expressed by the present perfect; and these make up a substantial proportion of the recorded adverbials, besides adverbials denoting specific past time clearly separate from zero, which in the vast majority of cases combine with the preterite. The situation in HISTCORP is thus much the same as it was found to be in CONTCORP.

4.3.8. Given versus new time We come now to the variation depending on the contextual function of the temporal reference expressed by the verb form, i.e. whether the reference is to new or to given time and whether, in the former case, the reference is the only one to that time or the first in a series.155 The results for the most important types of contextual function appear in Tables 4.11 and 4.12. Table 4.11 gives the figures for constructions classified as referring to given time, i.e. the same time (in a broad sense) as that expressed in a preceding sentence, Table 4.12 the figures for the two subdivisions of new time. The results are illustrated in Figures 4.3-4.5. 156 That the preterite should be more frequent in references to given than in those to new time, and that it should be the other way round with the present perfect, is not surprising. In Chapter 3 (section 3.3.7) that expectation was amply confirmed for present-day English. As can now be seen, this difference can be traced all the way back to Old English: the percentages of present perfect forms, and the present perfect/preterite ratios, are consistently lowest in constructions referring to given time. It is nevertheless noteworthy that even in the section from Old English two of the recorded present perfect constructions do refer to time classified as given. The underlying figures show that in HISTCORP as in CONTCORP most of the present perfect constructions analysed as expressing given time refer to time which is not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. A more surprising result from Chapter 3 was the very marked difference within the group of constructions referring to time classified as new. Again the difference recorded for present-day English can be seen to extend all the way back to our earliest section: four of the seven present perfect forms recorded in Old English were classified as expressing single past time (cf. Table 4.12 b), although that contextual function accounts for only eleven per

Contextual analysis

283

Table 4.11. Main verb forms according to contextual function of temporal reference: given time. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. Old English η % 0.3 87.7

Early MidEng η %

1550- 1600 n %

1.0 90.2

14 3.0 363 78.1

31 8.5 261 71.9

Present perfect Preterite

2 586

All Perf.:pret.

668 67.5 0.0034

605 66.0 0.0110

465 51.3 0.0386 a

363 42.3 0.1188 c

1750-1800BrE η %

1750-1800AmE η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

6.3 76.5

67 7.3 723 78.2

27 3.0 795 88.0

332 38.9 0.0827

924 49.1 0.0927

903 56.9 0.0340 b

4.7 83.1

Present perfect Preterite

16 280

All Perf.:pret.

337 38.3 0.0571 a

6 546

1350- 1400 n %

21 254

cent of all the constructions recorded from that period; on the other hand, no present perfect forms were recorded in constructions expressing the first of several references to a past time (cf. Table 4.12 a). The figures show that in constructions referring to single past time the present perfect proportion increases rapidly and the present perfect becomes more frequent than the preterite at the beginning of the Modern English period, dropping back to a level below that of the preterite only in CONTAmE. In constructions initiating a sequence of references to a past time, by contrast, the growth of the present perfect is slow, although the present perfect proportion jumps to more than thirty per cent in 1550-1600 but then falls back to a somewhat lower level in both British and American English. Throughout the time covered by our corpus there is thus a clear and consistent difference in the frequency of the present perfect, not only between given and new time, but also according as the new time is single or the first in a sequence. The present perfect has always been a verb form used above all to refer to time that is outside any sequence of reference times dominating the linguistic context.

284

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.12. Main verb forms according to contextual function of temporal reference: new time. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Reference to first new time in sequence

Present perfect Preterite

0 32

0.0 82.1

Early MidEng η % 2 6.1 24 72.7

All Perf.:pret.

39 3.9 0.0000

33 3.6 0.0833

52 5.7 0.0769

47 5.5 0.5000 b

1750-1800BrE η % 15 18.8 57 71.3

1750-1800AmE η % 13 22.4 39 67.2

CONTBrE η % 44 25.7 100 58.5

CONTAmE η % 22 13.7 128 79.5

80 9.1 0.2632

58 6.8 0.3333

171 9.1 0.4400

161 10.1 0.1719

Old English η % 4 3.6 84 76.4

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

23.5 38.3

58 28.9 73 36.3

83 40.5 74 36.1

110 11.1 0.0476

162 17.7 0.6129 c

201 22.2 0.7945

205 23.9 1.1216

1750-1800BrE η % 111 34.6 104 32.4

1750-1800AmE η % 136 43.6 28.5 89

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

250 43.5 195 33.9

106 28.9 162 44.1

321 36.5 1.0673

312 36.5 1.5281

575 30.5 1.2821

367 23.1 0.6543 c

Old English η %

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

1350-1400 η % 3 5.8 39 75.0

1550-1600 η % 15 31.9 30 63.8

(b) Reference to single new time

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

38 62

Contextual analysis

285

Given time 100%-f

Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.3. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms classified as referring to given time.

New time: first in sequence 100%

jj]

Present perfect

§§|

Preterite

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

Figure 4.4. Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to first of sequence of past times.

286

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

New time: single 80%

Β

Present perfect

•

Preterite

60%

40%

20%

0%

III ι Earlv ME

Old English

Figure 4.5. past time.

pa

1550-1600 I 1750-1800AmE i CONTAmE I 1550CONTAmE 1350-1400 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to single

4.3.9. Temporal location Next in our list of parameters is that of temporal location. Table 4.13 gives the figures for the two most frequent categories distinguished (cf. section 3.3.8 with subsections): time located wholly in the past, and time which extends up to the deictic zero-point, or at least is not clearly separate from that point, illustrated in Figures 4.6 and 4.7, respectively.157 The recorded difference is here more marked than with any of the other distinctions we operate with, in HISTCORP as well as in CONTCORP. All but one of the present perfect forms recorded from Old English belong in the category set out in section (b) of the table, and from early Middle English onwards the present perfect is more frequent than the preterite in that category. The ratio increases consistently, to reach 23 for CONTBrE and twelve for CONTAmE. Our findings demonstrate convincingly that through most of its history the present perfect has been the chief verb form in references to past time that is not (clearly) separate from the deictic zero-point. It should be noted, however, that because that particular kind of temporal location is com-

Contextual analysis

287

Table 4.13. Main verb forms according to temporal location. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Wholly in the past

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η % 1 0.1 698 89.7

Early MidEng η % 20 2.9 627 89.4

1350-1400 η % 29 4.2 557 80.7

1550-1600 η % 59 11.0 427 80.0

778 78.7 0.0014

701 76.5 0.0319 c

690 76.2 0.0521

534 62.2 0.1382 c

1750-1800BrE η % 63 9.8 516 80.4

1750-1800AmE η % 68 11.3 462 76.7

CONTBrE η % 148 10.6 1123 80.8

CONTAmE η % 70 5.2 1182 87.7

642 73.0 0.1221

602 70.5 0.1472

1390 73.8 0.1318

1348 84.9 0.0592 c

Old English η % 6 8.7 51 73.9

Early MidEng η % 19 38.8 14 28.6

1350-1400 η % 42 56.0 19 25.3

1550-1600 η % 69 67.6 22 21.6

69 7.0 0.1176

49 5.3 1.3571 c

75 8.3 2.2105

102 11.9 3.1364

1750-1800BrE η % 76 79.2 11 11.5

1750-1800AmE η % 111 82.2 12 8.9

CONTBrE η % 185 88.1 8 3.8

CONTAmE η % 77 78.6 6 6.1

96 10.9 6.9091

135 15.8 9.2500 b

210 11.2 23.1250 a

98 6.2 12.8333

(b) Up to deictic zero-point or vague

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.rpret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

paratively rare, these constructions do not account for more than roughly half the recorded present perfect forms, the exact proportion varying somewhat, but not very much, from section to section. It is especially noteworthy that in this case the increase continues all the way up to the present day in both British and American English. That

288

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Time wholly in the past 100%

80%

Iι

60%

40%

20%

Early Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800AmE I CONTAmE 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Figure 4.6. Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to time located wholly in the past.

Time not clearly separate from zero 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% I Early ME I 1550-1600 I 1750-1800AmE I CONTAmE Old English 1350-1400 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Figure 4.7. Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to time not (clearly) separate from the deictic zero-point.

Contextual analysis

289

may suggest that the present perfect function of referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point is now becoming more important, as other functions decline.

4.3.9.1. The present perfect with past-time specification Of particular interest to us are any cases where the present perfect combines with adverbials or other elements denoting time located wholly in the past, in a way that would not be held acceptable in present-day English. If the adverbial specification is sufficiently vague, such combinations are straightforward even in present-day English, as we saw in Chapter 3 (section 3.3.8.1). Thus the following combinations of verb form and specifier might easily be paralleled today: 102 109 Ich hit habbe iseid ear. pet is, pet 3e na ping . . . . ["Ancrene Wisse", p. 238] Ί have said it before: that is, that you nothing . . . .' 301 004 . . . tak thanne \ as I haue seid by forn the fix fot of thy compas .... [Equatorie, p. 18] .. take then, as I have said before, the fixed point of your compasses . . . .' 71-001

In Wales much damage has been done by the late excessive rains. [Observer]

In HISTCORP as in CONTCORP the present perfect is also sometimes used in cases of textual deixis, i.e. reference to a preceding section of the text in which the verb form occurs, or to a previous publication: 302 088 Κ Know the quantité ofthi crepusculis, as I haue tawht in the chapitre by-forn, & adde hem to ... . [Astrolabe, p. 22] 'Find the quantity of your twilight, as I have taught in the previous chapter, and add them to . . . .' 802 032 Now if the fire of electricity and that of lightening be the same, as I have endeavour'd to show at large in a former paper, this pasteboard tube and these scales may represent electrified clouds. [Franklin, p. 61] 8-6 010

This is the animal which we call elk in the Southern parts of America, and of which I have given some description in the Notes on

290

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Virginia, of which I had the honour of presenting you a copy. [Jefferson, p. 402] HISTCORP further contains quite a few constructions where there is no adverbial specification but where some other constituent, often the subject, serves to place the situation in the past. Even in present-day English the present perfect may be employed in such cases if the focus is on the enduring validity of, for example, a past statement. Not surprisingly, several of these constructions from HISTCORP occur in religious writings: 341 008 We beleue, as Crist and his apostolus han tau3t v.v, pat pe sacrament . . . . [Wycliffite Writings, p. 17] 'We believe, as Christ and his apostles have taught us, that the sacrament . . . .' 343 041 For pou pese to craftis nemlid were michil more nedful in pe elde lawe, [>e newe testament hath voydid pese and manie others. ['Wycliffite Writings, p. 28] 'For although these two mentioned crafts were much more needful in the old law, the New Testament has rendered these and many others void.' 348 014 . . . for peple schulde drawe to parische chirchis and here her seruice pere, as Goddis lawe haj) lymytid, and ellis pei ben to blame. [Wycliffite Writings, p. 117] ' . . . for people should go to the parish churches and hear their service there, as the law of God has ordained, or else they are to blame.' 502 041 The law wherby he worketh, is eternali, and therefore can have no shew or cullor of mutabilitie: for which cause a part of that law being opened in the promises which God hath made (because his promises are nothing else but declarations what God will do for the good of men) touching those promises the Apostle hath witnessed, that God may as possibly deny himselfe and not be God, as faile to performe them. [Hooker, p. 62] In some of these constructions the use of the present perfect is made easier by the fact that the reference can be seen as being not only to a past statement but also to the still existing written rendering of that statement (cf. Chapter 3, section 3.3.8.1). The use of the present perfect in such cases is not confined to religious contexts:

Contextual analysis

291

5-1 009 In which I have followed all the antique Poets historicall, first Homere, who in the Persons of Agamemnon and Ulysses hath ensampled a good governour and a vertuous man, ... : then Virgil, whose like intention was to doe in the person of Aeneas: after him Ariosto comprised them both in his Orlando: and lately Tasso dissevered them againe, and formed both parts in two persons, . . . . [Spenser, p. 166] 5-1 015 By ensample of which excellente Poets, I labour to pourtraict in Arthure, before he was king, the image of a brave knight, perfected in the twelve private morali vertues, as Aristotle hath devised, the which is the purpose of these first twelve bookes: . . . . [Spenser, p. 166] 801 082 THE first correct accounts we have of Britain were given by Julius Cesar, who invaded and conquered the southern parts of the island, about fifty four years before the Christian era. Tacitus, in his Life of Julius Agricola, has described the natives of the island, and given it as his opinion, that they came from Gaul (now France.) [Webster, p. 40] In 5-1 009 the present perfect occurs in noteworthy variation with the following preterite forms. It may not be a coincidence that the present perfect is used in the first of that series of references to past time, the preterite being chosen to refer to the subsequent links in the sequence, although the present perfect and the preterite are probably in pretty free variation in such cases. The following construction contains an adverbial past-time specifier, and one which places us as far back into the past as it seems possible to get: before all ages. And yet the present perfect is used, in reference to what is clearly seen as having enduring validity: 502 042 This law thetfore we may name eternali, being that order which God before all ages hath set down with himselfe, for himselfe to do all things by. [Hooker, p. 63] None of the examples from HISTCORP we have considered so far in this section can be said to represent outright violations of the rules for the use of the present perfect in present-day English, although one may question whether the present perfect would be equally likely to be used in such constructions today. Some present perfect constructions were recorded in HISTCORP, however, which were such that most present-day speakers would probably regard

292

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

that verb form as unacceptable in similar constructions. We may first note one case from late Middle English: 346 015 A Lord! whepur pise ysturdaies heritikes han fonden a bettir bileue and more trewe in pe tyme pat Sathanas was vnbunden, penne Iesu Crist vnto hise apostles or eny oper clerke by a pousand $er and more. [Wycliffite Writings, p. 112] Ό Lord! Whether these heretics of yesterday have found a better and more true faith in the time that Satan was unbound than Jesus Christ to his apostles or any other scholar in a thousand years and more.' Here both the presence of sisturdaies as part of the subject and the adverbial in pe tyme pat Sathanas was unbunden seem to place the situation referred to in a past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, and yet the present perfect is used. In the following construction from 1750-1800BrE the subject also provides a past-time anchor clearly separate from zero: 701 061 Nor is this topic confined merely to modern religions. The ancients have also employed it. [Hume, p. 31] Even though there is a comparison here which involves time extending up to zero, the sentence where the present perfect occurs is unequivocally linked with past time, and present-day English would probably have the preterite. In these two constructions from the same period/variety a clear past-time anchor is provided by a straightforward temporal adverbial: 791 021 Lady Sneer. ... I have found him out a Ions time since. I know him to be artful, selfish, and malicious - in short, a sentimental knave. [School for Scandal, p. 16] 791 030 Lady Sneer. ... but do your brother's distresses increase? Joseph S. Every hour. I am told he has had another execution in the house yesterday. In short, his dissipation and extravagance exceed anything I have ever heard of. [School for Scandal, p. 17] Such combinations of verb form and adverbial specifier would hardly be deemed acceptable in present-day English, especially not 791 030, with the highly definite past-time specifier yesterday. A couple of contextual features may nevertheless help to explain the use of the present perfect in that construction: for one thing, the occurrence of the present perfect in the following sentence may have affected the choice of verb form in the construction we

Contextual analysis

293

are concerned with; and secondly, the whole context is linked with a time span which extends up to the deictic zero-point, yesterday's execution being cited as an example of the brother's increasing distresses. In the following passage from 1550-1600 (from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar) only one sentence contains an explicit temporal specifier, in the form of a w/ien-clause, but all the references here are to a given past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. The alternation between the present perfect and the preterite seems to be determined by the metre rather than by any difference in the temporal reference, and is further evidence that in earlier English the present perfect could be used where it would be barred today: 591 004/005/007 MARULLUS: ... Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft Have you climbed up to walls and battlements, To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops, Your infants in your arms, and there have sat The live-long day, with patient expectation, To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome. And when -you saw his chariot but appear. Have you not made an universal shout, That Tiber trembled underneath her banks To hear the replication of your sounds Made in her concave shores? And do you now put on your best attire? And do you now cull out a holiday? And do you now strew flowers in his way That comes in triumph over Pompey's blood? [Julius Caesar, p. 15] The fact that the references here are each to several separate situations may help to explain the use of the present perfect. Even so that verb form would evidently have been avoided in present-day English. Our findings confirm the claims made in some of the existing literature (see above, section 4.2.7) about combinations of the present perfect and past-time specifiers being more common in earlier English than they are today. Several such combinations have been recorded in HISTCORP, most of them in the sections representing earlier Modern English. Also, in some constructions where present-day English would vacillate between the present perfect and the preterite there may seem to be a greater tendency to select the present perfect in earlier Modern English. This is further evidence that the use of

294

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

the present perfect has declined during the Modern English period, which corroborates the conclusions drawn during our frequency investigation.

4.3.9.2. The preterite referring to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point Table 4.13 showed that the use of the preterite in references to time classified as extending up to the deictic zero-point or vague has declined consistently from Old English to Modern English, a decline which has continued all the way up to the present day in American as well as in British English. In Chapter 3 (section 3.3.8.2) we saw that quite a few of the preterite constructions thus classified in CONTCORP contained specifiers of the never/ever/always set.158 Our results thus confirmed the assumption that these adverbs affect the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in favour of the preterite even if the reference is to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. In this section we shall have a look at the development of the preterite in constructions with never, ever and always - and the forms corresponding to these in earlier English - where the temporal reference is to time not clearly separate from zero. Table 4.14 gives the figures for the development of the distribution between the preterite and the present perfect in these cases. Table 4.14. Main verb forms in clauses referring to past time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point with adverbs never/ever/always. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Old English η %

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

Present perfect Preterite

0 1

0.0 100.0

0 6

0.0 60.0

All Perf.:pret.

1

0.1 0.0000

10

1.1 0.0000

5 0.6 0.0000

9 1.0 0. 1250

1750-1800AmE η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

1750-1800BrE η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

0 5

0.0 100.0

1550--1600 η % 1 8

11.1 88.9

5 7

41.7 58.3

4 8

28.6 57.1

8 6

53.3 40.0

3 75.0 1 25.0

12

1.4 0.7143

14

1.6 0.5000

15

0.8 1.3333

4 0.3 3. 0000

Contextual analysis

295

The figures in Table 4.14 should be compared with those in Table 4.13 (b) above, which gave the present perfect/preterite distribution for all constructions denoting time that is not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. Although the number of constructions recorded in each section of Table 4.14 is too small to warrant any firm conclusions, it is clear enough that overall in earlier as well as in contemporary English the occurrence of one of the adverbs neverlever!always is a conditioning factor which increases the proportion of preterite forms in constructions which denote past time that is not clearly separate from zero.159 Some examples from HISTCORP: 003 010 Ac monige sindon me suide onlice on ungelcerednesse, deah de hi ncefre leorningcnihtas naeren, wilniad deah lareowas to beonne, . . . . ["Pastoral Care", p. 25] 'But many seem to me to be very similar in want of learning, who, although they were never disciples, nevertheless want to be teachers, . . . .' 105 166 Naes hit isaeid nceuere'. an sce^e no on leode. pat mare luue weore ifunden'. bi-tweone twei kingen. . . . . [La3amon, p. 785] 'It was never said, in saw nor in song, that more love might be found between two kings.' 347 044 In pis mater we han ynow stryuen in Latyn wip aduersaries of Goddis lawe, pat seien pat it is falsest of alle lawis in pis world pat euer God suffride. [Wyclifftte Writings, p. 115] 'About this matter we have struggled enough in Latin with adversaries of God's law, who say that it is the falsest of all laws in this world that God ever suffered.' 593 078 Tib. Talkapace. ... for whip and whur, The old proverb doth say, never made good fur. ["Ralph Roister Doister", p. 127] 7-5 006

You know I allways was of opinion that you deserved the reproof which you got. [Boswell, p. 35]

891 030 HUMPHRY. Not I, I isn't for none of your figure expressions, d'ye see, becase why, I never larnt to cipher; . . . . ["Politician Outwitted", p. 364]

296

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Why it is that the use of the present perfect did not expand so quickly in constructions with these adverbs as in other similar constructions is a question we cannot hope to answer fully here, without looking in some detail at the development of tense usage with each individual adverb. Let it merely be suggested that perhaps the occurrence of one of these adverbs, without any further past-time anchor, has been felt to be sufficient indication in itself that the temporal reference is meant to extend all the way up to the deictic zero-point, or at least not be clearly separate from that point. It may also have affected the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite that these adverbs, unlike most other temporal adverbs, tend to occupy mid position, so that any perfect auxiliary would often be split off from the main verb. It should be noted, moreover, that if all constructions with these adverbs are taken into account, irrespective of temporal reference, the preterite predominates over the present perfect in all periods/varieties.

4.3.10. Conditioning factors in combination So far in this chapter we have considered the various conditioning factors separately. And yet it is clear that these factors are often dependent upon one another, as we saw during our discussion of present-day English in Chapter 3 (section 3.3.9). We cannot go into the same kind of detail in our treatment of the various periods making up HISTCORP, but we shall have a look at the effect some of the most frequent combinations of three conditioning factors have on the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite. The three conditioning factors selected are among the most central ones to the choice between the two verb forms. They are temporal location, specification, and the distinction between given and new time. The first of these will be held constant at location wholly in the past, for two reasons: first, this is by far the most frequent type of temporal location, which makes any differences recorded more reliable; and second, it is with this temporal location that the competition between the present perfect and the preterite is at its most noteworthy, since time which is not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point, also quite frequent, strongly favours the present perfect. The figures can be studied in Tables 4.15 and 4.16. They are illustrated in Figures 4.8-4.12. We have previously seen that in present-day English there is a marked difference in the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite in such cases, not only according as the reference is to given time or new time, but

Contextual analysis

297

Table 4.15. Main verb forms according to some frequent combinations of conditioning factors: unspecified. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Situation located wholly in the past; unspecified; referring to given time Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

Early MidEng η % 3 0.7 386 94.6 408 44.5 0.0078

1350-1400 η % 2 0.8 230 87.5 263 29.0 0.0087

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η η % % 5 2.2 10 4.3 192 86.1 209 89.3 234 26.6 223 26.1 0.0478 0.0260 a

CONTBrE η %

0 0.0 339 91.6 370 37.4 0.0000

13 2.1 563 88.9 633 33.6 0.0231

1550-1600 η % 16 8.1 169 85.4 198 23.1 0.0947 c CONTAmE η % 7 1.0 660 93.0 710 44.7 0.0106

(b) Situation located wholly in the past; unspecified; expressing first of several references to new time

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

Early MidEng η % 1 12.5 6 75.0 8 0.9 0.1667

1350- 1400 n % 1 5.9 13 76.5 17 1.9 0.0769

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 1 5 21.7 7.7 15 65.2 10 76.9 23 2.6 13 1.5 0.3333 0.1000

CONTBrE η %

Old English η % 0.0 0 12 75.0 16 1.6 0.0000

9 22.0 28 68.3 41 2.2 0.3214

1550-1600 η % 5 27.8 12 66.7 18 2.1 0.4167 CONTAmE η % 7 13.7 44 86.3 51 3.2 0.1591

298

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.15. (continued) (c) Situation located wholly in the past; unspecified; referring to single new time Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

Early MidEng % η 14 30.4 41.3 19 46 5.0 0.7368 b

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

15 21.7 23 33.3 69 7.6 0.6522

27 45.0 27 45.0 60 7.0 1.0000

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 30 35.3 40 47.1 45 30.6 52.9 26 85 9.7 85 10.0 0.6667 1.5385

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

68 47.9 65 45.8 142 7.5 1.0462

39 33.9 67 58.3 115 7.2 0.5821 b

1 4.0 22 88.0 25 2.5 0.0455

Table 4.16. Main verb forms according to some frequent combinations of conditioning factors: specified. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Situation located wholly in the past; specified; expressing first of several references to new time Old English η % Present perfect Preterite

0 16

0.0 94.1

0 14

0.0 93.3

1350-1400 η % 1 3.4 22 75.9

All Perf.:pret.

17

1.7 0.0000

15

1.6 0.0000

3.2 29 0.0455

14 1.6 0.0769

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE % η % η 5 2 6.5 10.6 40 28 90.3 85.1

CONTBrE η % 5 6.4 69 88.5

CONTAmE η %

4.1 78 0.0725

85 5.4 0.0370

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.ipret.

47

5.3 0.1250

Early MidEng η %

31

3.6 0.0714

1550-1600 η % 1 7.1 13 92.9

3 81

3.5 95.3

Contextual analysis Table 4.16.

299

(continued)

(b) Situation located wholly in the past; specified; referring to single new time Old English η %

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

Present perfect Preterite

0 30

0.0 93.8

2 20

7.1 71.4

All Perf.:pret.

32

3.2 0.0000

28

3.1 0.1000

5.4 49 0.2813

36 4.2 0.1481

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

Present perfect Preterite

12 39

21.4 69.6

14 42

22.6 67.7

All Perf.:pret.

56

6.4 0.3077

62

7.3 0.3333

9 32

46 106

18.4 65.3

1550-1600 η %

28.9 66.7

8.4 159 0.4340

4 27

12 77

11.1 75.0

12.8 81.9

94 5.9 0.1558

Past/unspecified/given 100%

20%

I Early ME I 1550-1600 I 1750-1800AmE I CONTAmE Old English 1350-1400 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Figure 4.8. Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to time which is located wholly in the past, unspecified and given.

300

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Past/unspecified/first 100%

pj

Present perfect Preterite

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Early ME Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800AmE I CONTAmE 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Figure 4.9. Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to time which is located wholly in the past, unspecified, and the first of several references to new time. also depending on whether the new time is the first in a sequence (Chapter 3, section 3.3.7). In this chapter it has become clear that the same is true of earlier English when the given/new time distinction is considered separately (section 4.3.8). It can now be seen that the same differences obtain consistently throughout the history of English covered by our corpus even when the other two conditioning factors are held constant: the recorded ratios between the present perfect and the preterite are several times higher in Table 4.15 (b) (cf. Figure 4.9) than in Table 4.15 (a) (cf. Figure 4.8), and several times higher again in Table 4.15 (c) (cf. Figure 4.10); and without exception distinctly higher in Table 4.16 (b) (cf. Figure 4.12) than in Table 4.16 (a) (cf. Figure 4.11). We can conclude from these figures that as far as time located wholly in the past is concerned, the present perfect is, and has always been, a verb form used most typically to refer not only to new time but especially to single time. In constructions referring to given time located wholly in the past present perfect forms remain few and far between, although it should be noted that they do occur, from early Middle English onwards. In most of these cases the temporal location is sufficiently vague for the use of the present perfect to be straightforward even in present-day English, but a few constructions remain

Contextual analysis

301

Past/unspecified/single 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Figure 4.10. Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to time located wholly in the past, unspecified, and single.

Past/specified/first 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.11. Relative frequences of main verb forms classified as referring to time located wholly in the past, specified, and the first of several references to new time.

302

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Past/specified/single 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% CONTAmE Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.12. Relative frequencies of main verb forms classified as referring to time located wholly in the past, specified, and single.

where the occurrence of a present perfect verb form does draw attention to itself when considered from the viewpoint of present-day usage. Perhaps the most obvious ones are the present perfect forms occurring in the passage from Julius Caesar quoted in section 4.3.9.1 (591 004/005/007). That section also contained other instances of the present perfect referring to time clearly located wholly in the past of a type that would not seem acceptable in presentday English. Although the total number of present perfect constructions that might be considered deviant from the point of view of present-day usage is comparatively small, these constructions demonstrate that in some cases of reference to anchored time located wholly in the past the present perfect was used in earlier English where it would be avoided, and replaced by the preterite, today. A noteworthy difference emerges by comparison of the figures in Table 4.15 with the corresponding figures in Table 4.16: other things being equal, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is consistently lower in specified than in unspecified constructions, i.e. the proportion of preterite forms accompanied by temporal specification is greater than the proportion of present perfect forms accompanied by such specification - so long as the reference is to time located wholly in the past.

Contextual analysis

303

This difference between the present perfect and the preterite is in accordance with the expectations that follow from the basic temporal meanings of the two verb forms but was concealed above (section 4.3.7), when only the effect of the one conditioning factor temporal specification was considered. It is now evident that the result obtained there, that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is slightly higher in specified constructions, was due to the many preterite forms referring to given time and to the considerable number of present perfect constructions denoting time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point: to signal that the temporal reference extends up to zero adverbial or other specification is the norm in present perfect constructions, as we have seen. To refer to new time located wholly in the past, however, preterite forms are much more likely to take adverbial specification than present perfect forms.

4.3.11. The expression of new time From our point of view the distribution of verb forms chosen to express new time is of particular interest. Table 4.17 distinguishes specified and unspecified present perfect and preterite forms for each period/variety of HISTCORP. The specification referred to is again any type of overt temporal specification of the same clause, i.e. not only that expressed by adverbials but also by other elements. It can be seen that the distribution of specified and unspecified remains largely the same within each verb form: unspecified present perfect forms are consistently more frequent than specified ones, while the majority of preterite forms used to express new time are without exception specified. Overall the proportion of preterite constructions drops markedly from Old English to early Middle English, and then remains fairly stable, with the exception of CONTAmE, where it is higher again. The proportion of the present perfect increases steadily from Old English to the beginning of the Modern English period and then levels off, the most distinct deviation again being CONTAmE, where the present perfect figures are lower. One noteworthy trend emerging from Table 4.17 is that for unspecified preterite forms. More than a third of the verb forms classified as referring to new time in Old English are unspecified preterite forms, but from early Middle English onwards the proportion stabilises at about half that, with the exception of American English, where the proportion of unspecified preterite forms nearly doubles from 1750-1800 to the present day, from a low 12.2

304

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.17. Main verb forms, specified and unspecified, in verb phrases referring to new time. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Horizontal percentages. All new time

Specified pres. perf.

Unspec. pres. perf.

Specified preterite

Unspec. preterite

η %

149 100.0

1 0.7

3 2.0

64 43.0

52 34.9

η

%

195 100.0

6 3.1

34 17.4

53 27.2

33 16.9

η %

253 100.0

27 10.7

34 13.4

67 26.5

45 17.8

η

252 100.0

30 11.9

68 27.0

58 23.0

46 18.3

%

401 100.0

53 13.2

73 18.2

95 23.7

66 16.5

1750-1800AmE

η %

370 100.0

50 13.5

99 26.8

83 22.4

45 12.2

CONTBrE

η %

746 100.0

124 16.6

170 22.8

184 24.7

111 14.9

CONTAmE

η %

528 100.0

48 9.1

80 15.2

165 31.3

125 23.7

Old English Early MidEng 1350-1400 1550-1600

% 1750-1800BrE

η

per cent to 23.7. In British English, on the other hand, the proportion of unspecified preterite constructions remains stable, and in fact drops slightly between the last two periods. It should be borne in mind, of course, that besides the overt specification referred to in Table 4.17 a large variety of indirect anchoring occurs (with past time seen as unique etc. - see Chapter 3, section 3.3.10 with subsections). That accounts for a substantial proportion of the preterite constructions listed as unspecified in Table 4.17. However, since such indirect anchoring is more difficult to identify and delimit, no figures will be presented. It can be assumed, however, that the proportion of constructions which can be associated with the various types of indirect anchoring remains fairly stable.160 Hence the trend recorded for constructions lacking overt specification can be taken as a rough indication also of how the proportion of constructions lacking any kind of anchoring develops over time. The trend recorded from 1750-1800AmE to CONTAmE is thus a significant pointer to what has happened, and probably still is happening, in American English. 161 The fact that unspecified - and generally unanchored -

Contextual analysis

305

preterite forms have become so much more common in constructions referring to new time is an important part of the explanation of the rapid advance of the preterite at the expense of the present perfect that we have recorded in that variety from 1750-1800 to the present day.

4.3.12. Verb forms according to clause type In Chapter 3 (section 3.3.12) it was seen that in CONTCORP the distribution of our verb forms varies considerably according to clause type. Tables 4.18 and 4.19 give the diachronic figures for the same clause types that were distinguished in CONTCORP. Again the figures should be compared with the overall figures for the two verb forms, set out in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. We shall look at the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in each clause type separately.

4.3.12.1. Main clauses As regards main clauses first, these account for a majority of the recorded constructions even in HISTCORP (cf. the figures recorded for CONTCORP, Table 3.20).162 The development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in main clauses is illustrated in Figure 4.13.

Main clauses 100%

Old English

Figure 4.13.

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Relative frequences of main past-referring verb forms in main clauses.

306

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.18. Main verb forms in main and object that-clauses. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Main clauses

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η % 4 0.7 494 91.3

Early MidEng η % 21 3.8 488 87.6

1350-1400 η %

541 54.7 0.0081

557 60.8 0.0430 b

389 42.9 0.0485

361 42.0 0.2015 c

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 96 21.4 69 17.1 284 286 71.0 63.3

CONTBrE η % 228 19.6 778 66.9

CONTAmE η %

52.6 449 0.3380 b

1163 61.8 0.2931

1086 68.4 0.1174 c

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

403 45.8 0.2413

15 309

3.9 79.4

1550-1600 η % 53 263

105 894

14.7 72.9

9.7 82.3

(b) Object f/iaf-clauses Old English η % Present perfect Preterite

0 20

All Perf.:pret.

37 3.7 0.0000

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

0.0 54.1

3 16

10.3 55.2

8 48

10.3 61.5

3 23

6.8 52.3

3.2 29 0.1875

78 8.6 0.1667

44 5.1 0.1304

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

16 49

15.5 47.6

103 11.7 0.3265

13 33

17.6 44.6

74 8.7 0.3939

19 47

15.8 39.2

120 6.4 0.4043

12 65

9.0 48.9

133 8.4 0.1846

Contextual analysis

307

Table 4.19. Main verb forms in relative and when-clauses. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Restrictive relative clauses Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Early MidEng η %

1350- 1400 n %

1550 -1600 η %

6.9 75.5 11.1 0.0909

15 16.1 44 47.3 93 10.3 0.3409 a

33 32.7 50 49.5 101 11.8 0.6600

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 33.0 45.1 10.7 0.7317

CONTBrE η % 45 30.8 66 45.2 146 7.8 0.6818

CONTAmE η % 8 8.6 71 76.3 93 5.9 0.1 127 c

Early MidEng η % 2 4.3 38 80.9 47 5.1 0.0526

1350- 1400 n % 2 4.2 39 81.3 48 5.3 0.0513

1550 -1600 η %

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 4 18.2 9.1 8 32 33 75.0 72.7 44 44 5.0 5.2 0.1212 0.2500

CONTBrE η % 9 15.0 38 63.3 60 3.2 0.2308

CONTAmE η % 6 18.2 19 57.6 33 2.1 0.3158

1350- 1400 n %

1550 -1600 η %

6 17.6 21 61.8 34 3.8 0.2857

3 17.6 12 70.6 17 2.0 0.2500

2 2.6 57 75.0 76 7.7 0.0351

23 20.7 58 52.3 111 12.6 0.3966

7 77 102

30 41 91

(b) Non-restrictive relative «clauses

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.rpret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η % 0.0 0 31 96.9 32 3.2 0.0000

11 14.3 55 71.4 77 9.0 0.2000

(c) VWierc-clauses Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

0 0.0 39 79.6 49 5.0 0.0000

Early MidEng η % 2 8 17

11.8 47.1 1.9 0.2500

308

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.19. (continued) 1750-1800BrE η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

3 18 24

12.5 75.0 2.7 0.1667

1750-1800AmE η % 5 8 13

38.5 61.5 1.5 0.6250

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

3 7.0 39 90.7 43 2.3 0.0769

0 0.0 27 93.1 29 1.8 0.0000 b

The present perfect percentage in these main clauses can be seen to stay close to that for all clause types combined (cf. Tables 4.3 and 4.4), the only notable exception being the period 1350-1400, where the present perfect percentage remains stable in main clauses but increases markedly overall. Middle English is thus a period characterised by a notable increase in the frequency of the present perfect in certain subordinate clauses. If one focuses on the proportion of preterite forms, a consistent difference emerges between main clauses on the one hand and all clause types combined on the other hand: the preterite is invariably five to ten per cent more frequent in main clauses than overall. The main reason for this is that constructions with modal auxiliaries, and also with the pluperfect, often expressing relative past time, are distinctly more frequent in some types of subordinate clause, in HISTCORP as in CONTCORP. The development of the present perfect/preterite distribution within the Modern English period is noteworthy: the American English section from 1750-1800 displays a statistically significant increase in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite compared with the period 1550-1600, and then there is an even more marked decrease up to CONTAmE, significant at the 0.1% level. In British English, on the other hand, the changes in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite over the same periods are not statistically significant.

4.3.12.2. Object

that-ciauses

The development in object that-clms&s is illustrated in Figure 4.14. Here the preterite in particular, and to some extent also the present perfect in most periods, occur less frequently than in main clauses. Instead these clauses have an occurrence distinctly higher than average of both modal-auxiliary forms

Contextual analysis

309

Object that-clauses Present perfect Preterite

Old English

Figure 4.14. clauses.

CONTAmE 1750-1800AmE CONTBrE 1750-1800BrE

Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in object that-

and the pluperfect, often expressing relative time orientated towards the time associated with the matrix clause. That is true not only of CONTCORP, as we saw in Chapter 3 (section 3.3.12.2), but also of all periods/varieties in HISTCORP. A couple of examples of the object clauses occurring in HISTCORP: 101 062 ... 7 ther wes underfangen, forjji dat hi uuenden dat he sculde ben alsuic alse the eom wes, . . . . ["Peterborough Chronicle", p. 55] .. and was received there, because they expected that he would be just as the uncle was, . . . .' 593 033 Merrygreek. ... But, because ye were refused the last day, Ye said ye would ne 'er more be entangled that way. ["Ralph Roister Doister", p. 120] 892 024 LETITIA: Why you know that old Mr. John-Richard-Robert-JacobIsaac-Abraham-Cornelius Van Dumpling, Billy Dimple's father, ( . . . ) was the most intimate friend of Maria's father. ["Contrast", p. 599] As regards the development of the present perfect, that can be seen from Table 4.18 to deviate from the usual pattern: the percentage is the same for 1350-1400 as for early Middle English, and then lower for 1550-1600,

310

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

which means that object that-clauses did not have any share in the general increase in the frequency of the present perfect recorded during the Middle English period. With the small number of recorded constructions, however, these differences in the frequency of the present perfect are not statistically significant. Within the Modern English period the development of the present perfect is much the same as for all clause types combined, although none of the period-on-period differences are statistically significant.

4.3.12.3. Relative clauses Figure 4.15 illustrates the development of the present perfect and the preterite in the restrictive variant of relative clauses, Figure 4.16 that in the nonrestrictive variant.

Restrictive relative clauses 80%

60%

40%

11 Present perfect Preterite

20%

1||fl-

0% Early ME Old English

1350-1400

1550-1600 1750-1800AmE CONTAmE 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Figure 4.15. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in restrictive relative clauses.

Chapter 3 (section 3.3.12.3) made it clear that AMPRINT on the one hand and BRPRINT/NONPRINT on the other hand display very different patterns as regards the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite in the two types of relative clause. It can now be seen that it was the figures recorded for CONTAmE that were exceptional: in all periods/varieties except CONTAmE the present perfect proportion is distinctly higher - in the order two to one

Contextual analysis

311

Non-restrictive relative clauses 100%

H

Present perfect

[§§

Preterite

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% CONTAmE Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.16. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in non-restrictive relative clauses.

and more - in restrictive compared with non-restrictive relative clauses, the preterite proportion being correspondingly lower. The main reason for this disparity between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses is the same in HISTCORP as in BRPRINT and NONPRINT: the underlying figures show that from 1350-1400 onwards (but not in the sections from Old English and early Middle English) non-restrictive clauses are consistently much more apt to be orientated towards given time, especially towards the time expressed by the matrix clause, than restrictive clauses. That makes for a lower present perfect proportion and a higher preterite proportion in the non-restrictive type of relative clauses, in HISTCORP just as well as in CONTCORP. A similar explanation can therefore be suggested: restrictive relative clauses tend to perform their restrictive function by referring to knowledge that is shared by speaker/writer and addressee, and they are therefore more independent of the immediate linguistic context; nonrestrictive clauses typically refer to new information and often take the current linguistic context as their starting-point for expressing that information. Besides, both types of relative clause contain a fair proportion of pluperfect forms even in HISTCORP, typically referring to a time that is past in the past relative to the time associated with the matrix clause. In Chapter 3 no marked difference was detected in CONTCORP as a whole between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses as regards the distribution of verb forms in the respective matrix clauses. In HISTCORP,

312

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

however, the greater tendency for non-restrictive clauses to be orientated towards the time of the matrix clause is connected with a much larger preterite percentage in those matrix clauses; the matrix clauses of restrictive clauses have a higher proportion of present-tense verbs. 163 We shall look at some examples from HISTCORP illustrating two of the most common types of construction: I Restrictive relative clauses with present perfect verb expressing time classified as new: 103 042 3ef we wel weried ant wited ure hus ant Godes deore trésor pet he haueö bitaht us, cume dead hwen he wulle, . . . . ["Sawles Warde", p. 252] 'If we well defend and guard our house and God's dear treasure which he has entrusted to us, come death when he will . . . .' 344 021 But pe sone is pat man to whom God ha¡3 ordeyned blis, ... . [Wycliffite Writings, p. 54] 'But the son is the man to whom God has ordained bliss, . . . .' 502 048 Wherfore to come to the law of nature, albeit therby we sometimes meane that manner of working which God hath set for each created thing to keepe: . . . . [Hooker, p. 64] 723 021 Ned is one of those whose happiness marriage has encreased. [Johnson, p. 51] 8-4 003 My mind upon the receipt of this news was instantly assailed by a thousand ideas, all of them contending for pre-eminence, but believe me my dear friend none could supplant, or ever will eradicate that gratitude, which has arisen from a lively sense of the conduct of your Nation: . . . . [Washington, p. 364] II Non-restrictive relative clauses with preterite verb expressing same time as matrix clause: 006 072/073 And pœt wœs geworden, pœs pe he scede, purh riera reaflac and purh gitsunge wohgestreona, purh leode unlaga and purh wohdomas, purh biscopa asolcennesse and purh lydre yrhde Godes bydela, pe sopes geswugedan ealles to gelome and clumedan mid ceaflum peer hy scoldan clypian. ["Wulfstan's Address", p. 92] 'And that came about, according to what he said, through robbery by the powerful, and through the coveting of ill-gotten gains,

Contextual analysis

313

through the lawlessness of the people and through unjust judgments, through the sloth of the bishops and the wicked cowardice of God's messengers, who were silent about the truth all too often and mumbled with their jaws where they should have cried aloud.' 105 046

.... for hire weoren on ane dase.' hund pousunt deade. Vt of pan fehte.' pe was feondliche stor. Eneas pe duci mid erm[d]en at-wond. [La3amon, p. 4] ' . . . for her in one day a hundred thousand were dead. Out of that fight, which was terribly fierce, Eneas the duke escaped with difficulty.'

302 065 tho loked I do[w]n vp-on the Est Orisonte, and fond there the 20 degree of gemynis assending; which pat I tok for Myn assendent. [Astrolabe, p. 17] Then I looked down on the eastern horizon, and found there the 20 degrees of Gemini ascending, which I took for my ascendant.' 501 068 . . . and yet in this notwithstanding did he cutt off from the stadie of the lawe muche time, which he employed to his former studies that he vsed in Oxforde; . . . . [Harpsfield, p. 13] 701 066 Our ancestors in EUROPE, before the revival of letters, believed, as we do at present, that there was one supreme God, the author of nature, whose power, though in itself uncontroulable, was yet often exerted by the interposition of his angels and subordinate ministers, . . . . [Hume, p. 32] 802 057 But having no paint at hand, I pasted a narrow strip of paper over it; and when dry, sent the flash through the gilding; by which the paper was torn off from end to end, with such force, that ... . [Franklin, p. 64] As can be seen from some of these examples, the preterite verb in a nonrestrictive relative clause sometimes functions to bring the action forward in much the same way as in a series of main clauses which denote a sequence of events.

314

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

4.3.12.4.

When-clauses

The development of the present perfect and the preterite in when-clauses is illustrated in Figure 4.17. The most remarkable thing about the figures recorded from HISTCORP is the consistently high percentage of the present perfect: all the way from early Middle English up to 1750-1800 this percentage is higher than it is in either CONTBrE or CONTAmE (where it is 0.0!). In CONTCORP the recorded when-clauses are overwhelmingly preterite more so than any other clause type (cf. section 3.3.12.4); in several of the sections making up HISTCORP the percentage of the preterite is lower than for all clause types combined.

When-clauses

Old English

Figure 4.17.

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in w/ien-clauses.

In an attempt to find the reason for this difference between CONTCORP and HISTCORP we shall look at a sample made up of one-third of the constructions with present perfect w/zen-clauses recorded in HISTCORP: 104 156 Also pufarest on pine rise: Wane pu hauest ido pi gome Pi steune gop anon to shome. [The Owl and the Nightingale, p. 64] 'And so you go on your rise: when you have done your game, your voice soon goes to shame.' 347 041 . . . for we graunten pe sentence and not oonli pe wordis, for pe wordis passen awey anoon whanne we han spokun hem. [Wycliffite Writings, p. 115]

Contextual analysis

315

.. for we confess the meaning and not only the words, for the words soon pass away when we have spoken them.' 381 003

... Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth Inspired hath in every holt and heeth The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his hälfe cours y-ronne, And smale foweles maken melodye, That slepen al the nyght with open eye, — So priketh hem Nature in hir coráges, Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages, . . . . [Canterbury Tales, p. 1] i

When also Zephyrus with his sweet breath Exhales an air in every grove and heath Upon the tender shoots, and the young sun His half-course in the sign of the Ram has run, And the small fowl are making melody That sleep away the night with open eye (So nature pricks them and their heart engages) Then people long to go on pilgrimages . . . .' [Translation from Chaucer 1951: 19] 593 006

... Sometime Lewis Loiterer biddeth me come near; Somewhiles Watkin Waster maketh us good cheer; Sometime Davy Diceplayer, when he hath well cast, Keepeth revel-rout as long as it will last; . . . . ["Ralph Roister Doister", p. 116]

792 073 Mrs. Bev. Speak to him, Charlotte; for I cannot. Char. When I have wiped my eyes. [Gamester, p. 425] 802 020 When you have drawn away one of these angular portions of the fluid, another succeeds in its place, . . . . [Franklin, p. 57] What these constructions suggest, and what the underlying figures confirm, is that while the vast majority of the w/îen-clauses occurring in CONTCORP refer to specific past time, the temporal reference of the w/ien-clauses from HISTCORP is much more varied: six of the nineteen present perfect constructions refer to the past in the future (cf. 792 073, quoted above), perhaps

316

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

the most obvious occasion for the use of the present perfect in when-clauses; another six to what was classified as generic past time (cf. 104 156 and 802 020); and four to what was taken to be past time extending up to the deictic zero-point (cf. 381 003, which is also generic). The fact that present perfect when-clauses are more common in HISTCORP than in CONTCORP may have to do with the general temporal orientation of quite a few of the texts in HISTCORP, characterised by generic rather than specific past time. Clearly, that is more common in poetry than in (especially non-fictional) prose, and it can be seen that several of the texts represented in the above sample belong in the category of poetry, or at least verse. However, the total number of present perfect when-clauses is small even in HISTCORP, and all of them seem to be such that the present perfect would be used in present-day English as well. Our findings do not, therefore, provide any basis for a general claim to the effect that the use of the present perfect has undergone a drastic decline in w/zen-clauses. With the other clause types we have examined the trends that were noted for CONTCORP in Chapter 3 have in most cases been confirmed even for HISTCORP, i.e. it has been ascertained that these trends make themselves felt not only in the contemporary language but also through most of the recorded history of English. Main clauses pretty consistently display a proportion of preterite forms that is above average, while both object that-clmses and relative clauses have distinctly higher proportions of verb forms typically expressing relative past time - the pluperfect and combinations with preterite auxiliaries, mostly modals, in the case of object ί/ιαί-clauses, only the pluperfect in the case of relative clauses. As regards the relationship between the two types of relative clause distinguished, the figures for HISTCORP confirm that the restrictive variant has a markedly higher proportion of the present perfect, reflecting a greater tendency for such relative clauses to refer to new time compared with the non-restrictive variant.

4.3.13. Verb forms according to some clause-level parameters We shall next look at the development of the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite according to some of the contextual parameters that were recorded during the coding of HISTCORP and CONTCORP.

Contextual analysis

317

4.3.13.1. Aspectual character We shall first take up the present perfect/preterite distribution in HISTCORP according to the aspectual classes we distinguish (cf. Chapter 3, section 3.3.13.1), confining our attention this time to constructions where the reference was classified as being to single situations. The figures are set out in Tables 4.20 and 4.21 and illustrated in Figures 4.18^.21.

Single achievements 100%

Figure 4.18. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms classified as referring to single achievements. One notable result emerging from Tables 4.20 and 4.21 is that only three of the seven present perfect forms recorded with HAVE in Old English appear among these constructions, in spite of the fact that between them the four categories distinguished in these tables, all those classified as referring to single situations, make up about 85 per cent of the constructions recorded from Old English. Thus four of the seven present perfect forms from Old English occur in constructions classified as referring to several, temporally separate situations, or as being indeterminate in that respect, which account for only fifteen per cent of all constructions recorded from that period. In Old English and in the two sections from Middle English the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite can be seen to be highest in the case of (single) accomplishments. Several occurrences of the present perfect referring to achievements were also recorded in each of those periods, while present perfect forms referring to states or activities are completely absent

318

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.20. Main verb forms according to aspectual class: single achievements and accomplishments. Non-past-referring verb forms excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Single achievements Old English η % Present perfect Preterite

1 276

0.3 87.1

Early MidEng η % 12 5.8 165 79.3

All Perf.:pret.

317 32.1 0.0036

208 22.7 0.0727 c

214 23.6 0.1232

176 20.5 0.3235 b

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 27 14.2 42 16.5 157 119 62.6 61.8

CONTBrE η % 24.5 57.8

CONTAmE η % 34 10.6 247 76.7

254 29.7 0.2675

322 17.1 0.4247 a

322 20.3 0.1377 a

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

190 21.6 0.2269

(b) Single accomplishments Old English η % Present perfect 2 1.2 Preterite 146 85.9 All Perf.:pret.

170 17.2 0.0137

18 156

8.3 71.9

1350-1400 η % 17 7.9 138 64.5

33 102

79 186

23 106

13.3 61.3

1550-1600 η %

41 135

18.8 58.0

18.7 61.6

217 23.7 0.1154 b

173 19.1 0.2170

219 25.5 0.3037

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

Present perfect Preterite

44 136

20.0 61.8

All Perf.:pret.

220 25.0 0.3235

49 88

28.2 50.6

174 20.4 0.5568 a

102 360

18.8 66.3

543 28.8 0.2833

38 353

9.0 84.0

420 26.4 0.1076 c

Contextual analysis

319

Table 4.21. Main verb forms according to aspectual class: single activities and states. Non-past-referring verb forms excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Single activities

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η % 0 0.0 102 94.4

Early MidEng η % 2 1.9 94 90.4

1350- 1400 n % 0 0.0 56 90.3

1550-1600 η % 14 15.4 62 68.1

108 10.9 0.0000

104 11.4 0.0213

62 6.8 0.0000

91 10.6 0.2258 b

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η η % % 13 18.8 18 16.7 61.1 36 52.2 66

CONTBrE η % 32 18.3 93 53.1

CONTAmE η % 12 8.6 83 59.7

69 7.8 0.3611

108 12.6 0.2727

175 9.3 0.3441

139 8.8 0.1446

Old English η % 0 0.0 179 74.9

Early MidEng % η 2 0.8 205 83.3

1350- 1400 n % 10 3.1 235 73.0

1550 -1600 η % 21 7.7 186 68.6

239 24.2 0.0000

246 26.9 0.0098

322 35.5 0.0426

271 31.5 0.1129 a

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 9.5 5 2.7 26 141 192 70.1 76.6

CONTBrE η % 57 9.9 415 72.2

CONTAmE η % 13 2.7 412 84.8

575 30.5 0.1373

486 30.6 0.0316

(b) Single states

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

274 31.1 0.1354

184 21.5 0.0355 a

from the Old English section and highly infrequent in Middle English. In Old English, therefore, and to a very large extent in Middle English as well, the present perfect is a verb form used to refer to bounded situations. That tallies well with the historical origin of the present perfect: present possession (in a wide sense) resulting from a past situation can most easily be associated with cases where the past situation is bounded.

320

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Single accomplishments 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.19. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms classified as referring to single accomplishments.

Single activities

Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.20. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms classified as referring to single activities.

The correlation between the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite and the bounded/unbounded opposition is consistent with the assumption that the growth in the frequency of the present perfect was con-

Contextual analysis

321

Single states 100%

Present prefect 40%

Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

CONTAmE

Figure 4.21. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms classified as referring to single states.

nected with the general loss in Middle English of the prefix ge-, often functioning as a perfective marker (cf. section 4.2.5), although our material certainly does not provide any basis for a claim that this was a major conditioning factor. From the beginning of the Modern English period onwards the differences among the first three categories distinguished in these tables - achievements, accomplishments and activities - are less striking. That can be taken as yet another indication that at this stage the present perfect construction has (largely) lost its ties to its historical origin. The present perfect proportion remains low, however, in constructions denoting states, especially in American English. In Modern English the most consistent contrast is that between (single) states - which generally account for about thirty per cent of the recorded cases - on the one hand and all the other categories on the other hand. The low present perfect figures for constructions denoting states can partly be explained by the general bounded/unbounded opposition and the connection with current relevance, or rather, in this case, lack of current relevance. As we saw in Chapter 3 (section 3.3.13.1), current relevance is a conditioning factor which seems to have some impact in favour of the present perfect in cases where there are no other conditioning factors forcing the choice of verb form; what we have

322

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

now found suggests that that is true of earlier as well as of contemporary English. Also, past-time states often function as temporal frames round past reference points (especially relevant to subordinate clauses, which are included here but not in Chapter 3) ; hence these verb forms tend to refer to given time more often than other verb forms, which makes for low ratios between the present perfect and the preterite.

4.3.13.2. Clause structure In Chapter 3 some striking correlations were noted between the present perfect/preterite distribution and clause structure (section 3.3.13.2). This was one of the cases where distinct differences were uncovered among the three major divisions of CONTCORP: in main clauses in BRPRINT and NONPRINT the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite was found to be higher in SVO clauses than in SV clauses; in AMPRINT it was the other way round; and in all three divisions a ratio markedly below average was recorded for SVC clauses. It will be of particular interest to see how the distribution according to clause structure has developed over time, because of the historical origin of the present perfect with HAVE as a construction with HAVE used transitively as a main verb and the participle as a postposed adjectival complement of the object. Table 4.22 sets out the figures for the three most frequently occurring clause structures. As before, adverbial constituents, nuclear and non-nuclear, obligatory and optional, have been ignored, but other constituents have not, so that, for example, constructions conforming to the pattern SVOO are not included under SVO. Descriptions of clause structure again ignore word order; hence the classification was not affected by the many word order variations which commonly occur in earlier English. The illustrations are provided by Figures 4.22^.24. The figures show that the trend which was recorded for written and spoken present-day British English holds all the way back to Old English: with the exception of CONTAmE the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is consistently higher for SVO clauses than for the other two clause patterns, and also higher for SV than for SVC (except where they are both zero).164 It will be noticed that in Old English no present perfect construction was recorded conforming to either of the patterns SV and SVC. Six of the seven present perfects with HAVE occurring in our Old English section can be

Contextual analysis

323

Table 4.22. Main verb forms according to clause structure. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) SV Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Early MidEng η % 7 3.6 152 77.6 21.4 196 0.0461 b

1350- 1400 n %

1550 -1600 η %

6 4.2 98 68.5 143 15.8 0.0612

23 15.9 93 64.1 145 16.9 0.2473 b

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

0 0.0 226 85.0 266 26.9 0.0000

13 11.3 64 55.7 115 13.1 0.2031

35 19.0 113 61.4 184 21.5 0.3079

53 15.5 208 61.0 341 18.1 0.2548

35 14.0 162 64.8 250 15.7 0.2160

Old English η % 1.2 6 411 80.6 510 51.6 0.0146

Early MidEng η % 32 6.3 390 76.8 508 55.5 0.0821 c

1350- 1400 n % 57 10.8 324 61.2 529 58.4 0.1759 b

1550 -1600 η % 89 17.9 290 58.4 497 57.9 0.3069 b

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 103 20.1 113 24.1 53.1 295 57.5 249 513 58.3 469 54.9 0.3492 0.4538 a

CONTBrE η % 245 24.1 587 57.8 1016 54.0 0.4174

CONTAmE η % 92 10.3 677 75.8 893 56.2 0.1359 c

(b) SVO

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret. (c) SVC

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η %

Early MidEng η %

1350- 1400 n %

1550 -1600 η %

0 0.0 87 85.3 102 10.3 0.0000

1 0.8 105 88.2 119 13.0 0.0095

6 4.0 125 82.8 151 16.7 0.0480

7.9 9 84 73.7 114 13.3 0.1071

324

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.22. (continued) 1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

20 13.3 109 72.7 150 17.0 0.1835

18 15.5 80 69.0 116 13.6 0.2250

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

43 13.3 234 72.2 324 17.2 0.1838

10 3.8 233 88.9 262 16.5 0.0429 c

Clause structure: SV

Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.22. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in constructions conforming to the SV clause structure.

seen to be SVO. The remaining one is SVOO, so that all the instances of the present perfect with HAVE recorded in Old English are transitive. The construction conforming to the SVOO pattern (with the direct object realised by a fronted relative) is 006 082 . . . and geearnian us pa mcerpa and pa myrhda pe God haefö gegearwod pam pe his willan on worolde gewyrcad. ["Wulfstan's Address", p. 93] ' . . . and earn for ourselves the glories and the joys that God has prepared (for) those who do his will in the world.' That all the present perfect constructions with HAVE recorded in Old English are transitive is noteworthy. It is no less noteworthy, however, that a fair number of other present perfect constructions with HAVE appear as

Contextual analysis

325

Clause structure: S V O 100%

H

Present perfect

Ρ

Preterite

40%

CONTAmE

fcany M t Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.23. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in constructions conforming to the SVO clause structure.

Clause structure: S V C 100%

Iii

Present perfect

§§

Preterite

Old English

CONTAmE 1750-1800AmE CONTBrE 1750-1800BrE

Figure 4.24. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in constructions conforming to the SVC clause structure.

326

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

early as in our texts from early Middle English: this demonstrates that by that time the present perfect with HAVE has already begun to function as a verb form in its own right, largely independent of its syntactic origin. Some of the SV constructions with such verbs from early Middle English are: 102 004 Nawt ane hali meditatiuns (...), ah opre pohtes sum-chearre i meadlese fondunges habbeö iholpen. ["Ancrene Wisse", p. 225] 'Not only holy meditations ( . . . ) but other thoughts have sometimes helped during continual temptations.' 103 093

.. . Ahnu pu hauest se wel iseid of euch a setnesse of pe sell sunderlepes, sumhwet sei us nu hwuch blisse is to alle iliche meane. ' ["Sawles Warde", p. 257] ' . . . But now you have spoken so well of each order of the blessed separately, tell us now something of what bliss is common to all alike.'

103 110 ' . . . for pet schal bringen him pider as he schal al pis pet tu hauest ispeken of, an hundret side mare, of blisse buten euch bale fondin ant ifinden. ' ["Sawles Warde", p. 259] ' . . . for that will bring him where he will seek and find all this that you have spoken of, and a hundred times more, of bliss without any sorrow.' 104 155

... Vor wane he hauep ido his dede }'fallen is al his boldhede; Habbe he istunge under gore Ne last his luue no leng more. [The Owl and the Nightingale, p. 64] ' . . . for when he has done his deed, his boldness is all gone; has he stung under the gown, his love does not last any more.'

The one SVC construction from this period which takes a present perfect verb is:165 103 108 'Witerliche, ' quod Warschipe, 'wel we understonded pet tu hauest ibeo pear ant sod hauest iseid trof efter pi sihde. . . . ' ["Sawles Warde", p. 259] ' "Certainly," said Prudence, "we well understand that you have been there and have spoken truly thereof after your sight . . . ." ' As we saw in Chapter 3 (cf. section 3.3.13.2 again), there is a high degree of correlation between clause structure and aspectual character. In particular,

Contextual analysis

327

the figures for SVC constructions should be studied with that correlation in mind, since those constructions are more apt to refer to states than other clause structures and the present perfect proportion in the case of states is generally low. We shall therefore concentrate on the relationship between SV and SVO structures, which are also the most numerous categories. The table shows that here the present perfect percentage is consistently higher, and the preterite percentage consistently lower, in SVO clauses, with the exception, as we have seen, of CONTAmE. Here, too, there is some correlation with the aspectualclass factor; in HISTCORP as in CONTCORP the following pattern predominates in references to single situations: (i) SV clauses are overrepresented among achievements and activities, and (ii) SVO clauses are overrepresented among achievements and accomplishments. Hence SVO is the clause pattern associated most consistently with reference to bounded situations. In fact the correlation between clause structure and aspectual character accounts for most of the variation in the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite depending on clause structure that we have uncovered, in HISTCORP as in CONTCORP: if the aspectual-character factor is held constant, there is no longer any clear and consistent tendency for the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite to be higher in SVO compared with SV structures, nor is that ratio significantly lower in SVC structures. However, in HISTCORP as in CONTCORP the converse relationship does not hold: if the clause-structure factor is held constant, there is still a distinct correlation between verb form and aspectual character in most periods. (In the first couple of periods, however, with the smallest numbers of present perfect forms, no clear correlation emerges.) Even in HISTCORP the recorded variation in the distribution of verb forms depending on clause structure can thus be seen as a higher-level confirmation of the impact of the lower-level factor of aspectual character, although in the earliest periods the impact of the syntactic origin of the present perfect construction was probably strong enough for the SVO pattern to predominate in its own right.

4.3.13.3. Realisation type of subject Our next parameter is subject type. Table 4.23 gives the distributions between the present perfect and the preterite for the most frequent realisation

328

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Table 4.23. Main verb forms according to subject type. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) lst-person pronouns

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Early MidEng η % 12 22.6 31 58.5 53 5.8 0.3871 a

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

19 20.4 63 67.7 93 10.3 0.3016

30 29.4 61 59.8 102 11.9 0.4918

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

47 33.1 75 52.8 142 16.6 0.6267

76 40.0 93 48.9 190 10.1 0.8172 a

14 6.1 181 79.0 229 14.4 0.0773 c

Old English η %

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

0 0.0 289 79.0 366 37.0 0.0000

3.2 10 79.0 249 34.4 315 0.0402 b

10 4.4 157 68.6 229 25.3 0.0637

1550-1600 η % 17 5.8 202 68.9 293 34.1 0.0842

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

16 7.7 144 69.2 24.4 208 0.1111

40 8.4 338 71.3 474 25.2 0.1183 a

15 4.8 244 78.2 312 19.6 0.0615

Early MidEng η % 1.2 3 81.2 199 245 26.7 0.0151

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η % 36 18.6 112 57.7 194 22.6 0.3214 b

Old English η % 4 6.6 47 77.0 61 6.2 0.0851

39 26.5 90 61.2 147 16.7 0.4333

(b) 3rd-person personal pronouns

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

33 14.9 142 64.3 221 25.1 0.2324 b

(c) Headed by common nouns Old English η % Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

1 0.4 243 86.2 282 28.5 0.0041

23 8.2 168 60.2 279 30.8 0.1369 c

Contextual analysis

329

Table 4.23. (continued)

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 37 13.4 78 25.5 172 56.2 181 65.6 276 31.4 306 35.8 0.2044 0.4535

CONTBrE η % 161 24.9 364 56.3 646 34.3 0.4423 c

CONTAmE η % 67 10.8 489 78.6 622 39.2 0.1370 c

types recorded in HISTCORP (cf. the more detailed distinctions made in the case of CONTCORP, section 3.3.13.3). This time no distinction is made between singular and plural, because of the comparatively small number of constructions recorded from each period/variety.166 The illustrations appear in Figures 4.25-4.27.

Subject: 1st-person pronoun 80% γ

¿mm

60%

Β

^eHé Ε ΕΠΙ1Ί• IH li

40%

20%

0%

Jj

Present nerfent perfect

l":

Preterite

κ1111

I ψ

I Early ME I 1550-1600 I 1750-1800AmE I CONTAmE Old English 1350-1400 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Figure 4.25. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in clauses with lst-person pronouns as subjects.

It will be seen first that the high frequency of present perfect forms in constructions with lst-person pronouns as subjects that was noted in CONTCORP can be traced all the way back to Old English. As many as four of the seven present perfect constructions recorded in Old English have subjects of that type, in spite of the fact that this subject type accounts for only 6.2 per cent of the constructions recorded in that period. From early Middle English onwards the present perfect proportion in these constructions

330

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Subject: 3rd-person personal pronoun

o%Early I Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.26. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in clauses with 3rd-person personal pronouns as subjects.

Subject: headed by common noun 100%

Present perfect Preterite

CONTAmE Old English

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Figure 4.27. Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in clauses with subjects headed by common nouns. is consistently h i g h e r than t w e n t y p e r cent, with the exception again of C O N T A m E ; in all the other sections of our c o r p u s the present p e r f e c t perc e n t a g e is c o n s i d e r a b l y higher than in all c o n s t r u c t i o n s c o m b i n e d , in early

Contextual analysis

331

Middle English more than four times as high and in CONTBrE (with a more reassuring number of recorded constructions) more than twice as high as the average percentage. The explanation is the same as that offered for present-day English: clauses with lst-person subjects tend to be more closely situationally integrated than other constructions, which leads to increased proportions both of references to new time and of references to time that is not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. This is confirmed by the underlying figures even for HISTCORP. In addition, the syntactic origin of the present perfect construction may help to explain why this verb form becomes frequent at such an early stage in clauses with this type of subject: it seems reasonable that a verbal meaning associated with possession should most often be linked with animate, personal subjects. Also, there is some correlation with aspectual character again: according to the underlying figures, clauses whose subjects have personal reference are more likely than others to refer to bounded situations, generally more dynamic than unbounded situations. This contributes further to the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in constructions with such subjects, in HISTCORP as in CONTCORP. The figures recorded for lst-person subjects contrast most sharply with those for 3rd-person personal pronouns as subjects, as was seen to be the case in present-day English. A handful of present perfect forms with the latter type of subject were recorded as early as in the section from early Middle English, but their proportion of the recorded constructions remains low all the way up to present-day English, the most conspicuous exception this time being 1750-1800BrE, so that in British English the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite drops by more than half between the last two periods, a development that is statistically significant at the 5% level. The reason for the low present perfect/preterite ratio in clauses with 3rdperson pronouns as subjects must again be that those pronouns are characteristic of reference which is orientated towards the linguistic context: 3rd-person pronouns tend to express anaphoric reference, and hence they often co-occur with preterite verbs, by far the most frequent verb form to express reference to given time. The category of subjects headed by common nouns displays present perfect/preterite ratios mostly in a range between those recorded for constructions with lst-person and with the 3rd-person personal pronouns. Again that was to be expected, since these subjects can generally be assumed to express reference that is less situationally integrated than lst-person pronouns and less

332

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

orientated towards the preceding linguistic context than 3rd-person personal pronouns.

4.3.13.4. Negation The figures showing the distributions recorded according to negation can be studied in Table 4.24. As in our analysis of CONTCORP in Chapter 3 (cf. section 3.3.13.4), we operate with a category of semi-negatives, besides positive and straightforward negative constructions. Our findings are illustrated in Figures 4 . 2 8 ^ . 3 0 . That the combination of the present perfect and the preterite makes up a fairly small proportion of all the recorded negative constructions in some sections is mainly due to a high incidence of constructions with modal auxiliaries. It can be seen that, like several of the other syntactic parameters we have looked at, the feature negative is slow to develop in present perfect constructions: not a single negative present perfect construction was recorded in the sections from either Old English or early Middle English, and just one Table 4.24. Main verb forms according to negation. Non-past-referring verb forms excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Positive

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η %

Early MidEng η %

1350--1400 η %

1550 -1600 η %

7 0.8 788 85.2 925 93.5 0.0089

5.4 46 687 80.7 851 92.9 0.0670 c

77 9.0 571 67.0 852 94.0 0.1349 c

131 16.6 504 63.8 790 92.0 0.2599 c

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

330 19.3 1079 63.2 1708 90.7 0.3058

139 9.5 1125 77.2 1457 91.8 0.1236 c

132 16.5 507 63.5 799 90.8 0.2604

173 21.8 466 58.8 792 92.7 0.3712 b

Contextual analysis

333

Table 4.24. (continued) (b) Negative

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η % 0 .0 36 57.1 6.4 63 0.0000

Early MidEng η % 0 .0 29 58.0 50 5.5 0.0000

1350-1400 η % 1 3.8 14 53.8 26 2.9 0.0714

1550 -1600 η % 3 7.3 15 36.6 41 4.8 0.2000

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η η % % 6 13.3 7 24.1 20 44.4 11 37.9 45 5.1 3.4 29 0.3000 0.6364

CONTBrE η % 29 24.4 62 52.1 6.3 119 0.4677

CONTAmE η % 10 12.3 51 63.0 5.1 81 0.]1961

Early MidEng η % 0 0.0 9 60.0 15 1.6 0.13000

1350 -1400 η % 0 0.0 18 64.3 28 3.1 0.0000

1550-1600 η % 2 7.1 19 67.9 28 3.3 ο.:1053

1750-1800BrE 1750-1800AmE η % η % 6 16.7 5 15.2 12 36.4 19 52.8 4.1 36 33 3.9 0.3158 0.4167

CONTBrE η % 12 21.4 25 44.6 56 3.0 0.4800

CONTAmE η % 6 12.0 34 68.0 3.1 50 0.11765

(c) Semi-negative

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Present perfect Preterite All Perf.:pret.

Old English η % 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1 -

in that from 1350-1400. In 1550-1600 the present perfect percentage is still lower in negative constructions, but then in 1750-1800 and in the present-day sections the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite are distinctly higher in negative constructions. This could be due to a tendency in the early stages to avoid the further syntactic complication of present perfect constructions that negation represents. As more complex verb phrases became generally more frequent, that restriction on negative present perfect phrases appears gradually to have lost its effect.

334

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

Positive clauses 100%

I j

Present perfect Preterite

CONTAmE Old English

Figure 4.28. clauses.

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in positive

Negative clauses 80%

Jf

Present perfect Preterite

60%

Π Π I E fi 1 J Γ

40%

20%

Early I Old English

1350-1400

1550-1600 I 1750-1800AmE I CONTAmE 1750-1800BrE CONTBrE

Fitgwv 4-2%. Relative frequencies of maim past-referring verb forms, in negative Also, the difference in syntactic complexity was marked only so long as negative constructions did not require auxiliary support. Since such auxiliary support became mandatory in early Modern English, a negative present perfect construction has not represented any higher degree of syntactic com-

Contextual analysis

335

Semi-negative clauses 80%

Y

Old English

Figure 4.30. clauses.

1350-1400

1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in semi-negative

plexity than a negative preterite construction; as was suggested in Chapter 3, it may even be felt that the feature negative is more readily available in the case of the present perfect, where no additional auxiliary is required. However, the main factor behind the higher present perfect proportion in negative constructions that is observable over the last couple of centuries must be the semantic one that was suggested for present-day English in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.13.4): the present perfect is more frequent in negative constructions mainly because those constructions are more likely to express reference to time that was classified as not being clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. As we have seen (section 4.3.9), the difference in the temporal reference of the present perfect and the preterite has become even more marked in the last two periods of our corpus (HISTCORP plus CONTCORP). This also explains why the ratios between the present perfect and the preterite are consistently higher for semi-negative compared with positive clauses in 1750-1800 and CONT.

4.3.13.5. Voice Table 4.25 gives the figures recorded according to the active/passive distinction. The active/passive distributions of present perfect and preterite con-

336

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

structions could also be read out of Tables 4.1 and 4 . 2 (in the case of all forms recorded in HISTCORP) and of Tables 4.3 and 4 . 4 (in the case of past-referring verb forms from H I S T C O R P plus forms from C O N T B r E and C O N T A m E ) . The illustrations appear in Figures 4.31 and 4.32. Table 4.25. Main verb forms according to voice. Non-past-referring verb phrases excluded. Vertical percentages, and percentages of sums as proportions of all constructions in each period/variety. Ratios between the present perfect and the preterite. Statistical significance of present perfect/preterite distribution compared with preceding period. (a) Active Old English η %

Early MidEng η %

1350-1400 η %

1550-1600 η %

Present perfect Preterite

7 781

All Perf.:pret.

93.7 927 0.0090

841 91.8 0.0663 c

730 80.6 0.1243 b

779 90.7 0.2540 c

1750-1800BrE η %

1750-1800AmE η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

21.8 58.8

314 1065

18.7 63.3

126 1064

85.4 729 0.3706 b

1683

89.4 0.2948

0.8 84.3

Present perfect Preterite

129 484

16.8 62.9

All Perf.:pret.

770 87.5 0.2665

46 694

159 429

5.5 82.5

65 523

8.9 71.6

126 496

16.2 63.7

9.1 76.5

1390 87.5 0.1184 c

(b) Passive (including constructions with auxiliary WEORDAN) Old English η %

62 6.3 0.0000

8.2 75 0.0000

19.4 176 0.1625

80 9.3 0.2381

1750-1800BrE η %

1750-1800AmE η %

CONTBrE η %

CONTAmE η %

All Perf.:pret.

12.5 110 0.2419

26 64

20.8 51.2

125 14.6 0.4063

13 80

7.4 45.5

All Perf.:pret.

13.6 56.4

0.0 41.3

1550-1600 η %

0 43

15 62

0 31

1350-1400 η %

Present perfect Preterite

Present perfect Preterite

0.0 69.4

Early MidEng η %

57 101

28.5 50.5

200 10.6 0.5644 a

10 42

29 146

12.5 52.5

14.6 73.7

198 12.5 0.1986 a

Contextual analysis

337

Voice: active 100%

Present perfect Preterite

60%

40%

Early ME Old English

Figure 4.31.

1350-1400

CONTAmE 1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in active clause«,

Voice: passive 80%

I Early ME Old English 1350-1400

Figure 4.32. clauses.

CONTAmE 1750-1800BrE

CONTBrE

Relative frequencies of main past-referring verb forms in passive

As in our analysis of CONTCORP, some constructions with auxiliaries other than BE were recognised as passives in our analysis of HISTCORP. In Old and Middle English WEORDAN was an important passive auxiliary, and a substantial proportion of the passive constructions recorded in those

338

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

periods have that auxiliary. Also, stative as well as dynamic passives were recognised, in HISTCORP as in CONTCORP. As before, our comparison only involves the present perfect with auxiliary HAVE, so that the rather special passive variant of the present perfect with BE is disregarded. 167 It is noteworthy that the passive variant of the present perfect with HAVE is considerably slower to develop than the active, the first such passive construction not appearing in HISTCORP until the period 1350-1400. A couple of the passive constructions recorded from that period are: 302 003 . . . 1 truste wel pat alle the conclusiouns that han ben fownde, or elles possibli myhten be fownde in so noble an instrument as an astralabie, ben vn-knowe perfitly to any mortal man in this regioun, as I suppose. [Astrolabe, p. 1] ' . . . be assured that all the conclusions that have been found, or else possibly might be found, in so noble an instrument as an astrolabe are completely unknown to any mortal man in this region, as far as I know.' 334 073 For thy, graciouse lordes, lyke it to yow to take hede in what manere & where owre lige lordes power hath ben mysused by the forsaid Nichol & his vpberers, . . . . [London English, p. 36] 'Therefore, gracious lords, it may please you to note in what manner and where the power of our same lord has been misused by the aforementioned Nicholas and his supporters . . . .' Table 4.25 further demonstrates that the proportion of the present perfect (with auxiliary HAVE) in passives stays lower than, or is about the same as, in active constructions throughout the period covered by HISTCORP, whereas it is distinctly higher in CONTCORP, as we have seen (section 3.3.13.7). It should be noted that in this case the variation in the frequency of the present perfect is not balanced by any corresponding, converse variation in the frequency of the preterite: throughout HISTCORP both the present perfect and the preterite are less frequent in passive constructions, as reflected in the fact that there is no clear and consistent difference in the present perfect/preterite ratio between active and passive constructions. In active constructions the present perfect and the preterite between them generally account for eighty per cent and more of the verb forms recorded in HISTCORP; in passives that percentage is in most cases below seventy. In CONTCORP, by contrast, the present perfect (with auxiliary HAVE) and the preterite between them make up about the same proportion of passive as of active constructions. 168

Summary of historical investigation and attempted explanation

339

This difference between HISTCORP and CONTCORP is accounted for by the continuing presence throughout HISTCORP of the construction we have classified as the passive variant of the present perfect with BE (of type "He is (=has been) chosen captain."): all the way up to the period 17501800 a significant proportion of passive constructions are present perfects with auxiliary BE (cf. Tables 4.3 and 4.4). The figures for the active/passive distribution that we have presented have been based on all constructions irrespective of clause structure. 169 If the comparison is limited to the SVO pattern, the proportion of present perfect constructions with HAVE is still somewhat lower in passive clauses in HISTCORP, but so is the proportion of preterites, so that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is in most cases slightly higher for passives from 1350-1400 onwards. The reason why the present perfect construction with HAVE was much slower to develop in the passive than in the active must be that, unlike the construction we have classified as the passive of the present perfect with BE, the passive of the present perfect with HAVE represents a higher degree of syntactic complexity at the verb phrase level than its active counterpart. From late Middle English there is no remarkable difference in the proportion of present perfect forms with HAVE between active and passive constructions until present-day English, where the distinctly higher proportion of present perfect forms in passive constructions can be related to the general proliferation of more complex verb phrases that has occurred during the last few centuries.

4.4. Summary of historical investigation and attempted explanation In this chapter we have traced the development of the distribution of the verb forms at the focus of attention in this study, mainly the present perfect and the preterite, in our combined corpus (CONTCORP and HISTCORP), which is made up of texts mostly concentrated in periods of fifty years distributed over 200-year intervals, extending from present-day English all the way back to Old English. In Old English the preterite is very much the predominant verb form in references to past time, accounting for more than eighty per cent of the

340

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

constructions recorded. One of the things which characterise that period is the complete absence of many of the more complex verbal combinations that occur in later English. However, a scattering of present perfect forms, both with HAVE and with the old perfect auxiliary BE, do occur even in the Old English section of our corpus. In that period the distribution of the two perfect variants strictly follows the distinction between transitive and intransitive constructions, but auxiliary HAVE begins its spread to intransitive constructions as early as in the section from early Middle English. From the beginning of the Modern English period onwards the predominance of auxiliary HAVE is well nigh complete, a substantial proportion of the constructions recorded with auxiliary BE being instances of the rather special passive variant of that construction. In the case of the present perfect we have concentrated most of our attention on the variant that must be seen as the most direct ancestor of the present perfect in present-day English, that with auxiliary HAVE. The distribution between that verb form and the preterite is characterised by a rapid and consistent increase in the frequency of the present perfect, mainly at the expense of the preterite, from Old English through Middle English up until early Modern English, from a very modest beginning at less than one per cent of all recorded perfect/preterite verb forms in Old English to thirteen per cent in the period 1550-1600, by which time the present perfect with auxiliary HAVE has become firmly established as the clear number-two form in references to past time. The growth of the present perfect is accompanied by the general growth of more complex perfect/preterite verb forms: the first passive present perfect constructions with HAVE were recorded in the period 1350-1400, as were the first passive variants of the pluperfect with HAVE and the first perfect infinitive constructions; the first perfect -ing constructions occur in 15501600, while the first progressive perfect forms do not appear until 1750-1800. Within the Modern English section of our corpus the development of the present perfect/preterite distribution is less clear and less consistent than in Old and Middle English. The rapid increase in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite discontinues, but the further details vary considerably. Both overall and in respect of most of the parameters we have distinguished there is a slight further increase from 1550-1600 to both the British and the American English sections from the period 1750-1800. In American English the ratio then drops back markedly from 1750 to the present day, while in British English overall figures show a slight further increase during that time.

Summary of historical investigation and attempted explanation

341

Obviously, the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is highly dependent not only on text category but also on individual texts, since the temporal perspective may vary considerably even between texts within what can be seen as the same text category. In most cases the number of texts included in our corpus from each category is sufficient to reduce any arbitrary variation of this kind to an acceptable level, but the category of science texts may seem to constitute an exception. Here the number of texts from CONTCORP is smaller than in many other cases, and the present perfect/preterite ratio varies dramatically between those texts. If the text category of science is excluded from CONTCORP, the resultant figures show a decrease in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite over the last two centuries even in British English. This is just one instance of a more general problem: since the composition of the periods/varieties distinguished in our corpus necessarily varies a great deal (that is true not least of the two sections from 1750-1800 versus the corresponding sections from CONTCORP: BRPRINT and AMPRINT), comparison of different sections may be misleading, and the results difficult to interpret if differences are small. One way to avoid, or at least greatly reduce, this problem is to base the comparison on individual text categories rather than on figures for each period/variety as a whole. When that was done, a distinct tendency emerged for the present perfect/preterite ratio to decrease over the past two centuries in British as well as American English: with four of the five text categories distinguished the ratio was found to go down from 1750-1800BrE to CONTBrE; and those four text categories included the two where a statistically significant change was recorded (drama and the narrative passages of fiction). There can thus be seen to be overwhelming evidence for the conclusion that within the Modern English period the increase in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite has not only been arrested but reversed as far as American English is concerned, and also considerable evidence to suggest that the ratio has started to decrease even in British English. The fact that the present perfect is used less frequently and the preterite more frequently in American compared with British English may in itself be significant for the development that the two verb forms are undergoing, as there is ample reason to believe that most of the linguistic influence being exerted across the Atlantic is in the direction from American to British English. The conclusion that the frequency of the present perfect has peaked and that this verb form is now losing ground to the preterite is corroborated by some of the present perfect constructions recorded from earlier Modern

342

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

English, where that verb form sometimes combines with past-time specifiers in a way that would not be held acceptable in present-day English. One such example is from 1750-1800BrE: 791 030 Lady Sneer. ... Joseph S. Every house yesterday. anything I have

but do your brother's distresses increase? hour. I am told he has had another execution in the In short, his dissipation and extravagance exceed ever heard of. [School for Scandal, p. 17]

Further support is lent to the conclusion that the present perfect/preterite ratio is now declining by the wide variety of indirect anchoring noted for the preterite in present-day English, and in the case of American English more specifically the marked increase over the past two centuries in the proportion of unspecified preterite forms used to refer to new past time. As regards the impact of the various conditioning factors that have been examined, we have found that several of the correlations that were noted for present-day English in Chapter 3 can be traced all the way back to Old English. Some of the most striking ones are: (i) The distinction between given and new time, and, in the latter case, between reference to the first time in a sequence and to a contextually isolated past time. Throughout its history the present perfect has been a verb form used above all in references to new past time, and especially to contextually isolated past time, while the preterite has always predominated in references to given time, which is obviously a result of the fact that the preterite but not the present perfect usually requires some kind of past-time anchoring in the most typical cases. (ii) Temporal location. The present perfect has always been more common in references to time which either extends up to the deictic zero-point, or at least is not clearly separate from that point, than to time located wholly in the past, for which the preterite is and always has been the predominant verb form. This difference between the two verb forms is apparently becoming more marked: in the case of time not (clearly) separate from the deictic zeropoint the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite displays a distinct increase all the way up to the present day in American as well as in British English. (iii) Realisation type of subject. The most noteworthy type of subject in this respect is that realised by the lst-person pronouns: with these the present perfect/preterite ratio is well above average from Old English onwards. This is clearly a reflection of the fact that such subjects are indicative of a high degree of situational integration, which leads to a great proportion

Summary of historical investigation and attempted explanation

343

of references to new time and to time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. By contrast, the preterite often displays frequencies above average in constructions with subjects realised by 3rd-person personal pronouns, which tend to express anaphoric reference and combine with reference to given time, and which are generally characteristic of a high degree of textual integration. (iv) Aspectual character. All the way back to Old English the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is higher in constructions classified as referring to bounded situations (i.e. achievements and accomplishments) than in the case of unbounded situations (activities and states), although in the sections from the Modern English period a more striking contrast is that between states on the one hand and the other three aspectual classes on the other hand. We have interpreted this as an indication that, other things being equal, the present perfect is more likely to be used in cases where the past situation has produced "results" which may be seen as relevant at the deictic zero-point, although the claim that resultativeness, or any other form of current relevance, should be viewed as the essential factor distinguishing the present perfect from the preterite has been rejected. (v) Clause structure. The present perfect/preterite ratio is pretty consistently higher in SVO than in SV clauses, and lower in SVC clauses. This is because of the connection with the deeper-level factor of aspectual character: SVO clauses are particularly likely to refer to bounded situations, while SVC clauses typically denote states. As regards conditioning factors noted for the contemporary language that do not have behind them a continuous history going back to Middle and Old English, two of the most conspicuous ones are voice and negation. In Chapter 3 the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite was found to be well above average in passive constructions but that correlation is marked only in the contemporary section of our corpus. Like many other more complex verb forms, the passive present perfect (with auxiliary HAVE) was slower to develop than its active counterpart, being completely absent from both the first two periods of HISTCORP. As for negation, that was also seen in Chapter 3 to be a conditioning factor serving to increase the present perfect/preterite ratio markedly in present-day English. Again that is not true of Old and Middle English: not a single negative present perfect construction was recorded in either Old English or the section from early Middle English, and just one instance in the section from 1350-1400. This seems to be another consequence of a tendency in earlier English to avoid a high degree of syntactic complexity in, or near,

344

T h e p e r f e c t and the preterite in the history of English

the verb phrase. It may not be a coincidence that the time when the present perfect/preterite ratio begins to be higher in negative constructions, i.e. early Modern English, is also the time when auxiliary support becomes mandatory in such constructions, so that a negative present perfect form no longer represents any higher degree of syntactic complexity than a negative preterite, leaving more scope for the operation of the semantic factor. This factor leads to the present perfect being more frequent in negative constructions, which more often denote time not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point. Figures 4.33-4.35 illustrate the historical profile of the present perfect/preterite distribution according to all but one of the above-mentioned conditioning factors. In the case of each conditioning factor the figures give the coefficient between the present perfect/preterite ratio recorded for the feature generally associated with a high incidence of the present perfect in Modern English (R A ) and the ratio recorded for what can be considered the converse feature (RB), calculated according to the following formula: (R

A

- R B ) / ( R A + RB)170

Old and Middle English Π

Single new time/given

§§

U

P t o zero/past

H

SVO/SV

Β

1st-/3rd-p. pronoun

Η

Negative/positive

Β

Passive/active

Old English

Early Middle English

1350-1400

Figure 4.33. Coefficients b e t w e e n ratios of the present p e r f e c t to the preterite f o r opposite values of s o m e contextual p a r a m e t e r s : O l d and M i d d l e English.

These comparisons thus bring out whether it is the first or the second feature within each parameter that is associated with the higher ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in each period/variety. The coefficient will vary between +1.00 and — 1.00, a positive figure indicating that the first ratio (RA) is higher, a negative figure that the second ratio (RB) is higher. The figure +1.00 will mean that present perfect constructions were recorded only for the first feature, the figure —1.00 that present perfect constructions were recorded only for the second feature.

Summary of historical investigation and attempted explanation

345

Modern British English I

I

9

Single new time/given

j§§

1 st-/3rd-p. pronoun

H

U

P t o zero/past

Negative/positive

1550-1600

£ f§§

1750-1800BrE

SVO/SV Passive/active

CONTBrE

Figure 4.34. Coefficients between ratios of the present perfect to the preterite for opposite values of some contextual parameters: Modern British English.

Modern American English I ÜJ

-0.5

I

Single new time/given

||§

U

P , 0 zero/past

j§§

SVO/SV

1st-/3rd-p. pronoun

H

Negative/positive

HI

Passive/active

] 1550-1600

'

ι 1750-1800AmE

·

ι CONTAmE

Figure 4.35. Coefficients between ratios of the present perfect to the preterite for opposite values of some contextual parameters: 1550-1600 and Modern American English.

The first factor illustrated is the opposition between given and new time, where the comparison is between reference to single new time, i.e. new time which does not introduce any sequence of reference times, and reference to given time (cf. Tables 4.11 and 4.12). Here R A in the formula just given is the present perfect/preterite ratio recorded for reference to single new time, while RB is the ratio for given time. Then the present perfect/preterite ratios for constructions classified as denoting time extending up to the deictic zero-point or vague (R A ) are compared

346

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

with those for constructions referring to time located wholly in the past (R B ) (cf. Table 4.13). The next comparisons are of the two clause patterns SVO (RA) and SV (RB) (cf. Table 4.22), and then of subjects realised by lst-person (R A ) versus 3rd-person personal pronouns (RB) (cf. Table 4.23). Finally negative clauses (RA) are compared with positive ones (R B ) (cf. Table 4.24), 171 and passive clauses (R A ) with active ones (RB) (cf. Table 4.25). The one conditioning factor from the list given above in this section which is not illustrated is aspectual character, where the relationship between the various classes distinguished is too complex to be easily illustrated in charts of this kind. As we have seen, however, aspectual character is closely linked with clause structure. The illustrations confirm that from a start in Old English with a very distinct distributional profile according to the parameters we have focused upon, the present perfect gradually develops into a verb form whose distributional profile is much more blurred. This development is an indication of the loosening of the ties between the present perfect verb and its historical origin that has taken place, leading to the present perfect being established as a fully independent verb form in Modern English. What we have found about the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in Modern English means that this development is crucially different from that observable in many other languages with a similar opposition between a periphrastic and an inflectional verb form used in references to past time, where the growth of the periphrastic form has continued unimpeded. A number of linguists have been concerned with the development of the present perfect in a universal perspective (see e.g. Benveniste 1968; Comrie 1976, 1985; Givón 1979a, 1979b; Kurylowicz 1964, 1972; Zieglschmid 1930a, 1930b), noting that at least in Indo-European languages there is a general tendency for the preterite to be superseded by the present perfect. That has happened in a number of languages - present-day French comes close to this state - and it is a process that seems to be well under way in a great many others, such as German, where many southern dialects have already reached a state similar to that obtaining in French, the inflectional form having largely been ousted by the periphrastic construction. A similar development is observable in Russian, Italian, Romanian and several other languages, Indo-European and other. As we have seen, it is also a process which has been at work in English, from Old English times until the beginning of the Modern English period at least.

Summary of historical investigation and attempted explanation

347

Zieglschmid in particular relates the tendency for the preterite to be ousted by the present perfect to a general tendency for synthetic forms to be replaced by analytic ones. That is a process which can still be seen in the growth of other periphrastic verb forms in English, most obviously the progressive, whose increase seems to be continuing unabated. Three stages may generally be recognised in the development of the present perfect. The first stage is characterised by reference to a present state or result of action (in which case the combination of HAVE/BE plus a past participle fails to satisfy our definition of a perfect verb form). At the second stage the emphasis has shifted to the past action which brought about the state or result, but any specification of time that is separate from the deictic zero-point is still disallowed. At the third and final stage the present perfect has become a simple exponent of past action, without any restrictions on the temporal specification. Present-day English belongs most clearly in the second of these stages, while French and many other languages have reached the third stage, and German is in an intermediate phase between the second and the third stage. Since the rapid growth in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite that took place in Old and Middle English was a development which English shared with a number of other languages, this growth must have been due to deep-level conditioning factors common to those languages rather than to factors specific to English. However, the development of the two verb forms in English may well have been reinforced by such language-specific factors as the general loss of the perfective ge- prefix in Middle English and the direct influence of Latin caused by the strong cultural position of that language in England. What calls for an explanation specific to English is the fact that the rapid growth in the ratio of the present perfect to the preterite has not continued in the Modern English period. Why is it that English will apparently not move beyond stage two in the scheme outlined above, unlike a great number of other languages? As M.B. Harris (1984) points out, syntactic change cannot always be explained by linguistic universale : higher-level factors operating in particular languages will sometimes prevail. At least two such factors may be relevant in the case of the English present perfect (as noted also by Defromont 1973): (i) In colloquial, spoken English the present perfect auxiliary HAVE usually appears in a highly reduced form, as one of the two voiced-lenis phonemes /v/, /z/, or as /s/. The step from there to the complete loss of the auxiliary may be felt not to be a very long one.

348

The perfect and the preterite in the history of English

(ii) With the vast majority of verbs in Modern English the form of the past participle is identical with that of the preterite, in both speech and writing. That is true of all regular verbs and also of some irregular ones. The combined effect of (i) and (ii) is that with most verbs the difference between the form of the present perfect and the form of the preterite is slight in present-day English, especially in informal speech. In that respect English is very different from, say, German and French. The history of both English and other languages demonstrates that a formal distinction will often be lost once it has been reduced to such an extent, especially when the functional difference between the two forms is also small, as it certainly is in the case of the present perfect and the preterite. 172 The fact that the growth of the present perfect has not continued in Modern English in the same way as in a substantial number of other languages is sufficient evidence for the operation of such language-specific conditioning factors in English. The continuing operation of those language-specific conditioning factors would make a prolonged state of stability in the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite highly improbable, i.e. it could be predicted that the growth of the present perfect would eventually not only be halted but reversed. Our investigation has established that the frequency of the present perfect is already declining in American English, and quite likely also in British English, the preterite being selected instead.

5. Summary and conclusion

After a brief introductory Chapter 1, we discussed some of the existing literature and developed a tentative theory of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite verb forms in present-day English in Chapter 2, on the basis of the well-known, most central differences between them. In Chapter 3 we looked at the actual use of these verb forms in the contemporary language. Chapter 4 was devoted to the history of English: we first surveyed some of the literature on the development of the two verb forms, and then examined their distribution in the historical corpus compiled for this study, consisting of texts written at 200-year intervals, extending back to Old English. According to the tentative theory developed in Chapter 2, the present perfect as well as the preterite may be classified as tenses in English, since they are both grammaticalised forms which, in their most central uses, express deictic temporal reference. It is more debatable whether the past perfect and the various non-finite perfect forms should be recognised as tenses, since these typically express relative rather than deictic temporal reference. The basic contrast between the present perfect and the preterite is seen as resting on the different kinds of temporal reference they express and the different ways in which they combine with adverbial and other temporal specifiers. The present perfect refers to situations which either extend from the past up to the moment of utterance, i.e. the deictic zero-point, or at least are regarded as located within a time span not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point; hence the present perfect does not as a rule allow any specification of distinct time located wholly in the past, and a sentence like *"John has been drunk yesterday." will usually be deemed unacceptable. The preterite, on the other hand, generally refers to situations located at some past time clearly separate from zero and is usually accompanied by some kind of past-time anchoring, most typically expressed by temporal adverbials or other temporal elements, either in the same clause or in the wider context, although a large variety of indirect anchoring may occur. In this respect the pluperfect and the various non-finite perfect forms match both the present perfect and the preterite: they are used to refer both to situations which extend up to their respective reference points and to situations located wholly in the past relative to those reference points, and they occur both with and without anchoring.

350

Summary and conclusion

Because of the difference in the temporal reference expressed by the present perfect and the preterite, the types of temporal adverbials that may cooccur with each verb form will be very different. In the case of deictic adverbials, all those denoting past time clearly separate from the deictic zero-point (such as yesterday, last night/week/month/year etc.) generally combine with the preterite but not with the present perfect. Deictic adverbials denoting time which extends from the past up to zero (so far, up to now, expressions with since, including smce-clauses) typically occur with the present perfect but not with the preterite. The same is true of already and yet (as long as they are orientated towards present time), although in American English there is a tendency to use the preterite in such cases. In addition there are a large variety of adverbials which combine with both the present perfect and the preterite. These either denote a fairly vague past time, or they denote time which is ambiguous between being located wholly in the past and extending up to the deictic zero-point. They include some deictic adverbials (such as just, recently, today, this morning/week/year, etc.). Adverbials denoting frequency or length of time (such as always, never, ever, expressions with for) may likewise occur with both verb forms. In combination with the present perfect they tend to refer to time which extends up to the deictic zero-point (cf. "John has lived in London for three years."). For the present perfect to be used acceptably the situation should be capable of being located at any time up to the deictic zero-point. However, this is not generally a condition on the situation referred to by the present perfect verb itself but rather on the situation referred to in what Inoue (1975, 1979) calls the "discourse topic", which is "a proposition about which the speaker is either providing or requesting new information". While so-called "standard tense logic" is irrelevant to any attempt to account for the difference between the present perfect and the preterite in English, a system of predicate logic may be used to shed light on the most typical uses of the present perfect and the preterite and the different kinds of temporal reference they express, in positive and negative constructions. One question which is crucial to a description of the preterite is what linguistic forms the past-time anchor usually required by this verb form may take. Most typically, an anchor is established through the use of a straightforward temporal adverbial. Similar temporal meanings may be expressed by subjects and other clause elements (e.g. the 1983 election). Past-time anchors can also be established by elements with more indirect temporal implications, such as the names of historical persons (e.g. Disraeli). The use of the preterite in English does not depend, however, on the presence of any such explicit anchor. For one thing, the reference may be

Summary and conclusion

351

to a past time that is known to both encoder and decoder without being expressed linguistically. Secondly, it is commonly recognised that the preterite may be used without any explicit anchor in references to unique past events, as when a sentence like "Mary was born in Scotland." is uttered by someone who does not have any very precise knowledge of Mary's age, nor expects his addressee to have any such knowledge. It is sufficient for the use of the preterite to know that Mary is alive, or has been alive, and hence must have been born at one, and only one, time in the past. "BE born" denotes a transitional event which initiates a subsequent state whose (present or past) validity is presupposed. The concept of unique past time may be extended to include many more constructions than have usually been treated under this label. Such sentences are invariably non-minimal, in that they express more than just the meaning which can be inferred from the subsequent state. "Mary was born." is not acceptable as an expression of unique past time, i.e. in contexts which do not provide any appropriate past-time anchor, since it merely asserts what is already presupposed. In some cases it seems sufficient for the use of the preterite that the verbal situation is located at some distance away from the deictic zero-point, even if no anchor is expressed or implied and the conditions for unique past time are not met. Such preterite uses are probably quite frequent, especially in informal speech. The fact that the preterite normally depends on the co-operation of temporal adverbials or other past-time anchors, while the present perfect, when referring to time located wholly in the past, usually does so without the support of such anchors, means that there is a striking similarity between the preterite/present perfect opposition and the opposition between definite and indefinite nomináis. This similarity is pointed out by Allen (1966), while Partee (1973) emphasises the analogies between the preterite and pronouns. Although the claims about a parallel between the preterite/present perfect opposition on the one hand and that between definite and indefinite nomináis on the other are obviously valid up to a point, the differences should not be overlooked: for one thing, the first-order entities that nomináis most typically refer to are usually much more easily delimitable than the temporal reference of verbs, so that the distinction between given and new reference is generally more clear-cut in the case of nomináis; and secondly, the cases where the English preterite does not depend on any explicit or implicit anchor seem to

352

Summary and conclusion

be more frequent and more important than the corresponding uses of definite nomináis. While theories accounting for the fundamental opposition between the present perfect and the preterite in time-referential terms have become increasingly popular in recent linguistic literature, an alternative set of theories predominated in more traditional descriptions: theories claiming that the essential meaning of the present perfect, distinguishing it from the preterite, is that of current relevance; a past situation is reported by means of a present perfect verb form to signal that the situation is seen as having particular relevance at the deictic zero-point. Such theories still have their adherents among contemporary linguists. One problem with current relevance as a linguistic concept is that it is difficult to define precisely what the term means; most, if not all, past situations can be said to be relevant at zero in various senses and in various contexts. The most precise definition that has been offered is of current relevance as resultativeness: a past situation is referred to by a present perfect verb if it is seen as having produced "results" which still obtain at zero. What current-relevance theories overlook is that, firstly, the present perfect does not always carry these implications, and, secondly, the preterite may also be used of past situations with obvious implications of current relevance. This is not to deny that the present perfect often, and more often than the preterite, is used to emphasise that the effects of a past situation still obtain at the deictic zero-point. This follows from the time-referential difference between the two verb forms: the presence of a past-time anchor will tend to focus the attention on the past, and preterite forms will frequently refer to a sequence of past events, serving to bring the action forward, which further reinforces the past focus. With a present perfect verb form, on the other hand, there is no intermediate stage between the deictic zero-point and the past situation, and such verbs will often refer to situations which are contextually isolated and which are mentioned mainly or largely for their relevance to the present state of affairs. For further details of the theory developed of the present perfect and the preterite, and of our discussion of alternative theories, the reader is referred to Chapter 2 and the summary given at the end of that chapter. Chapter 3 reports the results of our empirical investigation into the use of the present perfect and the preterite in present-day English, and aims especially at shedding light on some of the questions that are important for the tentative theory developed in Chapter 2, such as: the types of specification that combine

Summary and conclusion

353

with the present perfect versus the preterite; the use of the preterite without any overt anchor; the conditions under which the present perfect is used in references to time located wholly in the past, especially in the light of Inoue's claim that the situation involved should be repeatable at zero, which we have reduced to a requirement that it should be capable of being located at any time up to zero. Throughout we are concerned with the variation in the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite relative to various textual parameters: the distinctions between informational and fictional texts, speech and writing, more carefully and more casually constructed language, main clauses and subordinate clauses, and above all the opposition between British and American English, a distinction which has often been claimed to be important for the choice between the two verb forms. Our empirical examination of present-day English falls into three parts: (i) frequency counts of occurrences in the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English and the Brown University Corpus of American English; (ii) a detailed contextual analysis of the use of the present perfect and the preterite, and other, related verb forms, in the corpus of contemporary English compiled for this study; and (iii) an elicitation test carried out with speakers of British and American English. Our investigation shows that generally the frequency of the preterite is several times that of the present perfect. It also confirms that there is a distinct British/American English difference: the present perfect is more frequent in British than in American English, the preterite is more frequent in American than in British English. The evidence is overwhelming in all the three major parts of the investigation. In the most straightforward cases the functional distribution between the two verb forms is nevertheless largely the same in British and American English. If the reference is determined as being to a distinct point or period of time located wholly in the past, either through a temporal specifier in the same clause or because it is given in the preceding context, the preterite is the standard verb form in both British and American English. If, on the other hand, the reference is to time which extends from the past up until the deictic zero-point, the present perfect is usually preferred in both varieties. In reference to situations which are located wholly in the past without being attached to anchors of distinct past time the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is more varied. It is especially in this border area that differences between British and American English emerge. This is seen in constructions with certain types of adverbial specifiers: with just and recently, denoting a vague and indeterminate recent past time,

354

Summary and conclusion

and with always, never and ever, which often denote frequency or length over a period extending up to the deictic zero-point. With such constructions there is a clear tendency for the ratio of the present perfect to the preterite to be higher in British than in American English. In the case of constructions with the adverbials already and yet, the present perfect is the norm in British English (so long as the orientation is towards present time), while American English also accepts the preterite. Besides the use of straightforward temporal adverbials, numerous other ways of establishing past-time anchors for preterite forms to attach themselves to have been identified, as have various kinds of more indirect past-time anchoring, without any overt linguistic expression. When the reference is to unique past time, there is again a stronger tendency to use the preterite in American than in British English, although both varieties choose the preterite, and reject the present perfect, in the most clearcut cases. Also, quite a few preterite constructions were recorded where the reference is to what was classified as new time but no temporal specification, direct or indirect, is identifiable and the reference is not covered even by an extended concept of unique past time. In many such cases the reference is to a (frequently bounded) situation which can be seen as the initial link in a past sequence of events, the existence of (sometimes potential) subsequent links apparently being a sufficient indication of separation from the deictic zero-point for the preterite to be used without any further anchoring. Although our investigation confirms that current relevance is not the crucial factor distinguishing the present perfect from the preterite that it has often been made out to be, it has been demonstrated, most convincingly through the elicitation test, that in constructions with no explicit specification of past time forcing the choice of verb form, there is a stronger tendency, especially in British English, to select the present perfect if the construction conveys clear connotations of current relevance. Unspecified preterite forms make up a much larger proportion of all references to new time in the texts representing American English, and also spoken British English, than in those representing written British English, and thus help to account for the lower ratio between the present perfect and the preterite in American compared with British English within the written division of our contemporary corpus, and also for the somewhat lower ratio in spoken compared with written British English. The difference between speech and writing seems to be due to a tendency for such preterite uses to be more frequent in texts which are not very carefully composed, as is the case with many spoken texts.

Summary and conclusion

355

The fact that the present perfect is used in references to time not (clearly) separate from the deictic zero-point and the preterite to given time located wholly in the past leads to distinct differences in their correlations with certain clause-level parameters. For instance, there is a strong and consistent tendency in present-day English for the present perfect/preterite ratio to be higher in negative and interrogative constructions than in other cases. Its overrepresentation in interrogative constructions, and its general tendency to refer to time not clearly separate from zero, result in the present perfect being particularly frequent in contexts which can be said to be characterised by a high degree of situational integration, and by an interactive use of language. Because of its tendency to refer to given time, the preterite, on the other hand, is most frequent in contexts with a high degree of textual integration. That difference explains the fact that the present perfect is particularly frequent in clauses with 1 st-/2nd-person subjects, the preterite in clauses with 3rd-person personal pronouns as subjects. In this respect, however, the variation in the distribution of the present perfect and the preterite seems to be less marked in American English. Finally it may be noted that there is some evidence to suggest that the distinction between the present perfect and the preterite is not always perceived as clear-cut. Especially in the spoken language the formal distinction between the two verb forms may be blurred, since the perfect auxiliary may be reduced to a sub-auditive level. In the elicitation test (where all auxiliaries were given in their uncontracted forms) the score for the present perfect variant seems to be lower, especially in American English, if the construction is such that for one thing the full, uncontracted auxiliary would be unlikely to occur in informal speech, and secondly the preterite and past participial forms are identical. On the other hand the present perfect score seems to increase if the uncontracted auxiliary would be the expected form, as in negative and interrogative constructions, and also in some cases with distinct preterite/past participial forms. Our investigation into the use of the present perfect and the preterite in present-day English confirms the main points of the theory developed in Chapter 2: the essential opposition between the two verb forms rests on the different kinds of temporal reference they express and the different ways in which they combine with adverbial and other temporal specifiers. At the same time it has been established that there is a considerable grey area where the time referred to is located wholly in the past but where there is no obvious anchor which forces the choice of verb form. In such cases the present perfect is more likely to be selected if the past-time reference carries

356

Summary and conclusion

clear connotations of current relevance. On the other hand, the preterite is the norm if the reference is to unique past time. For details of our investigation into the use of the present perfect and the preterite in present-day English the reader is referred to Chapter 3 and the summary given at the end of that chapter. Chapter 4 is concerned with the historical development of our verb forms, from Old English to present-day English, starting with a survey of some of the relevant literature. The English present perfect construction can be assumed to have had its origin in transitive constructions of type "He has the fish caught.", where at first the reference was clearly to present time, HAVE having main-verb status and the past participle functioning as a clear object complement, often inflected for case/gender/number concord with the object. Besides this construction with HAVE there was a construction with BE that was common with intransitive verbs, of type "He is come.", where BE first had the status of main verb and the participle that of subject complement, which might be inflected for concord with the subject. That construction was the starting-point for the present perfect construction with auxiliary BE, which survived well into the Modern English period. These constructions underwent a formal and semantic shift. The formal change was that the concord inflection on the participle was dropped and that the participle was preposed to the object in transitive HAVE constructions, the result being the construction that is well known in Modern English. The semantic shift involved a change in the time reference, from present time to past time, although it is sometimes less than obvious that the reference after the shift is exclusively to past time. This is seen most clearly in cases with distinct connotations of current relevance. Both the formal and the semantic shifts were gradual developments, and both were under way by the time the earliest extant texts were recorded. This study adopts the common view that the present perfect is the construction resulting from the semantic shift, i.e. the present perfect is characterised by the reference being at least partly to past time. An inescapable problem with such a definition is that there will be no hard and fast line of division between the present perfect and similar constructions expressing present-time reference: there will inevitably be borderline cases, since it will often be possible to claim that the reference is to past-event-cum-present-state. This, however, may be seen as a vagueness inherent in the language rather than a fault in the linguistic description.

Summary and conclusion

357

Some linguists do posit a clear-cut distinction between the original construction, referring to present time, with either a subject or an object complement, and the new periphrastic present perfect form with BE or HAVE used as auxiliaries. Thus Traugott (1972), in a transformationalist framework, and Wattie (1931), in the framework of traditional grammar, both see the loss of the participial ending as the start of the new verb form, while Visser (1966, 1973) links the start of the present perfect with auxiliary HAVE with the shift in the placement of the participle, from postposition to mid position, which he holds was accompanied by a fundamental change in temporal meaning. It seems highly doubtful whether the semantic shift was so clear-cut as these theories presuppose, and also whether the semantic shift necessarily coincided with the formal change, which is why such a view of the emergence of the present perfect is rejected in this study. Our corpus investigation shows that in Old English the preterite is very much the predominant verb form in references to past time. Many of the periphrastic constructions which become common in later English are completely absent from the Old English section of our corpus. Some present perfect forms, however, both with HAVE and with the old perfect auxiliary BE, do occur even in the Old English section of our corpus. In that period intransitive constructions consistently take auxiliary BE, transitive ones auxiliary HAVE, but the first intransitive present perfect constructions with HAVE occur as early as in the section of our corpus dating from early Middle English. From the beginning of the Modern English period the predominance of auxiliary HAVE is almost complete in active constructions, a substantial proportion of the constructions recorded with auxiliary BE being instances of the rather special passive variant of that construction. We have concentrated most of our attention on the present perfect construction that must be seen as the most direct ancestor of the present-day present perfect, that with auxiliary HAVE. The distribution between that verb form and the preterite is characterised by a rapid and consistent increase in the frequency of the present perfect, from Old English through Middle English up until early Modern English. Within the Modern English section of our corpus the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is less clear. The rapid increase in the ratio between the two forms discontinues, but the details vary a great deal. Both overall and in respect of most of the parameters we distinguish the ratio is somewhat higher in 1750-1800, for both British and American English, than in 1550-1600, but for American English the ratio of the present perfect to the preterite is then markedly lower in the contemporary corpus, and only slightly higher for British English overall.

358

Summary and conclusion

To compare findings from different periods/sections may be misleading, since the composition of the various sections in terms of text categories differs (quite apart from the problems which follow from the fact that the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite is highly dependent not only on text category but also on individual texts). Comparison of developments within individual text categories may be more instructive. Such a comparison revealed a distinct tendency for the present perfect/preterite ratio to decrease over the past two centuries even in British English: with four out of the five text categories distinguished in the comparison the ratio was found to go down from 1750-1800 to the present day in British English; and those four text categories included the two where a statistically significant change was recorded (drama and the narrative passages of fiction). There is thus overwhelming evidence for the conclusion that within the Modern English period the increase in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite has not only been arrested but reversed as far as American English is concerned, and also considerable evidence to suggest that the ratio has started to decrease even in British English. The conclusion that the frequency of the present perfect has peaked and that this verb form is now losing ground to the preterite is corroborated by some of the present perfect constructions recorded from earlier Modern English, where the present perfect sometimes combines with past-time specifiers in a way that does not seem acceptable in present-day English. Further evidence is provided by the wide variety of indirect anchoring noted for the preterite in present-day English, and in the case of American English especially the considerable number of unspecified preterite forms used to refer to new time in the present-day section of that variety, an indication that the requirement that the preterite should be accompanied by some kind of pasttime anchoring may be weakened in present-day English, especially that of the American variety. For details of the development of the present perfect and the preterite in English revealed by our historical corpus and of our discussion of relevant literature the reader is referred to Chapter 4 and the summary given at the end of that chapter. The development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite that has been established for Modern English is crucially different from that observable in French, German and many other languages with a similar opposition between a periphrastic and an inflectional verb form used in references to past time, where the growth of the periphrastic form has

Summary and conclusion

359

continued unimpeded, in line with what appears to be a general tendency for synthetic forms to be superseded by analytic ones. Since the development of the present perfect and the preterite in Modern English breaks with the general tendency, it calls for a language-specific explanation. We have attributed it to two factors: (i) in informal, spoken English the present perfect auxiliary HAVE usually appears in a highly reduced form; and (ii) with the vast majority of verbs in Modern English, including all regular verbs, the form of the past participle is identical with that of the preterite, in both speech and writing. The combined effect of (i) and (ii) is that with most verbs the difference between the form of the present perfect and the form of the preterite is slight in present-day English, especially in informal speech, which explains why in a long-term perspective the distinction may eventually be lost. The fact that the increase in the frequency of the present perfect at the expense of the preterite does not continue in Modern English, as it does in several other languages, is sufficient proof of the existence of languagespecific conditioning factors in the case of English. The continuing operation of those same conditioning factors would by itself suggest that eventually the growth of the present perfect would not only be arrested but reversed, which corroborates the empirical evidence we have presented. Reference to distinct past time without any obvious kind of anchoring has emerged as an area where usage is far from settled in present-day English. The selection of the preterite in such cases appears to be on the increase, and may well be a major factor behind the change in the distribution between that verb form and the present perfect which appears to be taking place in late Modern English. More and more, the present perfect seems to be developing into a verb form used above all in references to situations which not only are located within a period which extends up to the deictic zero-point but which themselves extend up to that point; to express this kind of time reference the frequency of the present perfect has continued to increase all the way up to present-day English, in American as well as in British English. That is the kind of function where the distinction between the two verb forms is at its most clear-cut: in references to situations which extend up to (and possibly beyond) the deictic zero-point the present perfect is the standard form, the preterite usually being unavailable (except in constructions with adverbial specifiers of the ever/never/always set). It is also the kind of function where in many languages the present perfect is in competition with the simple present verb form rather than with the preterite and where even English uses the present if the initial point of the reference time is not

360

Summary and conclusion

specified (cf. "John lives in London." versus "John has lived in London since 1984."). It may thus seem as if the requirement on the use of the preterite that the situation should be attached to a past-time anchor is in the process of being reduced to a requirement that the situation should be located wholly in the past. This development appears to have gone further in American than in British English. It is precisely in this area of usage - where the situation referred to does not extend all the way up to zero but is not attached to any anchor of distinct past time - that the most conspicuous British/American English differences have been recorded. It should not be overlooked, however, that if the reference is to new time which cannot easily be thought of as unique and which does not function as the first in a sequence of (possibly implied) past reference times, the preterite still generally requires an anchor. That is seen most clearly with unbounded predicates: a sentence like the one we started our discussion of the preterite with in Chapter 2, "John was drunk.", would be expected to combine with an appropriate anchor. If and when the stage is reached when no anchor is needed even in such cases, the present perfect will be reserved for situations extending up to the deictic zero-point. If it is true that in a long-term perspective the present perfect is on its way out of the English verbal system, it would not be surprising if that present perfect use was the last to be replaced. The common use of the preterite with everlneverlalways even in expressions of this kind of time in present-day English may help to further the general replacement of the present perfect to express such time as well. What consequences do the results of our empirical investigation have for our theory of the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite? First, it has to be acknowledged that natural language does not always conform exactly with the hard facts of the world that language is used to refer to. Rather, what determines the choice between alternative linguistic forms will generally be the mental perception of that world. That is significant not least in the case of temporal reference, often characterised by less than clear-cut temporal boundaries and less than precise temporal locations. Recent linguistics has been putting increasing emphasis on the fact that linguistic choice is often determined by the point of view the encoder adopts, and often his attitude to what is relevant. Grice (1975) has been influential in this respect, and more recently especially Sperber - Wilson (1986). Such considerations are obviously important for a proper understanding of the functions of the present perfect and the preterite.

Summary and conclusion

361

Secondly, it must not be forgotten that the theory we developed in Chapter 2, like most of the other theories that have been suggested, is a theory to account for the use of the present perfect and the preterite in present-day English. And present-day English is subject to a great deal of internal variation: between British English, American English and other major varieties, between speech and writing, between formal and informal, etc. The variation within the contemporary language comes on top of the more fundamental diachronic change that all languages undergo. Synchronic variation and diachronic change are two sides of the same coin: at any one stage in the development of the language some forms and uses will be on their way out, some will be coming in, and some will constitute the core language. Language is thus a system which is characterised by multiple variation and which can be said constantly to be in a state of flux. Some elements in that system will be changing more rapidly, others more slowly. We have seen that the distribution of verb forms used to express past time has changed quite drastically since the earliest surviving English texts were recorded. That being the case, it would be surprising if the use of the present perfect and the preterite at any one stage, such as the present stage, could be accounted for by any neat and tidy theory that did not leave any troublesome cases. An account of the present perfect/preterite opposition in present-day English has to acknowledge that there are cases where the distinction between the two verb forms is blurred and where either is acceptable. In agreement with our theory, most of those cases are concentrated in the area where the verbal situation is located wholly in the past but where any past-time anchor is at best given only indirectly and vaguely, so that the point of view adopted by the encoder becomes decisive for the choice of verb form. We have maintained that both the present perfect and the preterite may be regarded as tenses. What light do our findings shed on the nature of tense as a linguistic category? Although we have pointed out that there are fundamental differences between the first-order entities most typically denoted by nominal expressions and the temporal reference expressed by tense, it has been demonstrated that there are also striking similarities: the function of the preterite has a lot in common with that of pronouns and other definite nomináis, the function of the present perfect with that of indefinite nomináis. However, that is a description of the state of affairs obtaining in presentday English. It does not necessarily say anything about the function of tense in earlier stages of English, or about its function in other languages. Hence

362

Summary and conclusion

one should not jump to conclusions about the nature of tense as a general linguistic category. The comparison with indefinite versus definite nominal expressions is a much more apt description of Modern English than of Old English, where the preterite rather than the present perfect performed most of the functions corresponding to those of indefinite nomináis. And in present-day English the preterite again seems increasingly to be performing functions corresponding to indefinite nominal functions, while in other, closely related, languages, such as German and, especially, French, the present perfect has taken over many functions corresponding to those of definite nominal expressions. To posit any similarity with the indefinite/definite opposition in the case of nomináis as a general feature of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is therefore unwarranted. Kiparsky (1968a) may well be right in his claim that in Indo-European languages tense - considered as a verbal feature, corresponding most obviously to the English preterite - has its origin in deep-structure adverbials, but like other linguistic distributions, the distribution of the tenses is subject to change. In line with what appears to be a general tendency for synthetic forms to be superseded by analytic ones, an analytic present perfect form has tended to grow at the expense of the preterite, in English as in many other languages. For reasons that we have stated, the development of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite now seems to be taking a different direction in English.

Notes

1

2

3 4 5

6

7

8

9

The term "present perfect", unless further qualified, will be used of the simple present perfect, i.e. not including the present perfect progressive. Similarly, the term "preterite" by itself will be used of the simple, i.e. non-progressive, preterite. Both terms may denote passive as well as active verb forms. For instance, a recent survey of the history of the English language such as Barber (1993) says without reservation that the perfect as well as the progressive have continued their increase in Modern English: "During the whole of the Modern English period, the Perfect and Progressive markings have become increasingly common. In Early Modern English, the unmarked form of the verb is often used in situations where we feel the need for the Perfect or the Progressive." (Barber 1993: 209) This view of the intensional and extensional meanings of sentences is in line with that of Lyons (1981b; see especially p. 160). The relationship between semantics and pragmatics is discussed by e.g. Kempson (1977), Leech (1983), Levinson (1983) and Stalnaker (1970). Cf. Crystal (1966) and Wunderlich (1970a, 1970b). Smith (1981) is also concerned with the restrictions that contextual factors, including temporal adverbials, impose on the interpretation of tense. Hüllen (1987) looks at the cooperation of tense and temporal adverbials in parts of the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English (cf. Svartvik - Quirk 1980). Dahl (1985) is an extremely useful comparison of the present perfect, the preterite and other tense-and-aspect categories in English and a large number of other languages. Davidsen-Nielsen (1990) compares English and Danish. Haugen (1972) discusses a Scandinavian present perfect use which does not seem to have any obvious English parallel. According to Harris (1991: 202), either the simple present or the present progressive is used in Irish English in such cases: "Field worker: Have you always lived here? - Answer: We 're living here seventeen years." That tense is a deictic category should not be taken to mean that it necessarily expresses time orientated towards the encoder's deictic zero-point. For one thing, the encoder may anticipate the decoder's zero, as is commonly the case in newspaper texts. Secondly, there are many uses of language for which no obvious real-life deictic zero-point is determinable, for instance fiction. Some people usefully employ the term "universe of discourse" to denote the framework that tense and other deictic elements are orientated towards in any given (section of a) text. Cf. Bronzwaer (1970), Givón (1984), Lyons (1979), McCawley (1981a), Matthiessen (1983), Ruin (1983) and Schiffrin (1981). Some grammarians do not assign tense to the modal auxiliaries. In that case an exception has to be made for verb phrases containing such auxiliaries, which nevertheless qualify as finite.

364 10 11 12

13

14

Notes The contrast between aspect and Aktionsart will be considered in more detail below, in the section on aspectual character (2.6 with subsections). Two recent writers on the English perfect who also question or reject a compositional analysis are Klein (1992) and Michaelis (1994). The delimitation of the category of aspect, especially the distinction between that category and tense, and its applicability to the verb system of English have been extensively discussed in linguistic literature. In addition to the publications already referred to, see e.g. Bronckart - Sinclair (1973), Chung - Timberlake (1985), Hirtle (1967), Hopper (ed.) (1982), Hopper - Thompson (1980), Jakobson (1971), Lass (1987), Nehls (1978) and Saurer (1984). If the reference is orientated towards past time, the preterite is straightforward in both British and American English. This is most common with stative predicates: "Was John there yet/already?" See also below, section 2.3.4. Michaelis (1994: 144-145) also gives examples where the contrast between a definite and an indefinite object may have consequences for the acceptability of the present perfect: "Look! Myron's painted a little picture." seems fine, while *"Myron's painted the little picture/it." would normally be unacceptable; compare further "How touching. The Millers have sent a fruitcake." and *"The Millers have sent the fruitcake/it.", where there will often be a similar acceptability contrast. See, however, our discussion of discourse topics in section 2.4.2 below.

15

Among the other linguists who see the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite as an expression of indefinite versus definite temporal reference, or offer more general time-referential theories - and put less emphasis on current relevance to explain the use of the present perfect - are Baker (1989), Bauer (1970a), Bennett (1981), Bryan (1936), Christophersen - Sandved (1969), Declerck (1991), Enç (1987), Koziol (1958), Ota (1963), Ruin (1970, 1976), Schöpf (1987), Webber (1988) and Zydatiss (1981). Comrie (1976, 1985) is in many respects close to Leech and McCawley but attaches more importance to current relevance. Partee (1984) modifies the claims made about analogies between the preterite and personal pronouns in Partee (1973).

16

This sentence is used as an example by McCawley (1971: 107, 1981b: 354), who contrasts it with the corresponding present perfect construction. It is also discussed in Leech (1969). It will be considered again below (section 2.7.2.2). Chomsky's treatment of (2:78)-(2:80) is also discussed, and criticised, by Anderson (1973b). There must be a misprint in Inoue (1979: 577): the sentence "The truth of each of the topic propositions is a sufficient but not necessary condition for the truth of the proposition given in [(2:78)] . . . ." should evidently read "The truth of each of the topic propositions is a necessary but not sufficient condition for . . . .". The need for further research in this area is emphasised by Tregidgo (1984). Smith (1980) classifies sentences according to the anchoring conditions they impose on context.

17 18

19

Notes 20

21 22

23

24

25

26

27

28 29

30

365

The question of linguistic differences between foregrounded and backgrounded information is taken up by e.g. Fleischman (1985), Tomlin (1984) and Wallace (1982). A recent treatment of the English present perfect which places great emphasis on the importance of different predicate types is Meyer (1992). Vendler's and similar distinctions are discussed by e.g. Cann (1993), Chafe (1970), Hopper (1979a, 1982), Kilby (1984), Kucera (1983, 1985), Quirk et al. (1985), Smith (1983, 1986), Verkuyl (1972) and Vlach (1981). On the distinction between aspect and aspectual character, see further Bach (1981), Bache (1982, 1985), Comrie (1976), King (1983), Löbner (1988), Lyons (1977) and Nakhimovsky (1988). Charleston (1941) makes a distinction between what she calls subjective and objective aspects, corresponding broadly to our distinction between aspect and aspectual character. The terms "bounded" and "unbounded" are used by e.g. Allen (1966) and Dahl (1974). It may be noted that Comrie (1976) uses the term "telic" only of accomplishments, not of achievements, while many other people seem to regard both these as telic predicates. A survey of the rather confusing multitude of terms employed in this area can be found in Jacobson (1980); cf. also Declerck (1979) and McCoard (1978: 161, note 19). This test question really presupposes that the situation is durative. With achievements, defined as momentary, the reference will often be to the process leading up to the achievement, rather than to the achievement itself, as also when achievement verbs are used in the progressive. This problem is discussed by Vlach (1981) and others. The way we are using the term "aspectual character", it may be applied to situations and linguistic elements alike: for instance, a bounded predicate is one denoting a bounded situation. Reichenbach is discussed by e.g. Âqvist (1976, 1978), Barense (1980), Clifford (1975), Comrie (1981), Declerck (1986, 1991), Dinsmore (1981, 1982), Hornstein (1977, 1990, besides 1981), Kilby (1984), McCawley (1981b), Nerbonne (1986), Schöpf (1987) and Smith (1978). Montague (1974) and his followers also adopt an analysis of tense that is basically the same as that associated with standard tense logic. Even a recent publication like Cann (1993), whose treatment of tense is in many respects more advanced than in the publications typically associated with standard tense logic, makes only very modest claims about its ability to account for tense in natural language: "The theory of tense presented above is idealised with respect to actual linguistic data. The specifics of grammatical tense in particular languages often have different interpretations from those presented [above]." (Cann 1993: 250) The need to bring some indication of the temporal reference into the logical analysis of propositions is pointed out by e.g. Allwood - Andersson - Dahl (1979) and Baker - Hacker (1984). Cf. also Bar-Hillel (1954), who is concerned

366

31

32 33

34

35

36

37 38 39

40

41

Notes with the triadic relationship between sentence-token, context and proposition, and Strawson (1950, 1971), who underlines the difference between the significance of a sentence and the truth-value of its use on a particular occasion. We are confining ourselves to non-modal, two-valued predicate logic and will not take up problems such as those posed by sentences like the much discussed "The king of France is bald."; cf. Kempson (1977), Lyons (1977). For a discussion of other possibilities, see McCawley (1981b: 341). Traditionally it has been assumed that t can only denote points of time. However, e.g. Bennett - Partee (1978), Dowty (1979), McCawley (1981a) and Taylor (1977) operate with logical analyses where t may denote periods, or intervals, as well. See e.g. McCawley (1981b, especially p. 90). The debate as to whether a logical formula involving constants or one with variables and quantifiers is preferable has usually focused on the analysis of pronouns; see e.g. Guenthner - Rohrer (eds.) (1978), Heny (1979), Hiz (1969) and Karttunen (1969). We are now disregarding the fact that the present perfect will often be used in cases where there is a pretty clear initial bound to the temporal range within which the verbal situation is located, even if no such bound is expressed. For instance, (2:9) may be said with the intended meaning "John has been drunk while he has been here.". We shall not go into the complications which follow from the fact that a sentence like (2:162) may well refer to a situation which extends beyond the deictic zeropoint into the future. The relevant reading of (2:75) is that on which no anchor is provided by the wider context. See e.g. Bach (1980), Hinrichs (1981; later also 1986) and Kamp (1979). For further demonstration that the present perfect need not be resultative, see e.g. Bryan (1936), Declerck (1991), Diver (1963), Kahiza (1976), Kilby (1984), McCoard (1978), Tregidgo (1980, 1984), Vermant (1983) and Zydatiss (1978, 1981). This should not be taken to mean that the choice of verb form is necessarily conditioned by the specification. It is not obvious that the choice of adverbial or other specifier should be regarded as being made prior to the choice of verb form, either in respect of language production or in respect of the most suitable model of linguistic description. Crystal (1966) and Wunderlich (1970a, 1970b) emphasise that verb form and specifier (including zero) should be regarded as expressing time together, without either being assigned primary status (cf. above, section 2.1.3). Some other linguists who operate with clearly separated present perfect "types" or "uses" are Anderson (1982), Fenn (1987), J. Harris (1984) and Zandvoort (1932). Sörensen (1964), by contrast, argues for the semantic unity of the present perfect. Matthews (1987) subjects the question of a "polysémie" versus a "monosemic"

Notes

42

43

44

45 46 47

48

49

50

367

view of the present perfect to detailed scrutiny, and comes down on the side of a monosemic view. McCawley's ideas were widely known before the publication of McCawley (1971); cf. the date of Darden (1968), which is in part a critique of McCawley's "as yet unwritten analysis". As the grammatical tagging that LOB and BUC are supplied with could not have been used for the kind of detailed examination of temporal contextual features that I wanted to undertake, and contemporary English texts are readily available (as far as the written language is concerned), my decision to use my own corpus for the major part of the investigation did not lead to any great amount of extra work. On the composition of LOB and BUC, see further Johansson - Leech - Goodluck (1978) and Francis - Kucera (1979). The figures set out in Table 3.1 are from Johansson - Hofland (1989, 1: 2, 7) and Francis - Kucera (1982: 533). The number of words given as making up each text may vary slightly between different editions of LOB and BUC, due to different definitions of the concept "word". See Johansson et al. (1986) and Francis - Kucera (1982). The frequencies set out in this and the next few tables are from Johansson Hofland (1989) and Francis - Kucera (1982). This coefficient is the same as that used in Hofland - Johansson (1982; see especially p. 14). It is calculated as follows: (LOB - BUC)/(LOB + BUC), where "LOB" and "BUC" are the number of forms recorded in the respective corpora. Hence the coefficient will vary between —1.00 and +1.00, a negative figure indicating that the form is more numerous in BUC, a positive figure that it is more numerous in LOB. A form that only occurs in BUC will have the coefficient —1.00, one which only occurs in LOB will have +1.00, while the coefficient 0.00 will indicate that the form is equally numerous in the two corpora. In these and subsequent calculations of the Chi-square applied to 2x2 tables the formula recommended by Siegel (1956: 107) was used. This formula incorporates a correction for continuity. There is a noteworthy similarity between the relative order in which the various text categories place themselves here and the order reported in Hofland Johansson (1982: 22-25) for a completely different parameter, namely the ranking order of the 89 most frequent words in LOB. This suggests that we have to do with inherent, low-level characteristics of the genres underlying the text categories that LOB and BUC are divided into. In its function as a present perfect auxiliary it would be thought that (presenttense) have would follow the same pattern as has, although differences could result from different distributions of various subject types. However, no such difference depending on subject type is observable between the informational and the fictional category groups in the case of BE, the one verb where all present-tense forms are distinct from the infinitive: is and are show roughly

368

51

52 53

54

55

56 57 58

Notes the same relative difference in frequency between the text category groups in both LOB and BUC. (The distribution is different in the case of am, which is influenced by the much higher relative frequency of the lst-person pronoun I in the fictional category group. The number of occurrences of this form is in any case small by comparison with is and are.) Dubois (1972) investigates the frequencies of the various perfect forms in texts making up thirty per cent of BUC. In the case of the present perfect she also reports distinctly higher frequencies for the informational than for the fictional category group, although the order in which individual text categories place themselves according to her findings is not in all cases the same as that found for has or as that for the eight verbs to be taken up below. See Dubois (1972: 64-65). The underlying figures reveal that this inverse correlation is distinctly higher than the general inverse correlation between present- and preterì te-tense forms. The eight verbs were selected because they top frequency lists of all forms in the language. However, the lists consulted merely record graphic forms and do not distinguish between, for instance, the noun use and the verb use. Furthermore, in the composition of our tables all auxiliary uses of used were omitted. These things explain why USE is included among the eight verbs in spite of its comparatively low frequencies of occurrence. The count was based on the microfiche concordances of the two corpora, the tagged version in respect of LOB, the untagged version in respect of BUC. The past participial form was taken as the starting-point for the count of the present perfect. A few cases where the one-line context was insufficient to determine the form of the whole verb phrase were disregarded. Comparing the results of six previous frequency studies of the various forms of the English verbal system, Feigenbaum (1978) finds that distributions vary a lot depending on the genres examined. However, in all the six studies the present perfect is much less frequent than the preterite, the latter in several cases being more than ten times as frequent as the former. See especially Feigenbaum (1978: 99-104). Feigenbaum himself investigates written and spoken texts produced in an academic setting, where the frequency he records of the present perfect corresponds to 12.7 per cent of that of the preterite in the written material and to 16.6 per cent in the spoken material (Feigenbaum 1978: 105). The main principles behind the textual composition of BUC, and hence also of LOB, are set out in Kucera - Francis (1967: xviii-xix). I am grateful to the BBC for permission to use their news bulletins in this study. The term "present perfect" by itself is invariably used of the construction with auxiliary HAVE. All but one of the seven present perfect constructions recorded in CONTCORP with auxiliary BE were passives of a rather special kind that will be taken up in the section on voice below (section 3.3.13.7). The one active construction analysed as an instance of the present perfect with BE was the following:

Notes

369

268 COI 032 A . . . 267 I'm ||not S / U R E · [s:m] - - ||and [g:m] 269 Β *[m]||[h\m]·* > A 268 you K N / O W · - 270 ||if !this is A A L S O C / O M E · 271 ||from [a] - N/IGHTINGALE • {or | | Y / O U · } · · [London-Lund]

59

60

61

62

63

64 65

The difference in the present perfect/preterite distribution between the major divisions is statistically significant in all three cases: BRPRINT/AMPRINT: χ2 = 78.7407, ρ < 0.001; AMPRINT/NONPRINT: χ2 = 62.0993, ρ < 0.001; BRPRINT/NONPRINT: χ2 = 4.5622, ρ < 0.05. In this table news magazines and newspapers appear as text categories, although these will be further subdivided below (section 3.3.11.3). In separate sections we shall also look at an internal subdivision of the texts from the categories novels (section 3.3.11.1) and radio news (section 3.3.11.2). It will be seen from Appendix II that the number of texts included in the science category is smaller than with many other text categories. Hence these results should be treated with particular caution, since texts may vary considerably in their general temporal orientation, for instance between present and past time, even within the same text category. The Chi-square test applied to the present perfect/preterite differences between BRPRINT and AMPRINT yields the following results: science: χ2 = 201.7457, ρ < 0.001; news magazines: χ2 — 0.0104, η.s.; newspapers: χ2 = 0.9758, η.s.; novels:χ 2 = 7.7017, ρ < 0.01; drama: χ2 = 10.6436, ρ < 0.01. It will be recalled that a few preterite forms having temporal reference to the present or future were disregarded in CONTCORP, and that as far as the eight verbs examined in LOB and BUC are concerned, some forms were omitted from the count because they could not be unequivocally classified as either the present perfect or the preterite on the basis of the KWIC concordances, although in both cases the number of excluded forms is small by comparison with the total number of occurrences. A further discrepancy between the two counts is that the comparison of frequencies in LOB and BUC only involved active verb forms, whereas the figures we have so far given from CONTCORP include passive as well as active verb forms; as we shall see below (section 3.3.13.7), the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite varies quite markedly between active and passive constructions. On differences between direct speech and other sections of the novels included in CONTCORP, see below, section 3.3.11.1. The difference in the present perfect/preterite ratio between the texts representing face-to-face conversation and the telephone dialogues is statistically significant: χ 2 — 65.7888, ρ < 0.001. Although the difference recorded between the two categories of telephone texts is also marked, the number of verb forms from telephone monologues is small and the difference not statistically significant ( χ 2 - 2.7479).

370 66 67 68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Notes This difference is statistically significant at the 1% level: χ2 = 8.8547. The specifiers used as illustrative examples here are not necessarily from CONTCORP. As was noted in Chapter 2, the use of the preterite is straightforward in constructions with stative predicates orientated towards past reference points: "He was there already.", "He wasn't there yet." In Chapter 4 results for BRPRINT and AMPRINT will in many cases be brought into the diachronic comparison, and figures for British and American English, usually for all clause types combined, given separately in the case of both the present-day language and the period 1750-1800. The statistical significance of these differences is not in doubt. The Chi-square test applied to the varying distributions between the present perfect and the preterite gives the following results: given time versus new/sequence: χ2 = 219.349, ρ < 0.001; new/sequence versus new/single: χ 2 = 90.7279, ρ < 0.001; given versus new/single: χ2 = 1017.697, ρ < 0.001. As in some other cases, the distinctions made here are not always clear-cut. On the contrary, the distinction between the various kinds of reference times is often particularly difficult to draw, not least the one between time located wholly in the past and time extending up to the deictic zero-point. There is absolutely no doubt about the statistical significance of the difference recorded in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite according as the temporal location was classified as wholly in the past or extending up to the deictic zero-point/vague: χ2 = 1647.535, ρ < 0.001. If the specification was contained in a preceding main clause within the same sentence, the temporal reference was simply classified as given by the preceding context, in the same way as when the specification was contained in a preceding sentence. The specification referred to here is only part of the subordinate clause. Constructions in which the subordinate clause itself acts as a temporal specifier in the matrix clause, i.e. acts as a temporal clause, were analysed as being specified in the same (matrix) clause. Cf. our discussion of when-clauses and other temporal clauses above (section 3.3.6.4). The difference in the proportion of unspecified preterite forms between the informational and the fictional categories is statistically significant in both varieties: χ1 = 24.8740, ρ < 0.001 for BRPRINT; χ2 = 56.8716, ρ < 0.001 for AMPRINT. If the proportion of unspecified preterite forms in each text category of NONPRINT is compared with the overall result for NONPRINT, the following categories display a statistically significant deviation from the whole: face-to-face conversation ( χ 2 = 13.1445, ρ < 0.001), letters/business ( χ 2 = 4.5981, ρ < 0.05), phone/dialogue (χ2 = 7.6881, ρ < 0.01), and radio news (χ2 = 25.8935, ρ < 0.001). The term "narrative" is here used in a broad sense, to refer to all sections of the novels texts that are not direct speech.

Notes 77 78 79 80

81 82

83

84

85 86 87

88

371

The differences are statistically significant in both varieties: χ2 = 63.2389, ρ < 0.001 for BRPRINT; χ 2 = 6.8817, ρ < 0.01 for AMPRINT. BRPRINT: χ2 = 3.7808, n.s.; AMPRINT: χ2 = 0.0468, n.s.; BRPRINT + AMPRINT combined: χ2 = 15.3257, ρ < 0.001. For a more detailed treatment of verbal usage in the recorded BBC news bulletins, see Elsness (1984b). In a 2x2 comparison of the distributions between the present perfect and the preterite in these various textual divisions only the difference recorded between initial and non-initial sentences in the detailed treatment is statistically significant: χ2 = 53.2359, ρ < 0.001. For headlines/detailed-initial χ2 = 2.1102, n.s. Fenn (1987: 129, 162-163) also notes that the present perfect is particularly frequent at the beginning of news reports. Section 3.3.12.1 will make it clear that the text category of radio news bulletins differs from all the other text categories in having a predominance of the present perfect in clauses that are initial in a textual division. If the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in each textual division of AMPRINT newspapers is compared with all the other textual divisions combined, the Chi-square test yields the following results: news: χ2 = 0.1987, n.s.; editorial: χ2 = 13.5181, ρ < 0.001; books: χ2 = 0.0348, n.s.; brief: χ2 = 9.1041, ρ < 0.01. For BRPRINT news magazines the present perfect/preterite difference yields: χ2 = 18.4697, ρ 5 0.001. For BRPRINT newspapers, again compared with all other textual divisions combined: news: χ2 = 5.0797, ρ < 0.05; editorial: χ2 = 18.4234, ρ < 0.001; books: χ2 = 27.2065, ρ < 0.001; brief: χ2 = 1.1684, n.s. If the book reviews from the magazines and newspapers included in CONTCORP are put together, the BRPRINT/AMPRINT difference in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite is statistically significant: χ2 — 16.3384, ρ < 0.001. This BRPRINT/AMPRINT difference (just) fails the test for statistical significance at the 5% level: χ2 — 3.6085, n.s. In section 3.3.10.6 above it was seen that similar texts from USA Today tend to have unspecified preterite forms. Differences between such clauses with that and with zero conjunction are discussed in Elsness (1982, 1984a). They were also coded separately during the analysis of our corpus. Since no clear and consistent differences in verbal usage were detected between the two subtypes, they will here be treated together. The Chi-square test yields the following results in a comparison of the distributions between the present perfect and the preterite in the three types of subordinate clause: i/zai-clause/relative clause: χ2 — 0.4127, n.s.; relative clause/w/zen-clause: χ2 = 30.5304, ρ < 0.001; rfiaf-cIause/vWien-clause: χ2 = 25.9467, ρ < 0.001. The result for the restrictive/non-restrictive opposition among relative clauses: χ2 = 3.8726, ρ < 0.05.

372 89

90

91

92 93 94

95

96

97

98

Notes Comparison with Table 3.21 reveals that the figures for sequences of present perfect/preterite/preterite-auxiliary constructions are in most cases not identically the same in the two tables. This discrepancy is due to the fact that the verb forms recorded as the basis for the investigation were only those perfect/preterite forms which have past-time reference, while all preceding and following verb phrases were noted, irrespective of temporal reference. Weinrich is criticised by Comrie (1986: 21), who rightly maintains that the meaning of a tense is independent of its discourse function in any particular context. In this and subsequent samples which purport to be representative of the constructions recorded in CONTCORP, the quoted passages may contain further instances of the feature or category under consideration, in addition to those instances which make up the representative sample. Such additional instances will not be referred to in the corpus codes given at the beginning of each quotation, nor will their verb forms be indicated by roman print or underlining. For example, some of the passages quoted below contain object f/¡ai-clauses which are not part of the representative sample, as can be seen from the fact that their verb forms are not romanised. Tense usage in object ?te-clauses is discussed in some detail in e.g. Allen (1966), Costa (1972), Paul Kiparsky - Carol Kiparsky (1970) and Lakoff (1970). The semantic functions of ί/ιαί-clauses are discussed in Elsness (1981). Clauses which refer to time which was classified as given both in the main clause and in a preceding sentence were coded as referring to time given in the main clause. Although most cases are straightforward, the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses is not always obvious, the punctuation providing only a rough guide. An impression of how the distinction was carried out can be gained from the examples presented below. For all (adjectival) relative clauses: χ2 = 3.8726, ρ < 0.05. If the comparison is limited to relative clauses embedded at the first level, however, the difference is not statistically significant: χ2 = 1.0381. BRPRINT: χ2 = 5.7992, ρ < 0.05; AMPRINT: χ2 = 2.0597, n.s.; NONPRINT: χ2 = 2.6329, n.s. The verbal distribution in restrictive versus non-restrictive relative clauses will also be considered when we analyse the historical material in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.12.3), where it will be seen that it is the result for AMPRINT that deviates from the general pattern. The vast majority of these w/zen-clauses act as straightforward adverbial clauses in the respective matrix clauses. However, a very few clauses introduced by the conjunction when but with other syntactic functions are also included here, e.g. the clause functioning as prepositional complement in AD2 117: "NICK: We knew each other from, oh God, I don't know, when we were six, or something - . " [Virginia Woolf, p. 66]. On the other hand, a few so-called "relative w/ien-clauses"

Notes

99

100

101 102

103

104

105

106

107

108

373

("He was born in 1899, when Victoria was still on the throne.") are not included among the constructions treated in this section. The various temporal relationships that may obtain in constructions with whenclauses are discussed by e.g. Heinämäki (1978), Hinrichs (1986: 74ff.) and Partee (1984: 261). The bounded/unbounded distinction will be further discussed in section 3.3.13.1 below, where it will become clear that this and other aspectual distinctions do no always depend only on the verb but sometimes also on other clause elements. See also Chapter 2, section 2.6 (with subsections). Verb phrases denoting the past in the future were included in the coding of CONTCORP, unlike verb phrases with simple future-time reference. A total of 46 preceding first-level when-clauses with preterite verbs were recorded, 14 of which were specified. Out of a total of 48 similar following clauses, four were specified, χ2 — 6.0523, ρ < 0.05. (Mien-clauses appearing in more complex sentence structures are excluded from this count.) Moens - Steedman (1988: 16) point out that when-c\auses generally express more than a purely temporal relationship. As evidence they adduce a construction where it is difficult to think of any causal relationship: *"When my car broke down, the sun set.", which they mark as unacceptable. This seems most relevant to cases where both matrix clause and when-clause denote bounded situations, forming a sequence; cf. a perfectly acceptable sentence like "When the war broke out, Anne was living in London.", without any obvious causal relationship. Cf. Partee's (1984: 261) observation that "an event described in a w/ien-clause differs from one in a simple sentence in that it is not constrained to occur within the then-current reference time, but rather serves to provide a descriptive anchor for the next-introduced reference time." It is perhaps debatable whether subject type should be called a clause-level parameter, although, as will become clear, that parameter is closely integrated with several more obvious clause-level parameters. In 2x2 comparisons within the group of situations classified as having reference to single situations all the differences recorded in the ratio between the present perfect and the preterite are statistically significant: achievements/activities: χ2 = 5.4149, ρ < 0.05; activities/accomplishments: χ2 = 5.2240, ρ < 0.05; accomplishments/states: χ2 = 30.4196, ρ < 0.001. Some of these differences within individual divisions are based on rather small numbers and hence not very reliable. For example, the difference in AMPRINT between single activities and single achievements (with the second largest ratio between the present perfect and the preterite) is not statistically significant: χ2 = 0.0129. Two examples of the latter type of construction are NN2 021 " . . . they presumed that no one was home." [Newsweek] and C 0 5 033 " ' " «and» ||one was in :FRVENCH • " [London-Lund].

374

Notes

109 The statistical significance of this difference is beyond doubt. If the occurrences of the present perfect and the preterite in the SVC constructions are compared with those in all other clause patterns combined in CONTCORP as a whole, the Chi-square works out at 42.8695, ρ < 0.001. 110 The result for the whole of CONTCORP is χ2 = 0.5593, n.s. One distinct difference between SV and SVO can be seen to be the higher proportion of verb forms labelled "other" in the case of SV. Most of the increased proportion of "other" verb forms is due to a higher incidence of verb phrases with modal auxiliaries. The proportion of preterite progressive verb forms is also higher (5.2%) than average (1.9%). Of the differences in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite that emerge between SV and SVO if one looks at the three major divisions separately, only the one in BRPRINT is statistically significant: BRPRINT and NONPRINT both display greater ratios between the present perfect and the preterite for SVO than for SV but the difference in the case of NONPRINT is not statistically significant, AMPRINT displays a greater ratio for SV than for SVO but the difference is not statistically significant. BRPRINT: χ2 = 4.9606, ρ < 0.05; AMPRINT: χ2 = 3.7367, n.s.; NONPRINT: χ2 = 1.1326, n.s. 111 In Table 3.29 only occurrences with singular, specific reference are included as instances of the pronoun you. Instances of you expressing generic reference (as in "You never can tell.") are listed under "other pronoun". 112 This difference is statistically significant at the 1% level. If the comparison is confined to the present perfect versus the preterite, the Chi-square works out at 6.9426, ρ < 0.01. 113 None of the present perfect/preterite variations within these groups are statistically significant at the 5% level if the classes distinguished are compared two by two. The differences between the groups (each group considered as a whole) are all significant: 1 st/2nd-person pronouns versus nouns: χ2 = 16.5343, ρ < 0.001; nouns versus 3rd-person pronouns: χ2 = 13.5688, ρ < 0.001. 114 It will be recalled that none of the group-internal differences are statistically significant. 115 χ2 — 0.8938. Just two occurrences of plural you were recorded in main clauses. They are excluded from the classes distinguished in Table 3.30. 116 The Chi-square test yields the following results for the present perfect/preterite distributions in the case of plural subjects: we/they - χ2 = 0.8938, n.s.; we/noun-headed - χ2 = 7.6571, ρ < 0.01; íftey/noun-headed - χ2 = 17.3884, ρ < 0.001. 117 Various types of negation are extensively discussed by Tottie. See e.g. Tottie (1983, 1991). 118 The statistical significance of the difference in the present perfect/preterite distribution between positive and negative constructions is not, of course, in doubt χ2 = 51.5465, ρ < 0.001 - nor is that of the difference between positive and

Notes

375

semi-negative ones -χ2 — 10.9122, ρ < 0.001. However, the difference between negative and semi-negative fails the significance test: χ 2 = 0.5486, η.s. 119 The recorded difference is statistically significant at the 5% level. In a comparison of the present perfect versus preterite forms between declarative on the one hand and interrogative/interrogative import on the other hand the Chi-square works out at 5.0801, ρ < 0.05. If the comparison is confined to declarative on the one hand and regular interrogative on the other hand, χ2 = 4.3287, ρ < 0.05. 120 The differences between classes from different groups are statistically significant. For example, in a comparison of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite for lst-person versus 3rd-person personal pronouns the Chi-square works out at 15.7063, ρ < 0.001. On the other hand, the differences between lst-person, 2nd-person and noun-headed subjects are not statistically significant. 121 Biber (1987) finds a high degree of distributional correlation between interrogation, the pronouns I and you and the present tense on the one hand, and between 3rd-person pronouns, the preterite tense and the "perfect aspect" on the other hand. He associates the first combination with interactive (rather than edited) text, the second with reported (rather than immediate) style. Biber does not distinguish between the present perfect and other perfect combinations, and is therefore precluded from reaching any conclusions about the particular verb form the present perfect. Since the present perfect is an instance of the present tense, however, Biber's findings tally well with our own results as regards the distributional correlations of the present perfect and the preterite. 122 Alternative definitions of the passive in English are extensively discussed in Svartvik (1966). 123 Perfect constructions with auxiliary BE will be treated separately in our analysis of the historical corpus. See Chapter 4. 124 The term "active" is used of all constructions that are not passive, including intransitive and other constructions where the active/passive opposition is irrelevant. 125 In a comparison limited to the present perfect versus the preterite the Chi-square works out at 30.7652, ρ < 0.001. 126 In the various categories of printed texts as a whole there is no consistent difference in the active/passive distribution between BRPRINT and AMPRINT. Hence there is no basis for any general claim to the effect that the passive is more common in American English. 127 These correlations may lead one to ask whether the different distributions between the present perfect and the preterite uncovered according to the given/new distinction and to aspectual class hold irrespective of voice. The underlying figures confirm that they do. The same is true of the difference in the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite recorded depending on clause structure: that difference applies even if the comparison is limited to active constructions.

376

Notes

128 The syntactic descriptions here refer to the active pattern, so that SC2 017 "The scheme was needed." [Sunday Times] is a passive SVO construction, while "I've been offered a job." (cf. BDI 109 [The Birthday Party] in the above sample) is SVOO. "Catenative (see section 3.3.13.2) with nominal" refers to constructions with a nominal preceding the infinitive or gerundial verb in the active pattern (as in "They expect John to do it.'V'John is expected to do it."). 129 There are a total of 210 main clauses conforming to one of the three patterns SVOO, SVOC and catenatives with nomináis, of which 160 are active and 50 passive. Of the 2,513 main clauses recorded conforming to the SVO pattern 2,161 are active and 352 passive. This difference is statistically significant at the 0.1% level: χ2 = 14.0298. None of the one-by-one differences within the first group of transitive clause patterns are statistically significant at the 5% level. 130 It should be borne in mind that with some of the distinctions we have introduced in our corpus analysis a certain arbitrariness in the classification must be allowed for, although some of those problems are less pertinent to the two verb forms at the focus of attention in this study, the present perfect and the preterite, than to some of the more peripheral verb forms that have been considered. The main trends uncovered seem clear and convincing enough, serious difficulties of classification in most cases affecting only a small proportion of the recorded constructions. 131 The test with the American informants was carried out at Brown University in November 1986, that with the British informants at the University of Cambridge in May 1987. The participants in the test (none of them were linguistics students) all volunteered to stay on after class and do the test, which most of them completed within ten to fifteen minutes. I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness both to the participating students and to their teachers for enabling me to carry out the test. The construction appearing below as (29) was added after most of the American participants had done the test, so that the number of American informants assessing that construction was reduced to thirty. As will be seen, the British/American English difference recorded for (29a) was nevertheless found to be statistically significant. One American informant failed to indicate his assessment of the constructions printed on one page of the test booklet. Hence the number of American informants giving their opinions of those constructions was 79. The results of the test were also discussed in Elsness (1990). 132 In the actual test the order of the present perfect (pluperfect)/preterite sentences was varied. 133 In the case of each construction I used the i-test on independent samples, British and American English making up the two samples. The spread of each variable was thus taken into account in the significance testing. Cf. Woods - Fletcher Hughes (1986: 176-181). 134 Our results tally well with those reported in Greenbaum (1977). That elicitation test, in which American students act as informants, includes a section on the opposition between the present perfect and the preterite, with pairs of present

Notes

377

perfect/preterite sentences taking since-clauses as temporal specifiers. Greenbaum (1977: 93) records lower preterite scores if the verbal situation is a state extending up to the deictic zero-point rather than a series of repeated past events, although the results for the present perfect are less consistent. (Two of Greenbaum's pairs are "She has written/wrote to us several times since she moved to London." and "She has been/was happy ever since she married Bob.".) 135 Both Dusková (1976: 64-65) and Marshall (1981: 391) include the adverbs of this section in their investigations. In the case of already and yet Dusková records only present perfect constructions in British English, as against a fairly even balance between the present perfect and the preterite in American English (among a very small total of instances). In the case of never and ever Dusková finds that the present perfect is more numerous in her British material, the preterite in her American material. As regards always, on the other hand, she records a majority of preterite forms in both varieties. It should be noted, however, that, firstly, her number of cases is again small, and, secondly, she does not distinguish between references to time-wholly-in-the-past and to time extending up to the deictic zero-point. Marshall finds that in her American material the preterite is used in about half the recorded cases with ever, never and always, and in about one-third of the instances with already and yet. 136 There is the possibility that in spite of the instructions some of the informants treated the members of each pair as alternatives, so that a high score for one member automatically led to a low score for the other member. 137 Some of the results of my historical corpus investigation were also presented in Elsness (1989). 138 Traugott wrongly translates those books. 139 See also Harris (1991: 206). 140 Such a radical view of diachronic category change is characteristic of many T-G treatments of historical syntax. See e.g. Lightfoot (1979). This attitude to diachronic syntax is challenged by e.g. Romaine (1983). Lightfoot (1991) recognises more explicitly that languages are constantly in a state of flux. See discussion in McMahon (1994: 107-137). 141 According to Caro (1896: 402), the last construction with an inflected participle occurred in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 1086. See also Dietrich (1955: 134). 142 Hopper - Traugott (1993: 57) also link the emergence of the perfect unequivocally with non-inflection of the participle: " . . . we recognize that the perfect has arisen only when there is overt and therefore determinable lack of agreement between object and participle . . . ." 143 Hoffmann's terms are "Perfektiva" and "Imperfektiva", respectively (Hoffmann 1934: 35). 144 It is not clear whether Brunner intends these observations to be limited to constructions whose temporal reference extends up to the deictic zero-point. The

378

Notés

Latin present perfect could be used straightforwardly also of time attached to past-time anchors. 145 Where no source is indicated, translations of examples from Old and Middle English are by me. These are merely intended to give a quick indication of the likely meaning. There will be no discussion of alternative readings, for example. 146 Mustanoja does not consider the possibility that the variation may be due to dialect differences. 147 A similar example from the same time was provided to me by A.O. Sandved. It is from Robert Scott's diary a few days before his death in 1912: "Sunday, March 18. - To-day, lunch, we are 21 miles from the depot. Ill fortune presses, but better may come. We have had more wind and drift from ahead yesterday; had to stop marching; wind N.W., force 4, temp. -35. No human being could face it, and we are worn out nearly." (From Huxley (ed.) 1913.) Although a man in such extreme distress might be excused for getting his verb forms mixed up, this example, together with the one from Galsworthy, may suggest that the combination of the present perfect and a clear past-time specifier was felt to be less objectionable at the beginning of the 20th century than it is today. 148 In a brief reference to the English present perfect in the introductory chapter of Trudgill (ed.) (1978) the editor maintains that a development in the opposite direction is under way, i.e. that the present perfect is gaining ground at the expense of the preterite, "increasing numbers of speakers" using constructions like "He's played for us last year.". Trudgill refers to informal observations made by "a number of British linguists" (Trudgill (ed.) 1978: 13). It is not clear what the basis for these informal observations may be, although it would not be surprising if dialectal variation occurred in this as in so many other areas of language usage. 149 See Schmidt (1993), who concludes that the authorship of The Equatorie must be considered uncertain. 150 Of course, many of the constructions without any inflectional ending on the participle are ones where no ending would appear even if case/gender/number concord was enforced. 151 009 015 is the only construction in HISTCORP with AGAN classified as the present perfect. Whitelock's translation suggests that she, too, sees this as an instance of the present perfect. Like several other constructions, however, especially in the early sections of HISTCORP, this is open to an alternative reading, in this case with AGAN as main verb and the participle as object complement. 152 The tables list the preterite subjunctive separately. As can be seen from the examples, some of the recorded perfect constructions similarly have subjunctive auxiliaries. In the tables these are not distinguished from the corresponding indicative constructions. 153 Kytö (forthcoming) examines the distribution of HAVE and BE particularly in intransitive constructions in a varied corpus extending from late Middle to fairly late Modern English.

Notes

379

154 W/îew-clauscs are by far the most numerous type of temporal-clause specifier. Temporal «'nce-clauses, for example, have a much lower frequency of occurrence. 155 This is one of the distinctions where clear objective criteria are lacking, so that a certain degree of arbitrariness in the classification must be allowed for. 156 Whereas many of our comparisons in Chapter 3 were confined to main clauses, we shall generally cite figures for all clause types combined in this chapter, because of the smaller number of constructions included from each period/variety of HISTCORP. 157 It should be borne in mind that this is another distinction not based on any clear objective criteria, so that a certain degree of arbitrariness in the classification is again unavoidable. 158 In Chapter 3 we also considered the use of the preterite with the adverbs already and yet to refer to time orientated towards the present (as in "Did you do it yet?"), sometimes claimed to be common in colloquial American English (see sections 3.3.6.2 and 3.4.4). Not a single precursor of the preterite construction with already and yet was recorded in the whole of HISTCORP: all the already/yet constructions occurring there have either the present perfect or a modal verb phrase. 159 In a comparison of the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite in these constructions in the whole of HISTCORP and in all constructions with similar temporal reference, χ 2 = 56.7565, ρ < 0.001. 160 During the coding of both HISTCORP and CONTCORP an attempt was made also to record the various kinds of indirect anchoring, although it was acknowledged that decisions about whether to recognise any such anchoring would to some extent, and to a larger extent than with other classifications, be arbitrary. The figures that were recorded corroborate the assumption that the proportion of indirect anchoring is largely stable relative to the proportion of constructions taking overt specification. 161 The proportion of verb forms expressing new time made up of unspecified preterites in CONTAmE is significantly different from that in 1750-1800AmE (χ2 = 18.0436, ρ < 0.001), and also from that in CONTBrE ( χ 2 = 15.2677, ρ < 0.001). 162 It is noteworthy that the proportion of all clauses made up of main clauses is lower in all periods/varieties of HISTCORP than it is in CONTCORP. The development from 1750-1800 to the present day is striking, in both British and American English: in the former the percentage of main clauses increases from 45.8 to 61.8, in the latter from 52.6 to 68.4. The figures may suggest that the language has recently moved in the direction of a much simpler syntactic structure in terms of clause levels: today roughly two-thirds of all clauses are main clauses, whereas 200 years ago only about half of all clauses were main clauses. In his investigation of the syntactic structure of four of the text categories of BUC, Ellegârd (1978: 28-30) reports proportions of main clauses varying from

380

163

164

165 166

167

168

169

170 171 172

Notes 49 to 61 per cent, with an average of 53.6 per cent, which is not remarkably different from the figures recorded for HISTCORP. A possible explanation for the discrepancy between Ellegârd's figures and the ones recorded for CONTCORP may be different definitions of the concept "clause". It should be borne in mind, of course, that only relative clauses with preterite and/or perfect verbs were coded during the analysis of our corpus. The recorded figures do not, therefore, say anything about constructions which contain relative clauses with other verb forms. Table 4.22 gives the figures for all clauses irrespective of voice. However, the underlying figures show that the trends for the distribution between the present perfect and the preterite recorded in this table hold even if the comparison is confined to active clauses. It will be recalled that constructions with an adverb or adverb phrase occurring after a copular verb were analysed as SVC during the coding of our corpus. In Chapter 3 some connection was noted between subject type and negation (and also interrogation, but that is less relevant to the distinctions made here). However, the trends recorded in Table 4.23 hold even if the comparison is limited to positive constructions. On the difficulties involved in distinguishing the stative passive from subjectcomplement constructions, particularly relevant to the passive present perfect construction with BE, see our discussion in the passive section in Chapter 3 (3.3.13.7) and in section 4.2.3 of this chapter. The differences between the present perfect and the preterite recorded in the two sections from CONTCORP are statistically significant in both cases. CONTBrE: χ2 = 12.9887, ρ < 0.001; CONTAmE: χ2 = 4.8477, ρ < 0.05. It should be recalled that we use the term "active" of all constructions which are not passive, including intransitive and other constructions to which the active/passive opposition is irrelevant. The ratios appear in tables given earlier on in this chapter, i.e. Tables 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24 and 4.25. Semi-negative constructions are disregarded in this comparison. The same factors might be expected to affect not only the present perfect but also the pluperfect, although the pluperfect auxiliary had may not be quite so susceptible to phonetic reduction in everyday speech as have/has. It is also debatable whether the functional distinction between the pluperfect and the preterite can be said to be so blurred in present-day English as that between the present perfect and the preterite has become. As could be seen from Table 4.4, the proportion of pluperfect forms (with HAVE) drops by more than half over the past two centuries in American English (from 5.4 to 2.5 per cent), while there is a slight increase in British English during the same period (from 4.8 to 5.2 per cent). The development in American English is statistically significant at the 0.1% level (χ2 = 12.6091), that in British English is not statistically significant ( χ 2 = 0.1094).

References Allen, Robert L. 1966 The verb system of present-day American English. (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 24.) The Hague: Mouton. Allerton, David J. 1978 "The notion of 'givenness' and its relation to presupposition and to theme", Lingua 44: 133-168. Allwood, Jens - Lars-Gunnar Andersson - Osten Dahl 1979 Logic in linguistics. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, John M. 1973a An essay concerning aspect. (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 167.) The Hague: Mouton. 1973b "On existence and the perfect", Foundations of Language 10: 333-337. Anderson, John M. - Charles Jones (eds.) 1974 Historical linguistics 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Anderson, Lloyd B. 1982 "The 'perfect' as a universal and as a language-particular category", in: Paul J. Hopper (ed.), 227-264. Aqvist, Lennart 1976 "Formal semantics for verb tenses as analyzed by Reichenbach", in: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), 229-236. 1978 "On the distinction between the present perfect and the simple past in English", in: Christian Rohrer (ed.), 37-^18. Bach, Emmon 1980 "Tenses and aspect as functions on verb-phrases", in: Christian Rohrer (ed.), 19-37. 1981 "On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics", in: Peter Cole (ed.), 63-81. Bach, Emmon - Robert Thomas Harms (eds.) 1968 Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bache, Carl 1982 "Aspect and Aktionsart: towards a semantic distinction", Journal of Linguistics 18: 57-72. 1985 Verbal aspect: A general theory and its application to present-day English. (Odense University Studies in English 8.) Odense: Odense University Press. Baker, Carl Lee 1989 English syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Baker, Gordon P. - Peter M.S. Hacker, 1984 Language, sense and nonsense: A critical investigation into modern theories of language. Oxford: Blackwell.

382

References

Barber, Charles 1993 The English language: A historical introduction. (Cambridge approaches to linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barense, Diane D. 1980 Tense structure and reference: A first-order non-modal analysis. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua 1954 "Indexical expressions", Mind 63: 359-379. [Reprinted in Bar-Hillel 1970: 69-88.] 1970 Aspects of language: Essays and lectures on philosophy of language, linguistic philosophy and methodology of linguistics. Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Bauer, Gero 1970a "The English 'perfect' reconsidered", Journal of Linguistics 6: 189-198. 1970b Studien zum System und Gebrauch der 'Tempora' in der Sprache Chaucers und Gowers. Vienna - Stuttgart: Braumüller. Bäuerle, Rainer 1979 "Tense logics and natural language", Synthese 40: 225-230. Bäuerle, Rainer - Urs Egli - Arnim von Stechow (eds.) 1979 Semantics from different points of view. Berlin: Springer. Bennett, Michael 1981 "Of tense and aspect: One analysis", in: Philip J. Tedeschi - Annie Zaenen (eds.), 13-29. Bennett, Michael - Barbara Hall Partee 1978 Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Benveniste, Emile 1968 "Mutations of linguistic categories", in: Winfred P. Lehmann - Yakov Malkiel (eds.), 83-94. 1971 Problems in general linguistics. Translated by M.E. Meek. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press. [French edition 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard] Biber, Douglas 1987 "A textual comparison of British and American writing", American Speech 62: 99-119. Bierwisch, Manfred - Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.) 1970 Progress in Linguistics: A collection of papers. (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 43.) The Hague: Mouton. Breivik, Leiv Egil - Arnoldus Hille - Stig Johansson (eds.) 1989 Essays on English language in honour of Bertil Sundby. Oslo: Novus. Bronckart, Jean-Paul - Hermine Sinclair 1973 "Time, tense and aspect", Cognition 2, 1: 107-130.

References

383

Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. 1970 Tense in the novel: An investigation of some potentialities of linguistic criticism. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Brunner, Karl 1962 Die englische Sprache: Ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung 2: Die Flexionsformen und ihre Verwendung. (2nd edition.) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1963 An outline of Middle English grammar. Translated by Grahame K.W. Johnston. Oxford: Blackwell. [1st German edition 1938. Abriß der mittelenglischen Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.] Bryan, W.F. 1936 "The preterite and the perfect tense in present-day English", Journal of English and German Philology 35: 363-82. Caie, Graham - Kirsten Haastrup - Arnt Lykke Jakobsen - J0rgen Erik Nielsen J0rgen Sevaldsen - Henrik Specht - Arne Zettersten (eds.) 1990 Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies. Vols. 1-2. Copenhagen: Department of English, University of Copenhagen. Cann, Ronnie 1993 Formal semantics: An introduction. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caro, G. 1896 "Zur Lehre vom altenglischen Perfectum", Anglia 18: 389^449. 1899 "Das englische Perfectum und Praeteritum in ihrem Verhältnis zu einander historisch untersucht", Anglia 21: 56-88. Chafe, Wallace L. 1970 Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chambers, Robert W. - Marjorie Daunt (eds.) 1931 A book of London English 1384-1425. Oxford: Clarendon. [Reprinted 1967.] Charleston, Britta Marian 1941 Studies on the syntax of the English verb. Bern: A. Francke. Chaucer, Geoffrey 1951 The Canterbury Tales. Translated into Modern English by Nevill Coghill. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Chomsky, Noam 1957 Syntactic structures. (Janua Linguarum 4.) The Hague: Mouton. 1970 "Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation", in: Roman Jakobson - Shigeo Kawamoto (eds.), 52-91. Christophersen, Paul - Arthur O. Sandved 1969 An advanced English grammar. London: Macmillan. Chung, Sandra - Alan Timberlake 1985 "Tense, aspect and mood", in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), 202-258.

384

References

Clifford, John E. 1975 Tense and tense logic. (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 215.) The Hague: Mouton. Cohen, David (ed.) 1974 Explaining linguistic phenomena. New York: Wiley. Cole, Peter (ed.) 1981 Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Cole, Peter - Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) 1975 Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York - London: Seminar Press. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981 "On Reichenbach's approach to tense", in: Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago): 24-30. 1985 Tense. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986 "Tense and time reference: From meaning to interpretation in the chronological structure of a text", Journal of Literary Semantics 15: 12-22. Costa, Rachel 1972 "Sequence of tenses in that-clauses", in: Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago): 41-51. Crystal, David 1966 "Specification and English tenses", Journal of linguistics 2: 1-34. Dahl, Osten 1974 "Some suggestions for a logic of aspects", in: Gunnar Jacobsson (ed.), 21-35. 1985 Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Darden, Bill J. 1968 "Is the English perfect an embedded past? A statement from the devil's advocate", in: Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago): 14—21. Davenport, Michael - Erik Hansen - Hans Frede Nielsen (eds.) 1983 Current topics in English historical linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Odense: Odense University Press. Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels 1990 Tense and mood in English: A comparison with Danish. (Topics in English linguistics 1.) Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Declerck, Renaat 1979 "Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction", Linguistics 17: 761-794.

References 1986

385

"From Reichenbach (1947) to Comrie (1985) and beyond: Towards a theory of tense", Lingua 70: 305-364. 1991 Tense in English. London - New York: Routledge. Defromont, Hubert J. 1973 Les constructions perfectives du verbe anglais contemporain: Etude comparée de l'aspect transcendant dans les systèmes verbaux anglais et français. (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 185.) The Hague: Mouton. Denison, David 1993 English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London - New York: Longman. Dietrich, Gerhard 1955 Erweiterte Form, Präteritum und Perfektum im Englischen: Eine Aspektund Tempusstudie. Munich: Max Hueber. Dijk, Teun A. van (ed.) 1976 Pragmatics of language and literature. (North-Holland Studies in Theoretical Poetics 2.) Amsterdam: North-Holland. Dinsmore, John 1981 "Tense choice and time specification in English", Linguistics 19: 475^494. 1982 "The semantic nature of Reichenbach's tense system", Glossa 16: 216-239. Diver, William 1963 "The chronological system of the English verb", Word 19: 141-181. Dowty, David R. 1979 Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. (Synthese Language Library.) Dordrecht: Reidel. 1986 "The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics?", in: David R. Dowty (ed.), 37-61. Dowty, David R. (ed.) 1986 Tense and aspect in discourse (=Linguistics and Philosophy 9). Dubois, Betty Lou 1972 The meanings and the distribution of the perfect in present-day American English writing. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico. Distributed by University Microfilms International 1980.) Ann Arbor - London. Dusková, Libuse 1976 "On some differences in the use of the perfect and the preterite between British and American English", Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 5: 53-68. Ehrich, Veronika - Heinz Vater (eds.) 1988 Temporalsemantik: Beiträge zur Linguistik der Zeitreferenz. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Einenkel, Eugen 1916 Geschichte der englischen Sprache 2: Historische Syntax. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.

386

References

Ellegârd, Alvar 1978 The syntactic structure of English texts: A computer-based study of four kinds of text in the Brown University Corpus. (Gothenburg Studies in English 43.) Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Elsness, Johan 1981 "On the syntactic and semantic functions of iAaf-clauses", in: Stig Johansson - Bj0rn Tysdahl (eds.), 281-303. 1982 "That v. zero connective in English nominal clauses", ICAME News (published by the Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities, Bergen) 6: 1-45. 1984a "That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English", English Studies 65: 519-533. (Editor's correction in English Studies 66: 168.) 1984b "The preterite and the perfect in BBC news bulletins: The case for a text linguistic approach", in: Hákan Ringbom - Matti Rissanen (eds.), 159-171. 1989 "The English present perfect: Has it seen its best days?", in: Leiv Egil Breivik - Arnoldus Hille - Stig Johansson (eds.), 95-106. 1990 "The present perfect in American and British English: Some results from an elicitation test", in: Graham Caie et al. (eds.), 1: 169-178. Enç, Mürvet 1987 "Anchoring conditions for tense", Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633-657. Feigenbaum, Irwin 1978 The use of the perfect in an academic setting: A study of types and frequencies. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Distributed by University Microfilms International 1985.) Ann Arbor. Fenn, Peter 1987 A semantic and pragmatic examination of the English perfect. Tiibingen: Narr. Fillmore, Charles J. - D. Terence Langendoen (eds.) 1971 Studies in linguistic semantics. New York. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1984 Historical syntax. (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 23.) Berlin: Mouton. Fleischman, Suzanne 1985 "Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrative: Toward a theory of grounding", Linguistics 23: 851-882. Flier, Michael S. (ed.) 1983 American contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists I: Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Flier, Michael S. - Alan Timberlake (eds.) 1985 The scope of Slavic aspect. (UCLA Slavic Studies 12.) Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.

References

387

Francis, W. Nelson - Henry Kucera 1979 Manual of information to accompany a Standard Sample of Present-day Edited American English, for use with digital computers. (3rd edition.) Providence. [1st edition 1964, 2nd edition 1971.] 1982 Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fridén, Georg 1948 Studies on the tenses of the English verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare: With special reference to the late sixteenth century. Upsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln. Givón, Talmy 1979a On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press. 1979b "From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy", in: Talmy Givón (ed.), 81-112. 1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy (ed.) 1979 Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Seminar Press. Görlach, Manfred 1991 Introduction to early modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [German edition 1978. Einführung ins Friihneuenglische. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.] Graf, Adolf 1888 Das Perfectum bei Chaucer: Eine syntaktische Untersuchung. Kiel: Frankenhausen. Greenbaum, Sidney 1977 "Judgments of syntactic acceptability and frequency", Studia Linguistica 31: 83-105. Greenbaum, Sidney - Geoffrey N. Leech - Jan Svartvik (eds.) 1980 Studies in English linguistics: For Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. Greenbaum, Sidney - Randolph Quirk 1970 Elicitation experiments in English: Linguistic studies in use and attitude. London: Longman. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1979 "Rethinking linguistics diachronically", Language 55: 275-290. Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) 1978 Universals of human language 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grice, H. Paul 1975 "Logic and conversation", in: Peter Cole - Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), 41-58. Guenthner, Franz - Chistian Rohrer (eds.) 1978 Studies informal semantics: Intensionality, temporality, negation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

388

References

Halliday, Michael A.K. 1985 An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Harris, John 1984 "Syntactic variation and dialect divergence", Journal of Linguistics 20: 303-327. 1991 "Conservatism versus substratal transfer in Irish English", in: Peter Trudgill - J.K. Chambers (eds.), 191-212. Harris, Martin B. 1984 "On the strengths and weaknesses of a typological approach to historical syntax", in: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 183-197. Haugen, Einar 1972 "The inferential perfect in Scandinavian: A problem of contrastive linguistics", Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17, 2: 132-139. Heinämäki, Orvokki 1978 Semantics of English temporal connectives. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Heny, Frank 1979 "Introduction", in: Frank Heny - Helmut S. Schnelle (eds.), 1-19. Heny, Frank - Helmut S. Schnelle (eds.) 1979 Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table. New York: Academic Press. Hinrichs, Erhard 1981 "Temporale Anaphora im Englischen". Unpublished, University of Tiibingen. 1986 "Temporal anaphora in discourses of English", in: David R. Dowty (ed.), 63-82. Hirtle, Walter H. 1967 The simple and progressive forms: An analytical approach. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval. Hiz, Henry 1969 "Referentials", Semiotica 1: 136-166. Hock, Hans Henrich 1991 Principles of historical linguistics. (2nd, revised edition.) [1st edition 1986.] Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hockett, Charles F. 1958 A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. [2nd edition 1969. Toronto: Macmillan] Hoffmann, Gerhard 1934 Die Entwicklung des umschriebenen Perfektums im Altenglischen und Frühmittelenglischen. Breslau: Herman Eschenhagen. Hofland, Knut - Stig Johansson 1982 Word frequencies in British and American English. Bergen: The Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.

References

389

Hogg, Richard M. (ed.) 1992 The Cambridge history of the English language 1: The beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holt, Jens 1943 Etudes d'aspect. (Acta Jutlandica 15.) Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Hopper, Paul J. 1979a "Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language", Studies in Language 3: 37-64. 1979b "Aspect and foregrounding in discourse", in: Talmy Givón (ed.), 213-242. 1982 "Aspect between discourse and grammar: An introductory essay for the volume", in: Paul J. Hopper (ed.), 3-18. Hopper, Paul J. (ed.) 1982 Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. - Sandra A. Thompson 1980 "Transitivity in grammar and discourse", Language 56: 251-299. Hopper, Paul J. - Elizabeth Closs Traugott 1993 Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornstein, Norbert 1977 "Towards a theory of tense", Linguistic Inquiry 8, 3: 521-557. 1981 "The study of meaning in natural language: Three approaches to tense", in: Norbert Hornstein - David Lightfoot (eds.), 116-151. 1990 As time goes by: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Hornstein, Norbert - David Lightfoot (eds.) 1981 Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman. Huddleston, Rodney 1969 "Some observations on tense and deixis in English", Language 45: 7 7 7 806. Hudson, Anne (ed.) 1978 English Wyclifßte writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hüllen, Werner 1987 "On denoting time in discourse", in: James Monaghan (ed.), 15-23. Huxley, Leonard (ed.) 1913 Scott's last expedition. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Inoue, Kyoko 1975 "Studies in the perfect". (Ph.D. dissertation.) University of Michigan. 1979 "An analysis of the English present perfect", Linguistics 17: 561-589. Jacobson, Sven 1980 "Some English verbs and the contrast incompletion/completion", in: Sidney Greenbaum - Geoffrey N. Leech - Jan Svartvik (eds.), 50-64.

390

References

Jacobson, Sven (ed.) 1983 Papers from the Second Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Jacobsson, Gunnar (ed.) 1974 Göteborg contributions to the Seventh International Congress of Slavists. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Jakobson, Roman 1971 "Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb", in: Selected writings 2: Word and language (The Hague): 130-147. Jakobson, Roman - Shigeo Kawamoto (eds.) 1970 Studies in general and oriental linguistics presented to Shirô Hattori on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Tokyo: TEC. Jespersen, Otto 1924 The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. 1931 A modern English grammar on historical principles 4. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1933 Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. Johansson, Stig 1979 "American and British English grammar: An elicitation experiment", English Studies 60: 195-215. Johansson, Stig - Eric Atwell - Roger Garside - Geoffrey N. Leech 1986 The tagged LOB Corpus: Users' manual. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. Johansson, Stig - Knut Hofland 1989 Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar. Vols. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon. Johansson, Stig - Geoffrey N. Leech - Helen Goodluck 1978 Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo. Johansson, Stig - Per Lysvág 1986 Understanding English grammar 1: An overview. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Johansson, Stig - Bj0rn Tysdahl (eds.) 1981 Papers from the First Nordic Conference for English Studies. Oslo: Institute of English Studies, University of Oslo. Joos, Martin 1964 The English verb: Form and meanings. [2nd edition 1968.] Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Kaluza, Henryk 1976 "The English present perfect and the past simple", Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 23: 315-322.

References

391

Kamp, Hans 1979 "Events, instants and temporal reference", in: Rainer Bäuerle - Urs Egli Arnim von Stechow (eds.), 376^-17. Karttunen, Lauri 1969 "Pronouns and variables", in: Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago): 108-116. 1974 "Presupposition and linguistic context", Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181-194. Kempson, Ruth M. 1977 Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenny, Anthony 1963 Action, emotion, and will. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kilby, David 1984 Descriptive syntax and the English verb. London: Croom Helm. King, Larry D. 1983 "The semantics of tense, orientation, and aspect in English", Lingua 59: 101-154. Kiparsky, Paul 1968a "Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax", Foundations of language 4: 30-57. 1968b "Linguistic universals and linguistic change", in: Emmon Bach - Robert Thomas Harms (eds.), 170-202. 1980 "Concluding statement", in: Elizabeth Closs Traugott - Rebecca LaBrun Susan Shephard (eds.), 4 0 9 ^ 1 7 . Kiparsky, Paul - Carol Kiparsky 1970 "Fact", in: Manfred Bierwisch - Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.), 143-173. Klein, Wolfgang 1992 "The present perfect puzzle", Language 88: 525-552. Koziol, Herbert 1958 "Zum Gebrauch des Present Perfect und des Past Tense", Die Neueren Sprachen 11: 497-506. Kruisinga, Etsko 1932 A handbook of present-day English 2: English accidence and syntax. [5th edition.] Groningen: Noordhoff. Kucera, Henry 1983 "A semantic model of verbal aspect", in: Michael S. Flier (ed.), 171-184. 1985 "Aspect in negative imperatives", in: Michael S. Flier - Alan Timberlake (eds.), 118-127. Kucera, Henry - W. Nelson Francis 1967 Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press. Kunsmann, Peter - Ortwin Kuhn (eds.) 1981 Weltsprache Englisch in Forschung und Lehre: Festschrift für Kurt Wächtler. Berlin: E. Schmidt.

392

References

Kurylowicz, Jerzy 1964 The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1972 "The role of deictic elements in linguistic evolution", Semiotica 5: 174-183. [Reprinted in Kurylowicz 1975: 121-130.] 1975 Esquisses linguistiques 2. Munich: W. Finck. Kytö, Merja Forth- "BE/HAVE + past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransitives coming from late Middle to Modern English", to appear in Matti Rissanen - Merja Kytö - Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.). Labov, William 1982 "Building on empirical foundations", in: Winfred P. Lehmann - Yakov Malkiel (eds.), 17-92. Lakoff, Robin 1970 "Tense and its relation to participants", Language 46: 838-849. Langacker, Ronald W. 1982 "Remarks on English aspect", in: Paul J. Hopper (ed.), 265-304. Lass, Roger 1987 The shape of English: Structure and history. London: Dent. Lass, Roger (ed.) 1969 Approaches to English historical linguistics: An anthology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1969 Toward a semantic description of English. London: Longman. 1971 Meaning and the English verb. [2nd edition 1987.] London: Longman. 1983 Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1976 "The verb in Indo-European syntax", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5: 214-223. Lehmann, Winfred P. - Yakov Malkiel (eds.) 1968 Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1982 Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983 Pragmatics. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1977 Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lightfoot, David 1979 Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991 How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Löbner, Sebastian 1988 "Ansätze zu einer integralen semantischen Theorie von Tempus, Aspekt und Aktionsarten", in: Veronika Ehrich - Heinz Vater (eds.), 163-191.

References

393

Lyons, John 1968 Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977 Semantics. Vols. 1-2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979 "Deixis and anaphora", in: Terry Myers (ed.), 88-103. 1981a Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981b Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana. McCawley, James D. 1971 "Tense and time reference in English", in: Carles J. Fillmore - D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), 96-113. 1981a "Notes on the English present perfect", Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 81-90. 1981b Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McCoard, Robert W. 1978 The English perfect: Tense-choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam New York - Oxford: North-Holland. McMahon, April M.S. 1994 Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marshall, Helaine W. 1981 "Tracing a syntactic change using a closely related syntactic constraint", in: David Sankoff - Henrietta Cedergren (eds.), 387-392. Matthews, Richard 1987 "Present perfect tenses: Towards an integrated functional account", in: Alfred Schöpf (ed.), 111-176. Matthiessen, Christian 1983 "Choosing primary tense in English", Studies in Language 7: 369^429. Meyer, Matthias 1992 Das englische Perfekt: Grammatischer Status, Semantik und Zusammenspiel mit dem Progressive. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Michaelis, Laura A. 1994 "The ambiguity of the English present perfect", Journal of Linguistics 30: 111-158. Mitchell, Bruce 1985 Old English syntax 1: Concord, the parts of speech, and the sentence. Oxford: Clarendon. Moens, Marc - Mark Steedman 1988 "Temporal ontology and temporal reference", Computational Linguistics 14, 2: 15-28. Monaghan, James (ed.) 1987 Grammar in the construction of texts. (Open Linguistics Series.) London: Pinter.

394

References

Montague, Richard 1974

Formal philosophy: Selected papers. Edited by Richard H. Thomason. New Haven: Yale University Press. Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960 A Middle English syntax 1: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Myers, Terry (ed.) 1979 The development of conversation and discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Nakhimovsky, Alexander 1988 "Aspect, aspectual class, and the temporal structure of narrative", Computational Linguistics 14, 2: 29-43. Nehls, Dietrich 1978 "The system of tense and aspect in English: A structural-functional approach", in: Dietrich Nehls (ed.), 45-62. Nehls, Dietrich (ed.) 1978 Studies in descriptive English grammar. (Studies in descriptive linguistics 1.) Heidelberg: Groos. Nerbonne, John A. 1986 "Reference time and time in narration", in: David R. Dowty (ed.), 83-95. Ota, Akira 1963 Tense and aspect of present-day American English. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Palmer, Frank R. 1965 A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longman. 1974 The English verb. [2nd edition 1987.] London: Longman. Partee, Barbara Hall 1973 "Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English", Journal of Philosophy 70: 601-609. 1984 "Nominal and temporal anaphora", Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 243-286. Peirce, Charles S. 1940 The philosophy of Peirce: Selected writings. Edited by Justus Buchler. London: Kegan Paul. Pickbourn, James 1789 A dissertation on the English verb. [Reprinted 1968. Menston: Scolar Press.] Poutsma, Hendrik 1926-1929 Λ grammar of late Modern English for the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. Groningen: Noordhoff. Prior, Arthur N. 1967 Past, present and future. Oxford: Clarendon. 1968 Time and tense. Oxford: Clarendon. Quirk, Randolph - Sidney Greenbaum - Geoffrey N. Leech - Jan Svartvik 1972 A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. 1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

References

395

Quirk, Randolph - Charles Leslie Wrenn 1955 An Old English grammar. London: Methuen. Rainer, Eva Maria 1989

Das Perfekt im Spätmittel- und Frühneuenglischen: eine Frequenz- und Funktionsanalyse anhand von Brieftexten. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Reichenbach, Hans 1947 Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan. Ringbom, Hâkan - Matti Rissanen (eds.) 1984 Proceedings from the Second Nordic Conference for English Studies. Abo: Abo Akademi. Rissanen, Matti - Merja Kytö - Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.) Forth- English in transition: Diachronic corpus studies in variation. coming Rohrer, Christian (ed.) 1978 1980

Papers on tense, aspect and verb classification. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Time, tense and quantifiers: Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Romaine, Suzanne 1983 "Syntactic change as category change by re-analysis and diffusion: Some evidence from the history of English", in: Michael Davenport - Erik Hansen - Hans Frede Nielsen (eds.), 9-27. Ross, John R. 1969 "Auxiliaries as main verbs", in: William Todd (ed.), 77-102. Ruin, Inger 1970 A study of the function of the present perfect tense in the English tense system. (Stockholm Theses in English 1.) Stockholm: Stockholm University. 1976 "On the semantics of tense in English", Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology, New Series, 5: 17-36. 1983 "Tense variation in fiction", in: Sven Jacobson (ed.), 169-176. Rydén, Mats - Sverker Brorström 1987 The Be/Have variation with intransitives in English: With special reference to the Late Modern period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Salkie, Raphael 1989 "Perfect and pluperfect: What is the relationship?", Journal of Linguistics 25: 1-34. Samuels, Michael L. 1963 "Some applications of Middle English dialectology", English Studies 44: 81-94. [Reprinted in Roger Lass (ed.) 1969: 404-418.] 1972 Linguistic evolution, with special reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

396

References

Sankoff, David - Henrietta Cedergren (eds.) 1981 Variation omnibus. (Current Inquiry into Language, Linguistics and Human Communication 40.) Carbondale, 111.: Linguistic Research. Saurer, Werner 1984 A formal semantics of tense, aspect and Aktionsarten. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Saussure, Ferdinand de 1916 Cours de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Payot. [English translation by W. Baskin 1959. Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.] Schiffrin, Deborah 1981 "Tense variation in narrative", Language 57: 45-62. Schmidt, Kari Anne Rand 1993 The authorship of The Equatorie of the Planetis. Cambridge: Brewer. Schöpf, Alfred 1987 "The past tense in English", in: Alfred Schöpf (ed.), 177-220. Schöpf, Alfred (ed.) 1987 Essays on tensing in English I: Reference time, tense and adverbs. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 1985

Language typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siegel, Sidney 1956 Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha. Smith, Cariota S. 1978 "The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English", Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 43-99. 1980 "Temporal structures in discourse", in: Christian Rohrer (ed.), 355-374. 1983 "A theory of aspectual choice", Language 59: 479-501. 1986 "A speaker-based approach to aspect", in: David R. Dowty (ed.), 97-115. Smith, Neil V. 1981 "Grammaticality, time and tense", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Β 295: 2 5 3 265. Sörensen, Holger Steen 1964 "On the semantic unity of the perfect tense", in: English Studies presented to R.W. Zandvoort on his 70th birthday (Amsterdam): 74—83. Sperber, Dan - Deirdre Wilson 1986 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1970 "Pragmatics", Synthese 22: 272-289.

References

397

Stockwell, Robert P. 1977 "Motivations for exbraciation in Old English", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), 291-314. Strang, Barbara 1968 Modern English structure. London: Edward Arnold. Strawson, P.F. 1950 "On referring", Mind 59: 320-344. [Reprinted in P.F. Strawson 1971: 1 27.] 1971 Logico-linguistic papers. London: Methuen. Svartvik, Jan 1966 On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton. Svartvik, Jan - Randolph Quirk 1980 A corpus of English conversation. Lund: Gleerup. Talmy, Leonard 1978 "Figure and ground in complex sentences", in: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 625-649. Taylor, Barry 1977 "Tense and continuity", Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 199-220. Tedeschi, Philip J. - Annie Zaenen (eds.) 1981 Syntax and semantics 14: Tense and aspect. New York: Academic Press. Tichy, Pavel 1980 "The logic of temporal discourse", Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 343-369. Todd, William (ed.) 1969 Studies in philosophical linguistics 1. Evanston, Illinois: Great Expectations. Tomlin, Rüssel S. 1984 "The treatment of foreground-background information in the on-line descriptive discourse of second language learners", Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 115-142. Tottie, Gunnel 1983 Much about not and nothing: A study of the variation between analytic and synthetic negation in contemporary American English. Lund: Gleerup. 1991 Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego: Academic Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1972 A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1992 "Syntax", in: Richard M. Hogg (ed.), 168-289. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs - Rebecca LaBrun - Susan Shephard (eds.) 1980 Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 4. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 14.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

398

References

Tregidgo, P.S. 1980 "Tense-patterns in conditional sentences", English Language Teaching Journal 34: 186-191. 1984 "How far have we got with the present perfect?", English Language Teaching Journal 38: 286-289. Trnka, Bohumil 1930 On the syntax of the English verb from Caxton to Dryden. (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 3.) Prague. Trudgill, Peter (ed.) 1978 Sociolinguistic patterns in British English. London: Arnold. Trudgill, Peter - J.K. Chambers (eds.) 1991 Dialects of English: Studies in grammatical variation. London: Longman. Twaddell, William Freeman 1963 The English verb auxiliaries. Providence: Brown University Press. [2nd edition 1968.] Vanneck, Gerard 1958 "The colloquial preterite in modern American English", Word 14: 237-242. Vendler, Zeno 1967 Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vennemann, Theo 1974 "Topics, subjects, and word order: from SXV to S VX via TVX", in: John M. Anderson - Charles Jones (eds.), 339-376. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972 On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. Vermant, Stefan 1983 The English present perfect: A dynamic-synchronic approach. (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 32.) Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen. Visser, F. Theodor 1966 An historical syntax of the English language 2: Syntactical units with one verb (continued). Leiden: Brill. 1973 An historical syntax of the English language 3, 2: Syntactical units with two and with more verbs. Leiden: Brill. Vlach, Frank 1981 "The semantics of the progressive", in: Philip J. Tedeschi - Annie Zaenen (eds.), 271-292. Wallace, Stephen 1982 "Figure and ground: The interrelationships of linguistic categories", in: Paul J. Hopper (ed.), 201-223. Wattie, J.M. 1931 "Tense", Essays and studies 16: 121-143. Webber, Bonnie L. 1988 "Tense as discourse anaphor", Computational Linguistics 14, 2: 61-73.

References

399

Weinrich, Harald 1964 Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt. (Sprache und Literatur 16.) Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1970 "Tense and time", Archivum Linguisticum, New Series 1: 31—41. Werlich, Egon 1983 A text grammar of English. (2nd edition.) Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. [1st edition 1976.] Whitaker, Harry A. 1974 "Is the grammar in the brain?", in: David Cohen (ed.), 75-89. Whitelock, Dorothy (ed.) 1955 English historical documents 1: c. 500-1042. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. 1967 Sweet's Anglo-Saxon reader in verse and prose. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woods, Anthony - Paul Fletcher - Arthur Hughes 1986 Statistics in language studies. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wunderlich, Dieter 1970a Tempus und Zeitreferenz im Deutschen. Munich: Hueber. 1970b "Über Zeitreferenz und Tempus", Linguistische Berichte 6: 1-20. Zandvoort, Reinard W. 1932 "On the perfect of experience", English Studies 14: 11-20. Zieglschmid, A. J. Friedrich 1930a "Concerning the disappearance of the simple past in various Indo-European languages", Philological Quarterly 9: 153-157. 1930b "Der Untergang des einfachen Präteritums in verschiedenen indogermanischen Sprachen", in: Curme volume of linguistic studies (Language Monograph 7, Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore): 169-178. Zimmermann, Rüdiger 1968 Untersuchungen zum Friihmittelenglischen Tempussystem: Perfect, Preterite und Pluperfect um 1200. (Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek 8.) Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Zydatiss, Wolfgang 1978 "'Continuative' and 'resultative' perfects in English?", Lingua 44: 339-362. 1981 "Grammatisch-semantische und pragmatisch-funktionale Aspekte des Gebrauchs des 'present perfect' in didaktischer Sicht", in: Peter Kunsmann Ortwin Kuhn (eds.), 199-220.

Appendix I. Symbols used in quotations from text categories in CONTCORP made up of transcripts of spoken sources Symbols representing features peculiar to spoken language are used in quotations from: I Face-to-face conversation, taken from Jan Svartvik - Randolph Quirk, A corpus of English conversation (Lund: Gleerup 1980). II Telephone dialogues and monologues, taken from the computer-tape version of texts from the Survey of English Usage. The symbols used in the various versions that texts from the Survey exist in are set out in Svartvik - Quirk (1980: 21-25). As far as possible the symbols used in the source texts are retained in our quotations. For practical, technical reasons some symbols in Svartvik - Quirk (1980) have had to be replaced. They are the symbols for nucleus and booster, which have been replaced by the corresponding symbols used in the computer-tape version that the texts representing telephone dialogues and monologues were taken from. Below the symbols occurring in our quotations are listed, in separate columns in those cases where the symbols differ for the texts representing face-to-face conversation (I) and the telephone texts (II). In the former a lower-case letter is used to' indicate speakers who are aware of the recording, in which case the transcription is usually less detailed. I SPEAKER Speaker identity Speaker continues where he left off Simultaneous talk Contextual comment Incomprehensible words TONE UNIT Onset End of tone unit Subordinate tone unit

II

A >A •yes*

*yes* +yes+ (laughs)

«yes»

((yes))

Λ

II

#

{}

Symbols used in quotations from text categories in CONTCORP

NUCLEUS Fall Rise Level (Rise-)fall-rise (Fall-)rise-fall Fall-plus-rise Rise-plus-fall BOOSTER Continuance Higher than preceding syllable Higher than preceding pitchprominent syllable Very high STRESS Normal Heavy PAUSE Brief pause (of one light syllable) Unit pause (of one stress unit or foot)

\ / V Λ \/ /\

401

Appendix II. Composition

of

CONTCORP

Abbreviations used for text categories in CONTCORP, listed in alphabetical order:

AD AF AS

American drama American fiction (novels) American science

BD BF BS

British drama British fiction (novels) British science

CO

Face-to-face conversation, from Jan Svartvik - Randolph Quirk, A corpus of English conversation (Lund: Gleerup 1980).

DB DC DN

The Daily Mirror, brief notices The Daily Mirror, comment articles The Daily Mirror, news

EN ER

The Economist, news The Economist, book reviews

HB HC HE HN HR

The The The The The

LS LU

Letters, social, intimate, from the Survey of English Usage Letters, business, from the Survey of English Usage

M

Telephone monologues, from the Survey of English Usage

NN NR

Newsweek, news Newsweek, book reviews

RN

BBC radio news bulletins

SA SC SE SR ST

The The The The The

Τ

Telephone dialogues, from the Survey of English Usage

UB UC UE UN

USA USA USA USA

International International International International International

Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday

Today, Today, Today, Today,

Herald Herald Herald Herald Herald

Times, Times, Times, Times, Times,

Tribune, Tribune, Tribune, Tribune, Tribune,

brief notices comment articles editorial articles news book reviews

Atticus comment articles editorial articles book reviews TV review

brief notices comment articles editorial articles news

Composition of CONTCORP

403

TEXTS MAKING UP CONTCORP The texts are listed in the order (I) BRPRINT (i.e. texts representing printed British English), (II) AMPRINT (i.e. texts representing printed American English), (III) NONPRINT (i.e. texts representing non-printed British English). Each text is identified by a code. The letters initiating each code represent the text category as identified in the list below (and also given on p. 402). The figure (in a few cases the digits 0 - 9 are supplemented by other characters) following the letters refers to the number of the text within that text category. The figure in the second column gives the number of verb forms recorded in that particular text category/subcategory/text. Where no reference to pages or other subdivisions is given after the title identifying a text, the entire text was examined.

Text/category code

Number of recorded verb forms

Specification of texts examined

(I) BRPRINT 201

British drama

201

Harold Pinter, The Birthday Party (London: Methuen 1965). From p. 9, beginning of Act One, as far as bottom of p. 31.

401

British fiction (novels)

BFl

201

BF2

200

Graham Greene, Monsignor Quixote (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1983). From p. 11, beginning of Chapter 1, up to and including p. 22, "You were very low in petrol that was easy to remedy, . . . ". Agatha Christie, The Body in the Library (Fontana 1962). From p. 62, beginning of Chapter 6, up to and including p. 69, " ' . . . I threw myself into work' - his voice took on a deeper note, he spoke more to himself than to his audience - 'and, by some subtle irony, everything I did prospered! . . . ' " .

BD BDI

BF

404

Appendix II

Text/category code

BS

Number of recorded verb forms

Specification of texts examined

302

British science

BSl

200

BS2

102

Geoffrey N. Leech, Principles of Pragmatics (London - New York: Longman 1983). From p. 79, beginning of Chapter 4, up to and including p. 188, "The nearest approach I have found to such an unlikely event occurs in this passage from Julius Caesar, Act IV, Scene i: . . . .". John Harris (1984), "Syntactic variation and dialect divergence", Journal of Linguistics 20: 303-327

D

64

The Daily Mirror for 4 January 1985

DN

38

News

1 22 6 1 3 5

P. P. P. P. P. P.

16

Comment

16

P. 2 "Naked cities"

10

Brief notices

DN1 DN2 DN3 DN4 DN5 DN6 DC DC1 DB DB1 DB 2 DB 3 DB4

E

4 2 3 1

364

P. P. P. P.

2 2 2 2 2 2

" 'Beware of Alliance,' warning by Wilson" "Scandal of Α-blast 'guinea pigs' " "Adult jobless hits a record" "Labour's 1985 is 'crucial' " "Kinnock pickets" "More miners go back to work"

11 : "Police chief is cleared" 11: "Tube blaze bill" 11 : "Legionnaires bug kills two" 11 : "Family service"

The Economist for 26 May 1984

Composition of CONTCORP

egory code

EN

Number of recorded verb forms 249

ENI EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5

28 18 38 26 16

EN6 EN7 EN8 EN9 EN.

17 29 27 37 13

ER

115 ERI ER2 ER3 ER4

48 33 17 17

405

Specification of texts examined

News Pp. 11-12: "The Saudis' test" Pp. 12-13: "Fire drill at the summit" Pp. 13-14: "Stopping a run on a bank" Pp. 23-24: "Public sector of discontent" P. 24: "NHS cleaning privatisation: Monopoly is dead, long live cartel?" Pp. 24, 29: "The economy: Not so bad" P. 59: "The latest from Grromyko" P. 60: "Switzerland: Two-to-one Russian vote" Pp. 60, 62: "Sweden: Firm, or Ferm?" P. 62: "Italy: Craxi rules, okay?" Book reviews P. 95: "Mao's manager" Pp. 95-96: "We rob banks" Pp. 96, 99: "Summer song" P. 99: "Everyday Marxist"

S

551

The Sunday

SC

153

Comment

12 33 108

1 July 1984, p. 15: "Inside Politics: Fraternal futility" 1 July 1984, p. 16: "Mirror of change in Fleet Street" 1 July 1984, p. 17: "The Lords' Day"

SCI SC2 SC3 SA SAI SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5

Times

78

Atticus

9 2 29 9 12

24 June 1984, p. 16: "John minus glitter" 24 June 1984, p. 16: "Bear Watch" 24 June 1984, p. 16: "Gossip interruptus" 1 July 1984, p. 16: "He's not a union man" 1 July 1984, p. 16: "Black omens"

406

Appendix II

Text/category code

SA6 SA7 SE SEI SE2 SE3 SE4 SR SRI SR2 SR3 SR4 SR5 ST STI

Number of recorded verb forms

Specification of texts examined

12 5

1 July 1984, p. 16: 'Revelations'' 1 July 1984, p. 16: 'Flight path"

49

Editorial

7 7 23 12

24 June 1984, p. 16: "Miners: hearts and pockets" 24 June 1984, p. 16: "Mondale's mate" 1 July 1984, p. 16: "Competition is the spur" 1 July 1984, p. 16: "Beyond our Ken"

216

Book reviews

113 2 65 25 11

1 1 1 1 1

July July July July July

1984, 1984, 1984, 1984, 1984,

p. p. p. p. p.

41 41 41 41 41

"Educating John" "Switched on stories" "The unbeatable case" "Getting away from it all" "Jilly and the canine question"

55

TV review

55

1 July 1984, p. 50: "Bluestocking with a simple mission"

(II) AMPRINT AD ADI

403

American drama

202

Tennessee Williams, "Sweet Bird of Youth". In Penguin Plays: Tennessee Williams, Sweet Bird of Youth, A Streetcar Named Desire, The Glass Menagerie, edited by E. Martin Browne (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1974). From p. 17, beginning of Act One, up to and including p. 34, "PRINCESS: Not a failure - after that closeup they gasped. - People gasped." [The few perfect/preterite verb forms occurring in the stage direc-

Composition of CONTCORP

Text/category code

AD2

Number of recorded verb forms

201

407

Specification of texts examined

tions of this drama text were not included in the coding.] Edward Albee, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Penguin Plays (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1983). From p. 58, beginning of Act Two, up to and including p. 75, "HONEY: Why, just before we got married, I developed - appendicitis - .".

200

American fiction (novels)

200

Jerome D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye. Penguin Modern Classics (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1969). From p. 11, beginning of Chapter 2, up to and including p. 16, " 'What would you have done in my place?' he said. 'Tell the truth, boy.' ".

291

American science: Brown University Corpus/category J, on computer tape

43 80 168

Text J01 Text J02 Text J15

H

337

The International Herald Tribune for 14 December 1984

ΗΝ

137

News

AF AFI

AS

ASI AS2 AS 3

HNl

52

HN2

61

ΗΝ 3

24

Pp. 1-2: "Pentagon Is Said To Offer Freeze On Military Pay" Pp. 1-2: "East Germany Shifts Priority Away From Ties With Bonn" Pp. 1-2: "U.S. Cuts Off Agency Funds Over Abortion"

408

Appendix II

Text/category code

HC

Number of recorded verb forms

Specification of texts examined

63

Comment

HCl

26

HC2

37

P. 11 : "Hard-Line Repairmen Have Made Things Worse" P. 11: "Suggestion: Try a Peace With Capers"

29

Editorial

14 15

P. 11 : "Compensation for Bhopal" P. 11 : "Upstairs to Arms Control"

31

Book review

31

P. 18: "The Life of Jane Austen"

77

Brief notices

8 12 12 9 5 8 5 18

P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.

HE HEI HE2 HR HRl HB HBl HB 2 HB3 HB 4 HB 5 HB 6 HB7 HB8

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

"Marcos Orders Curbs to Get IMF Loan' "Students Protest at Beijing University" "Sri Lanki Rebuts Gandhi's Charges" "Schroeder to Get Disability Benefits" "U.K. Miners Back New Peace Initiative' "Iran Reports Iraqis Heavily Shelled" "2 Anesthesiologists Freed in Poitiers" "Chinese Aide Found Hanged in N.Y."

Ν

216

Newsweek,

NN

128

News

NR

International edition

NNl NN2

35 33

NN3

60

11 June 1984, pp. 10-11: "Europe's Militant Workers" 11 June 1984, p. 12: "Moscow's Hard Line on the Sakharov Case" 11 June 1984, p. 13: "Saying Yes, and No, to NATO"

88

Book reviews

Composition of CONTCORP

Text/category code

Number of recorded verb forms

NRl NR2

4 3

NR3

47

NR4

6

NR5 NR6

1 27

141

U UN UNI UN2 UN3 UN4 UN5 UN6 UC UCl UE UEl UB UBI UB2 UB3 UB4

Specification of texts examined

10 September 1984, pp. 47, 47B: "Blinding Ideologies" 10 September 1984, pp. 47B, 48A: "Blowing up Britain" 17 September 1984, p. 48: "Wives, Witches and Warriors" 24 September 1984, pp. 49A, 50: "Turning Scripture into Shtik" 24 September 1984, p. 50: "Delirium Tremens" 24 September 1984, p. 51: "Mixing Memory and Desire"

USA Today for 14 December 1984

57

News

14 15 15 3 1 9

P. P. P. P. P. P.

16

Comment

16

P. 6 "Applying moral absolutes works"

14

Editorial

14

P. 6 "South Africa blacks face awful injustice"

54

Brief notices

4 5 5 2

409

P. P. P. P.

1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3

"Bionic Bill to Reagan: Fix my Soc. Sec." "Airline Safety: 95% Pass" "Weinberger 'gives' on spending" "Reagan: Historic cut" "New math: Calculators in kindergarten" "Mail service takes licking; 14Φ post card"

"China: High-ranking Kremlin official to visit" "Mexico: 4 Americans abducted; no trace" "Mauritania: Army deposes absent leader" "El Salvador: New envoy might be in Bolivia"

410

Appendix II

Text/category code

Number of recorded verb forms

UB5 UB6 UB7 UB8

2 3 2 5

UB9 UB. UBUB+

12 4 5 5

Specification of texts examined

P. 3 "U.S. cuts off aid to Planned Parenthood" P. 3 "Also . . . United Nations" P. 3 "Also . . . Beirut, Lebanon" P. 3 : "Civil rights law enforcer defends anti-busing » plan P. 3 "Ferrara campaign notes victim of 'glitch' " P. 3 "Economist derides plan to eliminate council" P. 3 " 'Superfund' cost may exceed $11.7 billion" P. 3 "House panel finds absent firms in contempt"

(III) N O N P R I N T 1630

CO

COI

C02 C03 C04 C05

LS LSI LS2 LS 3 LS4 LS 5 LS 6 LS7

Face-to-face conversation, surreptitiously recorded, from Jan Svartvik - Randolph Quirk, A corpus of English conversation (Lund: Gleerup 1980)

136 239 400 254 601

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 S.I.5 S.2.7

Between Between Between Between Between

intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates/equals

910

Letters, from the paper slips of the Survey of English Usage

602

Social, intimate letters

93 35 46 70 169 83 106

W.7.1 W.7.2 W.7.3 W.7.4 W.7.5 W.7.3 l a W.7.3 l b

Mother to daughter Student (male) to family Letters to friends Student to girlfriend Letters to friends (female) Letters between undergraduates (female) Letters between undergraduates (female)

Composition of CONTCORP

Text/category code

LU LUI LU2 LU3 LU4 LU5

M

MOI M02 M03 M04 M05 M06 M07 M08 M09 MIO Mil M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24

Number of recorded verb forms

411

Specification of texts examined

308

Business letters

86 100 37 52 33

W.7.6 W.7.8 W.7.9 W.7.12 W.7.13

Typed referees' letters Handwritten letters of application Bank-manager to client Consultant to general practitioner Consultant to general practitioner

60

Telephone monologues (recorded on answering machines), from computer-tape version of texts from the Survey of English Usage, S.9.3

1 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 1 11 1 2

S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3

AE AF AG AJ AM AN AU AW AX AZ BA BF BG BH BI BJ BO BQ BT BU BV BX BZ CC

To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To

disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate disparate

412

Appendix II

Text/category code

M25 M26 M27 M28

RN

Number of recorded verb forms 1 1 1 1

573 RNl RN2 RN3 RN4 RN5 RN6 RN7 RN8 RN9 RN. RNRN+

Τ

35 45 53 46 61 53 47 47 47 48 52 39

628

Specification of texts examined

S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3 S.9.3

CD CF CG CI

To To To To

disparate disparate disparate disparate

BBC radio news bulletins: Radio 4, 9:00-9:05 a.m. 9 July 1982 5 October 1982 7 October 1982 19 October 1982 21 October 1982 28 October 1982 2 November 1982 4 November 1982 10 November 1982 12 November 1982 16 November 1982 18 November 1982

Telephone dialogues, from computer-tape version of texts from the Survey of English Usage 4

TOI T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 T07 T08 T09 TIO Til T12 T13

5 17 1 11 6 13 10 27 13 15 1 1 7

S:7.2a S.7.2b S.7.2C S.7.2d S.7.2e S.7.2f S.7.2g S.7.2h S.7.2k S.7.21 S.7.2n S.7.20 S.7.3g

Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between

intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates intimates

Composition of CONTCORP

Text/category code

T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25 T26 T27 T28 T29 T30 T31 T32 T33 T34 T35 T36 T37 T38 T39 T40 T41 T42 T43 T44 T45 T46 T47 T48 T49 T50

Number of recorded verb forms 9 19 26 12 1 2

1 1 4 1 42 41 1 9 5 3 3 17 1 16 4 10 8 6 17 7 133 1 7 3 2

3 10 7 4 9

56

Specification of texts examined

S.7.3h S.7.31 S.8.1a S.8.1b S.8.1e S.8.1f S.8.1h S.8.1Ì S.8.11 S.8.1n S.8.1p S.8.2a S.8.2C

S.8.2e S.8.2f S.8.2g S.8.2h S.8.3b S.8.3d S.8.3e S.8.3f S.8.31 S.8.4a S.8.4C

S.8.4g S.8.4Ì S.8.4J S.9.1C

S.9.1e S.9.1g S.9.1J S.9.1k S.9.1m S.9.2e S.9.2J S.9.2k S.9.21

Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between

intimates intimates equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals equals disparates disparates disparates disparates disparates disparates disparates disparates disparates disparates

413

Appendix III. Composition

ofHISTCORP

The list is arranged in much the same way as that for CONTCORP (cf. Appendix II). In the case of HISTCORP, however, the codes used to identify each text are allnumeric. The first digit indicates the period (plus variety in the case of the period AD 1750-1800) that the text belongs in. The second digit bears some relationship to text category, although text categories are less easy to distinguish consistently in a diachronic corpus. The third digit refers to the number of the text within the particular period(/variety)/text category. As in the case of CONTCORP, the figure in the second column gives the number of coded verb forms.

Period/ category/ text code

0

Number of recorded verb forms

1019 001

71

002

92

003

107

004

203

005

102

Specification of texts examined

Old English "On the State of Learning in England." In Dorothy Whitelock (ed.), Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader in Prose and Verse (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1967), pp. 4-7. "The Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan." In Whitelock (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Reader, pp. 17-22. "Gregory's Pastoral Care." In Henry Sweet (ed.), Early English Text Society, Original Series 45, King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care (London: Oxford University Press 1971), Hatton MS, pp. 23-37 (up to and including " . . . & hine öeah for ôam ealdan treowum forlet."). "¿Elfric's Life of King Oswald." In Whitelock (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Reader, pp. 77-83 (up to and including " . . . and laidde forò mid him J)aer he fundode to"). "The Birth of John the Baptist." In R. Morris (ed.), Early English Text Society, Original Series 63, The Blickling Homilies (London: Oxford University Press 1967), pp. 160-167 (up to and including " . . . J)aet se Haiga Gast swa Jîurh hine be Sánete Iohanne C W Ï [ I " ) .

Composition of HISTCORP

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

006

82

007

201

008

32

009

28

00.

101

1

1018 101

220

102

226

103

129

104

221

105

222

415

Specification of texts examined

"Wulfstan's Address to the English." In Whitelock (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Reader, pp. 85-93. "Alfred's Last Wars with the Danes." In Whitelock (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Reader, pp. 34-40 (up to and including " . . . ealra swijmst mid 3asm asscum |5C hie fela geara aer timbredon."). "The Wanderer." In Whitelock (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Reader, pp. 160-164. "The Seafarer." In Whitelock (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Reader, pp. 165-169. "Beowulf and Grendel's mother." In Whitelock (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Reader, pp. 102-108 (up to and including "Flod blode weol (fole to saegon) hatan heolfre.").

Early Middle English "The Peterborough Chronicle" 1132-1140. In Cecily Clark (ed.), The Peterborough Chronicle 1070-1154 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1958), pp. 54-58 (up to and including " . . . oc aefre |}e mare he iaf heom J)e wasrse hi waeron him."). "Ancrene Wisse." In Jack A.W. Bennett - G. V. Smithers (eds.), Early Middle English Verse and Prose (Oxford: Clarendon 1966), pp. 224-244 (up to and including " . . . oöer 3ette me luue J>e Ich 3irne se swiöe, nawt for min, ah for |)in ahne, muchele biheue."). "Sawles Warde." In Bennett - Smithers (eds.), Early Middle English Verse and Prose, pp. 247-261. The Owl and the Nightingale. Edited by Eric G. Stanley (London: Nelson 1967), pp. 49-78 (up to and including 1. 1019: "He mi3te bet sitte stille"). La3amon's Brut. Edited by G.L. Brook - R.F. Leslie, Early English Text Society, Original Series 250, 277 (London: Oxford University Press 1963-1978), vols. 1-2, MS Cotton Caligula A IX: 11. 1-51, 4999-5037,

416

Appendix III

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

Specification of texts examined

9999-10055, 14999-15042 (pp. 2-Λ, 260-262, 520524, 785-786).

3

1022

30

174

AD 1350-1400 General

301

74

302

100

The Equatorie of the Planetis. Edited by Derek J. Price (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1955), pp. 18-44. Geoffrey Chaucer, A Treatise on the Astrolabe. Edited by Walter W. Skeat, Early English Text Society, Extra Series 16 (repr. London: Oxford University Press 1968), pp. 1-27.

246

London documents

100

"The appeal of Thomas Usk against John Northampton." In Robert W. Chambers - Marjorie Daunt (eds.), A Book of London English 1384-1425 (Oxford: Clarendon 1931 [repr. 1967]), pp. 22-28 (up to and including " . . . a-non after mete kom John Northampton to John Mores hows"). "Proclamations of Nicholas Brembre II: Alia proclamad o de extraneis vitallariis ueniendis & uendendis absque impedimento pisces suos." In Chambers - Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 32-33. "Proclamations of Nicholas Brembre III: No title." In Chambers - Daunt (eds.), London English, p. 33. "A petition of the folk of Mercerye." In Chambers Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 33-37. "Returns of the London guilds I: Gilda Carpentar London ." In Chambers - Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 41-44. "Returns of the London guilds II: Gild of garlickhithe." In Chambers - Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 44— 47.

33 331

332

333

1

334

81

335

7

336

Composition of HISTCORP

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

337

2

338

2

339

13

33.

6

33-

2

33+

22

34

400 341

30

342

36

343

46

344

51

345

41

346

21

347

44

348

20

417

Specification of texts examined

"Returns of the London guilds III: Gild of St. Katherine, Aldersgate." In Chambers - Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 47-50. "Returns of the London guilds IV: The Gild of St. Fabian and Sebastian, Aldersgate." In Chambers Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 50-53. "Returns of the London guilds V: The Gild of the Annunciation and Assumption, St. Paul's." In Chambers Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 53-57. "Returns of the London guilds VI: The Gild of the Holy Trinity, Colman Street." In Chambers - Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 58-60. "Wills I: Testamentum Roberti Corn." In Chambers Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 209-210. "Miscellaneous Documents III: Presentment by a jury." In Chambers - Daunt (eds.), London English, pp. 2 3 3 235. Wycliffite writings "Wyclif's Confessions on the Eucharist." In Anne Hudson (ed.), Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1978), pp. 17-18. "Sixteen Points on which the Bishops accuse Lollards." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 19-24. "Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 24-29. "Sermon on Luke 15.11-32." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 52-56. "Images and Pilgrimages." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 83-88. "The Eucharist I". In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 110-112. "The Eucharist II." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 113-115. "The Nature of the Church." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 115-119.

418

Appendix III

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

349

69

34.

42

Specification of texts examined

"The Duty of the Priesthood." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 119-122. "The Power of the Pope." In Hudson (ed.), Wycliffite Writings, pp. 122-127.

202

Fiction

381

102

382

100

Geoffrey Chaucer, "The Prologue." In Alfred W. Pollard (ed.), Chaucer's Canterbury Tales: The Prologue (London: Macmillan 1969 [1st edition 1903]), pp. 1-6 (up to and including 1. 149). Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde. Edited by John Warrington (London: Dent 1953), pp. 3-10 (up to and including Book I, 27, 1. 4).

38

5

1034

50

303

General

501

100

502

100

Nicholas Harpsfield, "The life and death of Sir Thomas More" [1557], In Elsie V. Hitchcock - Robert W. Chambers (eds.), Early English Text Society, Original Series 186, Harpsfield's Life of More (London: Oxford University Press 1932), pp. 9-15 (up to and including " . . . and thereby was the Bill ouerthrowen."). Richard Hooker, "Of the Laws of Ecclestiastical Polity: The Fyrst Booke, Concerning Lawes, and their severall kindes in generali" [1593], In W. Speed Hill (ed.), The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1977), pp. 5571 (up to and including " . . . which did require at their hands continuance in the exercise of their high and admirable vertue.").

AD 1550-1600

Composition of HISTCORP

Number of recorded verb forms 103

26 3

3 2 3 5 1 3 2 4

419

Specification of texts examined

John Foxe, "Acts and monuments" [1563], In Meyer H. Abrams (ed.), The Norton Anthology of English Literature 1 (New York: Norton 1979), pp. 1011-1013 (up to and including " . . . and such other things as he had about him, to everyone that stood next him."). Essays Francis Bacon, "Of Studies" [1597], In The World's Classics: Essays by Francis Bacon (London: Oxford University Press 1937), pp. 251-252. Francis Bacon, "Of discourse" [1597]. In Essays by Francis Bacon, pp. 253-254. Francis Bacon, "Of Ceremonies and Respect" [1597], In Essays by Francis Bacon, pp. 255-256. Francis Bacon, "Of followers and friends" [1597]. In Essays by Francis Bacon, pp. 257-258. Francis Bacon, "Of Sutes" [1597]. In Essays by Francis Bacon, pp. 259-260. Francis Bacon, "Of Expence" [1597], In Essays by Francis Bacon, pp. 261-262. Francis Bacon, "Of Honour and reputation" [1597]. In Essays by Francis Bacon, pp. 265-266. Francis Bacon, "Of Faction" [1597]. In Essays by Francis Bacon, p. 267. Francis Bacon, "Of Negociating" [1597], In Essays by Francis Bacon, pp. 268-269.

302

Fiction

102

John Lyly, "Euphues - The Anatomy of Wyt". In R. Warwick Bond (ed.), The Complete Works of John Lyly (Oxford: Clarendon 1902), pp. 184-192 (up to and including " . . . or now being aged very supersticious & deuoute aboue measure.").

420

Appendix III

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

582

100

583

100

Specification of texts examined

Philip Sidney, The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia (The Old Arcadia). Edited by Jean Robertson (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1973), pp. 4—9 (up to and including " . . . 'And would you, then', [said he,] 'that in change of fortune I shall not change my determination, as we do our apparel according to the air, and as the ship doth her course with the wind?'"). Thomas Nashe, "The vnfortunate traueller". In Ronald B. McKerrow (ed.), The Works of Thomas Nashe 2 (Oxford: Blackwell 1958), pp. 209-213 (up to and including " . . . as my braine hath welled forth gushing streames of sorrow").

300

Drama

591

100

592

100

593

100

William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar. Edited by Arthur E. Meikle (London: Edward Arnold 1964), pp. 13-33 (up to and including "I can as well be hanged as tell the manner of it; it was mere foolery".). Thomas Kyd, The Spanish Tragedy. Edited by Philip Edwards (London: Methuen 1969), pp. 29-53 (from beginning of Act II up to and including "For these were they that murdered thy son."). Nicholas Udall, "Ralph Roister Doister." In Frederick S. Boas (ed.), Five Pre-Shakespearean Comedies (London: Oxford University Press 1934), pp. 116-131 (up to and including " . . . I did your talk hear.").

59

103

55-1

72

5-2

19

Letters Edmund Spenser, "Letter to Raleigh". In Frank Kermode - John Hollander (eds.), The Oxford Anthology of English Literature 1 (London: Oxford University Press 1973), pp. 665-668. Francis Bacon, "Letter to M. Anthony Bacon, his deare Brother". In The World's Classics: Essays by Francis Bacon (London: Oxford University Press 1937), pp. 247-248.

Composition of HISTCORP

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

5-3

12

Specification of texts examined

Philip Sidney, "To my dear lady and sister the countess of Pembroke". In Jean Robertson (ed.), The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia (The Old Arcadia) (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1973), p. 3.

7

1014

70

203

General

701

101

702

102

David Hume, The Natural History of Religion. Edited by H. E. Root (London 1956), pp. 23-34 (up to and including " . . . and fancied, that he had sufficiently revenged himself by that expedient."). James Harris, Hermes, or a Philosophical Inqviry Concerning Vniversal Grammar ([London 1765] repr. New York 1976), pp. v-65 (up to and including " . . . which Words, as they always stood for Substantives or Nouns, were characterized by the Name of Αντωνυμίαι, or Pronouns").

102

71 711

2

712

12

713

3

AD 1750-1800 British English

Newspapers Universal Daily Register No. 1 (1 January 1785), p. 2: "London I" (beginning "Yesterday their Majesties came from Windsor, . . . " ) . Universal Daily Register No. 1 (1 January 1785), p. 2: "London II" (beginning "The business which brought Mr. Secretary Orde and Mr. Foster, Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Ireland, . . . " ) . Universal Daily Register No. 1 (1 January 1785), p. 2: "London III" (beginning "Three days before Christmas day, a messenger extraordinary from the Court of Petersburgh arrived at the hotel of . . . ").

421

422

Appendix III

Number of recorded verb forms

33

19 4

6 6 7 4

100 42

9 49

207

Specification of texts examined

Universal Daily Register No. 1 (1 January 1785), p. 2: "London IV" (beginning "Lord Grantham arrived in Town on Thursday night: . . . " ) . Universal Daily Register No. 1 (1 January 1785), p. 2: "Guildhall Intelligence" (up to and including " . . . second, that it was shewing too great an indulgence to the prisoner, whom he supposed to be previously instructed in his answers, . . . " ) . The Observer No. 43 (23 September 1792), p. 3: "Foreign Intelligence I" ("Brussels, September 14"). The Observer No. 43 (23 September 1792), p. 3: "Foreign Intelligence II" ("Frankfort, Sept. 8"). The Observer No. 43 (23 September 1792), p. 3: "Foreign Intelligence III" ("Mentz, Sept. 9"). The Observer No. 43 (23 September 1792), p. 3: "Foreign Intelligence IV" ("Deux Ponts"). The Observer No. 43 (23 September 1792), p. 3: "Foreign Intelligence V" ("Maunheim"). The Observer No. 43 (23 September 1792), p. 3: No title (beginning "In Wales much damage has been done by the late excessive rains."). The Observer No. 43 (23 September 1792), p. 3: "Foreign Intelligence VI" ("France"). Essays Samuel Johnson, "The Idler" No. 13, Saturday, 8 July 1758. In W.J. Bate - John M. Bullitt - L.F. Powell (eds.), The Idler and The Adventurer (New Haven London: Yale University Press 1963), pp. 42^-5. Samuel Johnson, "The Idler" No. 14, Saturday, 15 July 1758. In Bate - Bullitt - Powell (eds.), pp. 45^18. Samuel Johnson, "The Idler" No. 16, Saturday, 29 July 1758. In Bate - Bullitt - Powell (eds.), pp. 50-52 (up to and including "His mind has partaken the enlargement of his fortune."). Fiction

Composition of HISTCORP

423

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

781

105

782

102

Henry Fielding, Amelia. Edited by A.R. Humphreys (London: Dent 1974), pp. 3-8 (up to and including " . . . declared with much warmth that the fact was incredible and impossible."). Oliver Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield (London Glasgow: Collins 1953), pp. 33-36 (from beginning of Chapter 3 up to and including "The stranger's conversation, which was at once pleasing and instructive, induced me to wish for a continuance of it; . . . .").

201

Drama

791

101

792

100

Richard B. Sheridan, The School for Scandal. Edited by E.M. Jebb (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1928), pp. 15-22 (up to and including " . . . and the farm-house where the babies were put to nurse."). Edward Moore, The Gamester. Repr. by The Augustan Reprint Society (1948), pp. 421^427 (as far as bottom of the page).

79

201

77-1

25

7-2

60

7-3

16

7-4

23

Specification of texts examined

Letters "Edmund Burke, Esq., to the Marquis of Rockingham", August 21, 1766. In Harold J. Laski (ed.), Letters of Edmund Burke (London: Oxford University Press 1922), pp. 3 8 ^ 0 . "Edmund Burke, Esq., to the Marquis of Rockingham", August 1, 1767. In Laski (ed.), Letters of Edmund Burke, pp. 40^43. "Edmund Burke, Esq., to the Marquis of Rockingham", August 18, 1767. In Laski (ed.), Letters of Edmund Burke, pp. 44-45 (up to and including "I combated this opinion in the best manner I could."). "James Boswell, to Bennet Langton", 14 August 1773. In Charles N. Fifer (ed.), The Yale Editions of the Private Papers of James Boswell: Correspondence 3 (London: Heinemannl976), pp. 32-34.

424

Appendix III

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

7-5

14

7-6

47

7-7

16

Specification of texts examined

"James Boswell, to Bennet Langton", 4 November 1773. In Fifer (ed.), The Private Papers of James Boswell: Correspondence 3, pp. 34—36. "James Boswell, to Bennet Langton", 10 April 1774. In Fifer (ed.), The Private Papers of James Boswell: Correspondence 3, pp. 40-43. "From Bennet Langton to James Boswell", 17 November 1773. In Fifer (ed.), The Private Papers of James Boswell: Correspondence 3, pp. 36-37 (up to and including " . . . to remove any Misunderstanding there might have been on that occasion we are speaking of.").

8

1010

80

202

General

801

102

802

100

Noah Webster, Dissertation on the English Language, etc. ([1789] repr. Menston: Scolar Press 1967), pp. 1742 (up to and including " . . . their languages must have in a great measure lost their affinity to each other."). Benjamin Franklin, Experiments and Observations on Electricity, made at Philadelphia in America (London: Cave 1751), pp. 51-71 (as far as bottom of the page).

81

104 811

5

812

3

813

37

AD 1750-1800 American English

Newspapers The Maryland Journal and the Baltimore Advertiser, Friday, August 20, 1773, p. 2: "New York, August 12". The Maryland Journal and the Baltimore Advertiser, Friday, August 20, 1773, p. 2: "Philadelphia, August 11". The Maryland Journal and the Baltimore Advertiser, Friday, August 20, 1773, p. 2: "Baltimore, August 20".

Composition of HISTCORP

Number of recorded verb forms 13

425

Specification of texts examined

The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Tuesday, September 21, 1784, p. 2: "Philadelphia, Sept. 21".

22 15

100 27

28

19

26

200

The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Tuesday, September 21, 1784, p. 2: "Roseau, July 24". The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Tuesday, September 21, 1784, p. 2: "Newbury Port, Sept. 13 - New York, September 16". The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, Tuesday, September 21, 1784, p. 3: "America, Kingston". Essays Alexander Hamilton, "The Federalist No. 23: An Effective Government" [1787]. In Robert E. Spiller - Harold Blodgett (eds.), The Roots of National Culture: American Literature to 1830 (New York: Macmillan 1949), pp. 4 2 2 ^ 2 5 . James Madison, "The Federalist No. 10: The Control of Faction" [1787], In Spiller - Blodgett (eds.), pp. 433438. William Livingston: "The independent reflector No. 47: Of Credulity" [1753], In Spiller - Blodgett (eds.), pp. 194-197. Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs (1776). From Common Sense". In Sculley Bradley - Richmond Croom Beatty - E. Hudson Long (eds.), The American Tradition in Literature. 3rd, shorter edition (New York: Norton 1967), pp. 167168 (up to and including " . . . to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependent."). Fiction

426

Appendix III

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

881

100

882

100

Hugh Henry Brackenridge, Modern Chivalry. Edited by Claude M. Newlin (New York: American Book Company 1937), pp. 6 - 9 (up to and including " . . . of which he complained much; . . . " ) . Charles Brockden Brown, Wieland or The Transformation ([1798] repr. Philadelphia: David McKay 1887), pp. 34-36 (from beginning of Chapter 2 up to and including "A half hour passed away in this state of suspense.").

202

Drama

891

102

892

100

Samuel Low, "The Politician Outwitted" [1789]. In Montrose Moses (ed.), Representative Plays by American Dramatists 1 (New York: Benjamin Blom 1964), pp. 359-370 (up to and including " . . . that it would have delighted you to see how he twisted his soft features about, with the excruciating anguish."). Royall Tyler, "The Contrast" [1790], In Edwin H. Cady (ed.), Literature of the Early Republic (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1969), pp. 597-604 (up to and including "Now, what good have these books done you?").

89

8-

202 8-1

42

8-2

18

8-3

67

Specification of texts examined

Letters "Jonathan Edwards, Letter to the Trustees of the College of New Jersey at Princeton", Oct. 19, 1757. In Robert E. Spiller - Harold Blodgett (eds.), The Roots of National Culture: American Literature to 1830 (New York: Macmillan 1949), pp. 250-253. "Abigail Adams, Letter to her husband", 19 August, 1774. In Spiller - Blodgett (eds.), The Roots of National Culture, p. 331. "Abigail Adams, Letter to her husband", 14 September, 1774. In Spiller - Blodgett (eds.), The Roots of National Culture, pp. 331-332.

Composition of HISTCORP

Period/ category/ text code

Number of recorded verb forms

8-4

24

8-5

30

8-6

21

427

Specification of texts examined

"George Washington, Letter to Lafayette", April 5, 1783. In Spiller - Blodgett (eds.), The Roots of National Culture, pp. 364-366. "George Washington, Letter to Lafayette", December 8, 1784. In Spiller - Blodgett (eds.), The Roots of National Culture, p. 366. "Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Le Comte de Buffon", Octob. 1, 1787. In Spiller - Blodgett (eds.), The Roots of National Culture, pp. 401^402.

Index of authors

Allen 27, 351; notes 24, 92 Allerton 45 All wood - Andersson - Dahl 58; note 30 Anderson, John M. 18, 20, 27-28; note 17 Anderson, Lloyd B. note 41 Âqvist note 27 Bach 66; notes 23, 38 Bache note 23 Baker 35; note 15 Baker - Hacker note 30 Barber note 2 Barense 61; note 27 Bar-Hillel note 30 Bauer 249; note 15 Bäuerle 58 Bennett note 15 Bennett - Partee note 33 Benveniste 244-245, 346 Biber note 121 Bronckart - Sinclair note 12 Bronzwaer note 8 Brunner 248-249; note 144 Bryan notes 15, 39 Cann notes 22, 29 Caro 249; note 141 Chafe note 22 Chambers - Daunt (eds.) 255 Charleston note 23 Chomsky 16, 32-34, 67; note 17 Christophersen - Sandved note 15 Chung - Timberlake note 12 Clifford note 27 Comrie 17, 67-68, 74, 346; notes 15, 23-24, 27, 90

Costa note 92 Crystal notes 5, 40 Dahl notes 6, 24 Darden note 42 Davidsen-Nielsen note 6 Declerck 69; notes 15, 24, 27, 39 Defromont 2,251,347 Denison 242 Dietrich note 141 Dinsmore note 27 Diver note 39 Dowty 23, 52, 69; note 33 Dubois note 51 Dusková note 135 Einenkel 246, 248 Ellegârd note 162 Elsness notes 79, 87, 93, 131, 137 Enç note 15 Feigenbaum note 55 Fenn notes 41, 81 Fleischman note 20 Francis - Kucera notes 44-46 Fridén 246-248 Givón 1, 30, 46, 75, 238, 346; note 8 Görlach 250 Gräf 249 Greenbaum 216; note 134 Greenbaum - Quirk 216 Greenberg 238-239 Grice 360 Guenthner - Rohrer (eds.) Halliday

30

note 34

Index of authors Harris, John 44; notes 7, 41, 139 Harris, Martin B. 347 Haugen note 6 Heinämäki note 99 Heny note 34 Hinrichs 66; notes 38, 99 Hirtle note 12 Hiz note 34 Hock 240 Hockett 17 Hoffmann 241, 247; note 143 Hofland - Johansson notes 47, 49 Holt 17 Hopper 47, 68; note 22 Hopper (ed.) note 12 Hopper - Thompson 47-48; note 12 Hopper - Traugott note 142 Hornstein 57; note 27 Huddleston 67, 73 Hudson (ed.) 255 Hüllen note 5 Huxley (ed.) note 147 Inoue 33-35, 37, 43, 73, 77, 226, 350, 353; note 18 Jacobson Jakobson Jespersen Johansson Johansson note 45 Johansson 46 Johansson note 44 Johansson Joos 67

note 24 note 12 36, 56, 67, 71, 238 179, 228 - Atwell - Garside - Leech - Hofland

84; notes 44,

- Leech - Goodluck - Lysvâg

18, 67

Kaluza note 39 Kamp 66; note 38 Karttunen 76; note 34 Kempson notes 4, 31

429

Kenny 68 Kilby notes 22, 27, 39 King note 23 Kiparsky 28, 238, 362 Kiparsky - Kiparsky note 92 Klein note 11 Koziol note 15 Kruisinga 67 Kucera note 22 Kucera - Francis note 56 Kurylowicz 346 Kytö note 153 Labov 238 Lakoff note 92 Langacker 52 Lass note 12 Leech 27, 40, 67-68, 74; notes 4, 15-16 Lehmann 67 Lehmann - Malkiel (eds.) 238 Levinson note 4 Lightfoot note 140 Löbner note 23 Lyons 1, 7-8, 15-19, 29, 37, 50, 5859; notes 3, 8, 23, 31 McCawley 27, 32-33, 65, 67, 69, 74-76; notes 8, 15-16, 27, 32-34, 42 McCoard 28, 30, 51; notes 24, 39 McMahon note 140 Marshall note 135 Matthews note 41 Matthiessen note 8 Meyer note 21 Michaelis notes 11, 14 Mitchell 241 Moens - Steedman note 103 Montague note 28 Mustanoja 241, 246-249; note 146 Nakhimovsky note 23 Nehls note 12

430

Index of authors

Nerbonne Ota

note 27

Svartvik note 122 Svartvik - Quirk 98-99; note 5

note 15

Palmer 67 Partee 12, 27, 66, 351; notes 15, 99, 104 Peirce 6 Pickbourn 67 Poutsma 67 Prior 57 Quirk - Greenbaum - Leech Svartvik 18, 25-27; note 22 Quirk - Wrenn 245 Rainer 2 Reichenbach 55-57, 77; note 27 Romaine note 140 Ross 74 Ruin notes 8, 15 Rydén - Brorström 244, 246 Salkie 44 Samuels 255 Saurer note 12 Saussure 237 Schiffrin note 8 Schmidt note 149 Schöpf notes 15, 27 Siegel note 48 Smith, Carlota S. notes 19, 22, 27 Smith, Neil V. note 5 Sörensen note 41 Sperber - Wilson 360 Stalnaker 30; note 4 Stockwell 240 Strang 67 Strawson 31, 62; note 30

Talmy 47 Taylor note 33 Tichy 58 Tomlin note 20 Tottie note 117 Traugott 32, 240-242, 245, 247, 357; note 138 Tregidgo notes 19, 39 Tmka 249 Trudgill (ed.) note 148 Twaddell 67 Vanneck 2,44,225,251 Vendler 50-52, 68, 190; note 22 Vennemann 240 Verkuyl note 22 Vermant note 39 Visser 241, 246, 249-251, 357 Vlach notes 22, 25 Wallace note 20 Wattie 241, 357 Webber note 15 Weinrich 174; note 90 Werlich 49 Whitaker 4 Whitelock (ed.) 252-253, 258, 260; note 151 Woods - Fletcher - Hughes note 133 Wunderlich notes 5, 40 Zandvoort note 41 Zieglschmid 346-347 Zimmermann 249 Zydatiss notes 15, 39

Index of subjects

Adverbials: see "Specification" Aktionsarten 17, 50 already 20-21,25,111,116-118, 131, 224, 228, 231-232, 350, 354 always 24, 121, 132, 223-224, 231, 294-295, 350, 354, 359-360 Amplification 173-174, 234 Anchor 7; passim Anteriority 17-20, 26 Aspect 16-18; passim Aspectual character 50-54, 190-194, 196-197, 199, 213, 215, 235, 317322, 326-327, 331, 343, 346 Assertion 42, 45-47, 221, 351

BE versus HAVE 246-247,271-272 Bounded versus unbounded situations 44, 48, 50-54, 64, 68, 128, 134-135, 146, 149, 171, 173-174, 187, 190191, 193-194, 199, 226, 232, 235, 245, 247, 319-321, 327, 331, 343, 354, 360

Clause structure 195-197, 214, 235, 271, 322-327, 339, 343-346 Clause type 165-190, 233-234, 305316 - Main clauses 47, 165-179, 181, 185, 233-234, 305-308, 313, 316 - Object í/íaí-clauses 144-145, 165166, 175-179, 181, 183-185, 213, 234, 306, 308-310, 316 - Relative clauses 165-166,179-185, 307, 310-313, 316 - WTîerc-clauses 40, 119, 165-166, 185-190, 234, 293, 307-308, 314316

CONTCORP (corpus of contemporary English collected for this study) 96-98; passim Current relevance 2, 11, 34-36, 6774, 78, 134, 150, 193-194, 222-224, 228, 233, 235-236, 321, 343, 352, 354, 356 Definite-past theories 2, 27-31, 67, 351-352, 361-362 Deictic: see under "Specification" Descriptive content 8 Discourse topic 34-39, 43, 47, 73, 77, 350 Elicitation test 4, 96, 115, 118, 122, 125, 215-232, 236, 353-355 ever 24, 121-122, 132, 223-224, 231, 294-295, 350, 354, 359-360 Existential quantifier 63-64, 72, 74, 221 Extensional meaning 7, 59 First-order entities

29, 351, 361

ge- prefix 245-246, 320-321, 347 Generic temporal reference 26, 184, 187, 316 Given versus new time 45-47, 125127, 282-286, 342, 344-345; passim Grounding 47-49, 127, 233 HAVE: see "BE versus HAVE" HISTCORP (corpus of earlier English collected for this study) 254-257; passim Intensional meaning 7, 59-60 Interrogation 135, 139, 199, 204-208, 223-224, 234, 236, 355

432

Index of subjects

just 22, 114-115, 130, 217-218, 228, 231, 350, 353 Minimal sentences/situations 146, 351

42-46,

Negation 63, 72, 78, 103, 116, 139, 144, 201-204, 206-208, 221-223, 234, 236, 332-335, 343-346, 350, 355 never 24, 112, 121-122, 132, 201, 221, 223-224, 231, 294-295, 350, 354, 359-360 New time, expression of when unanchored 146-153, 162, 232-233, 303-305, 354, 358 Non-finite perfect forms 18,101, 104, 264-265, 267-268, 349 Passive: see "Voice" Presupposition 32, 42, 45-47, 76, 351 Proposition 7-8, 29, 32, 34-35, 4547, 58-63, 350 Propositional content 7 Propositional function 59 Quantifier-and-variable analysis 64-65

62,

recently 22, 114, 130, 217-219, 223, 231, 350, 353 Resultative(ness): see "Current relevance" Second-order entities 29 Secondary tense 17-18 Specification 20-27, 111-125, 139140, 223-225, 277-282; passim -Absolute 22-23,112,118-119,124 - Apparently non-temporal 24-25 - By constituent other than subject/object 124-125 - B y object 31,51,124,191,232 - By subject 31, 38-39, 51-52, 112, 123-124, 226, 232, 290, 292, 350

- By temporal clause 112-113, 119121, 277, 279, 281 - Clock-and-calendar 13,22-23, 111113, 124, 118-119 -Deictic 13,20-22,111-116,124, 277-282, 350 -Frequency/length 23-24,112-113, 121-123, 223-224, 277-282, 350, 354 - Relative 20-22, 111-113,116-118, 224-225, 277-280 Strong deixis 8, 10 Subject, realisation type of 197-201, 207-208, 234-235, 327-332, 342-346 Temporal location 128-130, 230-231, 286-289, 342, 344-346; passim Tense 15-16; passim Tense logic 54-66, 74-75, 77-78, 221, 350 Tense-as-constant analysis 62-66 Textual subdivisions 153-165, 272277 Thematic function 45-49, 77, 233 Third-order entities 29, 213 Truth-conditions 7, 10, 58 Truth-value 8, 60 Unique past-time reference 39-44, 77, 145-148, 189, 225-228, 232, 351, 354, 356 Universal quantifier 63-64, 72, 74, 221 Voice 208-215, 235, 335-339, 343346; passim Weak deixis

8, 10

yet 20-21, 25, 111, 116-118, 224225, 228, 231, 350, 354