Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The English Resultative perfect and its relationship to the Experiential perfect and the simple past tense

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A sentence in the Resultative perfect licenses two inferences: (a) the occurrence of an event (b) the state caused by this event obtains at evaluation time. In this paper I show that this use of the perfect is subject to a large number of distributional restrictions that all serve to highlight the result inference at the expense of the event inference. Nevertheless, only the event inference determines the truth conditions of this use of the perfect, the result inference being a unique type of conventional implicature. I argue furthermore that, since the result state is singular, the event that causes it must also be singular, whereas the Experiential perfect is purely quantificational. But in out-of-the-blue contexts the past tense is also normally interpreted as singular. This leads to a certain amount of competition between the Resultative perfect and the past tense, and it is this competition, I suggest, that maintains the conventional (non-truth conditional) result state inference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott B. (2004) Definiteness and indefiniteness. In: Horn L.R., Ward G.(eds) Handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 122–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugger, G. (1997). Event time properties. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, pp. 51–63.

  • Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (1990) Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie B. (1976) Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie B. (1985) Tense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl O. (1985) Tense and aspect systems. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D. (1980) Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Declerck R. (1991) Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Demidarche H., Uribe-Etxebarria M. (2004) The syntax of time adverbs. In: Guéron J., Lecarme J.(eds) The syntax of time. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich G. (1955) Erweiterte Form, Präteritum und Perfektum im Englischen: Eine Aspekt- und Tempusstudie. Heuber, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin W.W. (1889) Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., Morgan J.(eds) Speech acts. Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3). Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J. (1984) Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics, 20: 303–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. (2002). Assertoric inertia. In Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, Part 2 (pp. 55–82).

  • Huddleston R., Pullum G.K. (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Izvorski, R. (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 189–238). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprinted from Perfect explorations, by A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert, & A. von Stechow, Eds., 2003. Berlin: Mouton.

  • Inoue, K. (1978). How many senses does the present perfect have? In Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 167–178).

  • Jäger G., Blütner R. (2003) Competition and interpretation: The German adverb wieder. In: Lang E., Maienborn C., Fabricius-Hansen C.(eds) Modifying adjuncts. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 393–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. Republished Norton Library 1965.

  • Kadmon N. (2000) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell, Malden, Mass and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan O. (2007a) On the semantics of structural case. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

  • Kagan, O. (2007b). Specificity and the speaker’s worldview. Paper presented at the workshop “Funny Indefinites: Different kinds of Specificity across Languages”. ZAS Berlin.

  • Kamp H., Reyle U. (1994) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, G. (2003). A modal analysis of the English present perfect puzzle. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIII (pp. 145–161).

  • Kiparsky P. (2002) Event structure and the perfect. In: Beaver D.I., Casillas Martinez L.D., Clark B.Z., Kaufmann S.(eds) The construction of meaning. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 113–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein W. (1994) Time in language. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Semantics and Lingustic Theory VIII (pp. 92–110).

  • Landman F. (2000) Events and plurality. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech G. (1971) Meaning and the English verb. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuschner, B. (1977). Die Zeitenfolge im Rahmen einer kommunikativen Grammatik: Anmerkungen zu einem Phantom. Kongresbericht der 7. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik.

  • Levin B., Rappaport Hovav M. (1991) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41: 123–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle, Ch. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (Eds.) Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: de Gruyter. Reprinted in G. Link (1998) Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy (Chapter 1). Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications.

  • Ludlow P., Neale S. (1991) Indefinite descriptions: In defence of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14: 171–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons C. (2000) Definiteness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley J.D. (1971) Tense and time reference in English. In: Langendoen D.T., Fillmore C.J.(eds) Studies in linguistic semantics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 97–113

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley J.D. (1981) Notes on the English present perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1: 81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoard R.W. (1978) The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, R., & McNally, L. (2008). Nontelic change of state verbs. Ms. CNRS/U. Lille3 and Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

  • Michaelis L. (1994) The English present perfect. Journal of Linguistics, 30: 111–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittwoch A. (1995) The English perfect, past perfect and future perfect in a neo-Reichenbachian framework. In: Bertinetto P.M., Bianchi V., Dahl Ö.(eds) Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Typological perspectives (Vol. 2). Rosenberg and Sellier, Torino, pp 255–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittwoch A. (2008) Tenses for the living and the dead: Lifetime inferences reconsidered. In: Rothstein S.(eds) Crosslinguistic and theoretical approaches to the semantics of aspect. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1167–1187

    Google Scholar 

  • Musan R. (1997) Tense, predicates and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantics, 5: 1–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara, T. (1989). Temporal reference in English and Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.

  • Pancheva R. (2003) The aspectual makeup of perfect participles and the interpretation of the perfect. In: Alexiadou A., Rathert M., Stechow A.(eds) Perfect explorations. Mouton, Berlin, pp 277–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Pancheva R., von Stechow A. (2004) On the present perfect puzzle. Proceedings of NELS, 34: 469–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy, 70: 601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (2003) The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26: 459–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach H. (1947) Elements of symbolic logic. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein S. (2004) Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Blackwell, Malden and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobin D.I. (1994) Discourse origins of the present perfect. In: Pagliuca W.(eds) Perspectives on grammaticalization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 119–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith C. (1991) The parameter of aspect. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler Z. (1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikner S. (1985) Reichenbach revisited: One, two or three temporal relations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 19: 81–98

    Google Scholar 

  • von Heusinger K. (2002) Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 19: 245–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (2002). Perfect of result. Ms.

  • von Stechow A. (2003) How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Jäger and Blütner’s antidecomposition. In: Lang E., Maienborn C., Fabricius-Hansen C. (eds) Modifying adjuncts. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 417–451

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Anita Mittwoch

Authors
  1. Anita Mittwoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita Mittwoch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mittwoch, A. The English Resultative perfect and its relationship to the Experiential perfect and the simple past tense. Linguist and Philos 31, 323–351 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9037-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9037-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation