V. More on the up-to-now reading of the perfect 259 subsituations in the pre-present’, which allows the hypersituation to involve gaps in between the actualizations of the subsituations or to consist of only one subsituation surrounded by gaps or even of one gap and zero subsituations (as in [“How often have you met him since then?”] Ϫ “I haven’t met him at all since then.”). In other words, what determines this kind of constitution reading is that the speaker expresses the result of scanning the entire pre-pres- ent for situations actualizing within that period. Whether the result of counting the number of actualizations is zero, one or more is irrelevant: in all cases, the hypersituation that is ‘measured’ fills the entire pre-present period (indicated by so far or since then in the above examples). The same is true if the measured hypersituation is expressed in a ‘duration-quantifying’ form, as in Six weeks have passed since then or Only a week has passed since the accident or Not even a week has passed since his funeral [and his relatives are already quarrel- ling over the heritage]. The only difference is that in this case the hypersituation does not include any gaps. It should be noted that this analysis does not imply that speakers perceive sentences like Only a week has passed since the accident, I’ve written only one article since then or I’ve been running a small company as referring to a hypersituation. Ordinary language users do not take irrelevant gaps into ac- count and do not treat single situations as potentially repetitive. However, on the level of linguistic analysis, we sometimes need to acknowledge the existence of gaps, so that there is nothing wrong with speaking of a hypersituation even if there is only one subsituation, as long as there is the theoretical possibility of the hypersituation involving several subsituations and gaps. (This does not alter the fact that the unmarked interpretation of ‘hypersituation’ is ‘repetitive (or otherwise complex) situation consisting of several subsituations’. In what follows we will therefore avoid speaking of ‘hypersituation’ if there is only one situation or no situation at all, except when the term is really indispensable for constructing a particular argument.) 5.20 The specificational function of the constitution reading Any type of constitution reading of a present perfect clause is a ‘specificational’ reading, i. e. the speaker specifies a value for a presupposed variable. 5.20.1 Let us begin by defining the term specificational sentence. A declar- ative sentence is specificational if it specifies a ‘ value’ for a presupposed ‘vari- able ’(ϭ ‘an x’). This is similar to the solution of an equation in algebra: given that ‘4x ϭ 24’, you can work out that the value satisfying the variable x is 6. 260 5. The absolute use of the present perfect Similarly, in the pseudo-cleft What I gave him was a book, there is a (presup- posed) variable (‘the x that I gave him’) and the sentence specifies the value ‘a book’ for this variable. The same happens in the cleft sentence It was a book that I gave him and in the inverted pseudo-cleft A book was what I gave him, as well as in I gave him a book (with contrastive focus on book). The value is the ‘focus’ of the declarative specificational sentence. It contrasts with all the potential values which are not said to satisfy the variable. A wh-question is automatically specificational because it asks the addressee to specify a value for a variable: What did you give him? The ‘x’ of the variable is represented by the question word. The sentence What did you give him? presupposes the existence of ‘an x that you gave him’ and asks for the specifica- tion of a value for this variable: its logical form is ‘x ϭ ?’ (or, more explicitly, ‘The x that you gave him ϭ ?’). The variable is the ‘focus’ of the specificational question. It needs stressing that only wh-questions are inherently specifica- tional. Yes/no-questions like Has he arrived yet? do not ask for the specification of a presupposed variable. 13 A sentence that does not have a specificational function is referred to as ‘ predicational’, i. e. it merely says (or asks) something about the referent of the constituent functioning as topic (theme) of the sentence. An example of this is John has already read this book, provided there is no contrastive (ϭ extra heavy) accent on one of the constituents. A contrastive accent is typical of a specificational reading. 5.20.2 The distinction between specificational and predicational sentences is a functional distinction. Most sentence types allow either interpretation. Thus, any affirmative sentence or yes/no-question can in principle be read specifica- tionally or predicationally, depending on whether it contains a contrastive ac- cent or not. Compare the following sentences: John has always known about their affair. (predicational sentence receiving a contin- uative perfect reading) It is John who has always known about their affair. (specificational sentence with a continuative reading of has known in the variable ‘the x who has always known about their affair’) John has always known about their affair. (same interpretation: specificational sen- tence with a continuative reading of has known in the variable ‘the x who has always known about their affair’) 13. Yes/no-questions can also be specficational, viz. when they concern the truth of a specfi- cational statement. In a yes/no-question like Was it a book that you gave him? the speaker asks if it is true that a particular value (in this case: a book) satisfies the presup- posed variable (in this case: ‘the x that you gave him’). V. More on the up-to-now reading of the perfect 261 Similarly, compare the following: Have you written a letter to him? (predicational sentence receiving an indefinite perfect reading) Have you written a letter to him? (specificational sentence with an indefinite perfect reading of has written in the variable ‘the x who has written a letter to him’) Wh-questions, by contrast, are always specificational because the question word represents a variable for which a value should be specified. Because they are specificational, wh-questions in the present perfect naturally receive a con- stitution reading, even though the clause representing the presupposition (which is typical of specificational sentences) can yield a continuative or indefi- nite interpretation: Since when has he been living here? (The presupposition ‘He has been living here (for some time)’ yields a continuative reading, but the specificational sentence as a whole asks for duration-quantifying information and therefore receives a quantifica- tional constitution reading. A suitable reply will specify the duration of the situation up to t 0 .) What has happened to you? (The presupposition ‘Something has happened to you’ yields an indefinite reading, but the specificational sentence as a whole asks for specification of the nature of the relevant situation(s) in the pre-present and is there- fore given a nonquantificational constitution reading.) 5.20.3 A sentence providing an answer to a (covert or overt) wh-question is also specificational, so that, if the present perfect is used, its only possible interpretation is the constitution reading. This is illustrated by the following examples: “[Ah, there you are. Where have you been?”] Ϫ “I’ve been in the shed.” (ϭ ‘The x where I have been is: (in) the shed.’) “[Well well. I see you’re back at last. Where have you been (until now)?]” Ϫ “I’ve been talking to the neighbours.” (The question Where have you been (until now)? carries the presupposition ‘You have been somewhere’, which creates the variable ‘the x where you have been’; this implicitly evokes the variable ‘the x that you have been doing (while you were there)’ and it is for this variable that the reply sentence specifies a value: ‘The x that I have been doing is: talking to the neighbours’.) It has been exactly six years since he stopped answering my letters. (The sentence states ‘[It {is / has been} x years since he stopped answering my letters] ϩ [x ϭ six]’. There is no clear difference of interpretation between this and ‘The number of times he has answered a letter of mine in the last six years is zero’, in which ‘The number of times …’ represents the variable and the value assigned to it is ‘zero’. Both readings are obviously constitution readings.) Six years have elapsed since that accident. (constitution reading; the presup- position of the specificational sentence is ‘there is a time x that has elapsed since that accident’, while the assertion is ‘x ϭ six years’.) 262 5. The absolute use of the present perfect 5.20.4 The fact that present perfect sentences providing an answer to a (co- vert or overt) wh-question are always specificational and receive a constitution reading does not mean that a present perfect sentence giving quantificational information is automatically specificational and receives a constitution reading. This is clear from the following: [I know Brazil well because] I have been there six times. (This sentence is predica- tional and receives an indefinite reading: the speaker is not so much concerned with the exact number of times he’s been in Brazil as with the fact that he knows Brazil well as a result of having been there a number of times.) [“Have you ever been to Brazil?”] Ϫ “I’ve been there six times. (This sentence is specificational and receives a quantificational constitution reading: this time the speaker is concerned with the exact number of times he’s been in Brazil.) The first example shows clearly that quantificational information can be pro- vided in a predicational sentence. In that case there is no presupposed variable for which a value needs to be specified and there is no implication that the quantificational information has been obtained through scanning the pre-pres- ent (see 5.19.3, where this is mentioned as a diagnostic). In sum, there is no quantificational constitution reading. The second example, by contrast, shows how an indefinite reading can be overlaid by a constitution reading. In the given context, I’ve been there six times is read something like ‘Yes, I have been to Brazil Ϫ in fact x times [x ϭ six]’. In this paraphrase, the first clause receives an indefinite interpretation and functions as presupposition for the rest of the paraphrase, which can be read as ‘the number of times I’ve been to Brazil is: six’, which is a specificational sentence producing a constitution reading. 5.20.5 It is clear from the latter example that the constitution reading can be added to an indefinite reading. The following sentence shows how it can be added to a continuative interpretation: [“For how long has he been living here?”] Ϫ “He’s been living here for only a week!” (The answer is given a quantificational constitution reading because it specifies the duration of the pre-present. The implicit presupposition ‘He has been living here (for some time)’ yields a continuative reading.) In this example, the reply is read as ‘The time that he has been living here is: only a week’. The NP ‘the time that he has been living here’ presupposes ‘he has been living here for x time’, which receives a continuative interpretation. Because of the specificational nature of the sentence as a whole, this reading is overlaid by a constitution reading (more specifically, a duration-quantifying interpretation). V. More on the up-to-now reading of the perfect 263 5.21 Two-clause specificational sentences combining two readings There are three types of specificational sentences consisting of two clauses that combine an indefinite or continuative interpretation with a kind of constitution reading. The first type consists of sentences like It {is / has been} three weeks since he has been around, which we call ‘since-clefts’. The second type is illustrated by It is only since 1989 that I have been in contact with my cousins in the west, the third by This is the first cigarette I have smoked today. In this section we examine the special features of these three hybrid structures. There are a couple of specificational constructions consisting of two clauses at least one of which is in the present perfect. The clause representing the presupposition (i. e. introducing the presupposed variable) receives either an indefinite or a continuative reading, while the head clause, which specifies a value for the variable, yields a constitution reading. 5.21.1 One of them is what we can call the since -cleft,i.e.anit-cleft con- struction whose second clause is introduced by since (rather than by that or by a wh-word, as in It was John {who / that} did it). The highlighted (focused) value constituent is always an indication of duration: 14 It’s been three weeks since I have heard from him. It’s been a long time since I’ve had a decent meal. The head clause, which can also make use of the present tense (It’s three weeks …), is clearly duration-quantifying. The since-clause receives an indefinite read- ing: it is concerned with the question whether a situation has actualized in a period up to now. It is interesting to note that a condition for the use of the present perfect in the since-clause is that the situation referred to is potentially repeatable: the sentence implies both that the situation referred to in the since-clause actualized a certain time ago and that it could have actualized again at any time (or at various times) in the pre-present period following its actualization Ϫ see the end of this section for a theoretical remark on this condition. Compare: 14. This is also true in similar examples in which since is not a conjunction but a preposition, as in It’s been fifty years since the beginning of the civil rights movement for black peo- ple. 264 5. The absolute use of the present perfect It’s five years since I’ve had an accident. (This is another way of saying I haven’t had an accident for five years, which implies both that I had an accident five years ago and that I might have had one or more accidents since then but have not had any.) It’s five years since I {had / *have had} that accident. (With the present perfect this would be another way of saying *I haven’t had that (particular) accident for five years, with a similar implication of repeatability: ‘I might have had that accident at any time in the period since I had it.’ However, this implication is unacceptable because one specific accident cannot happen more than once.) It’s five years since I {had / *have had} my accident. (The present perfect is unaccept- able because the idea of repeatability which it would express is unacceptable: the sentence would be interpreted as ‘I had my accident five years ago and I might have had that accident again at any time since then’. The second part of this reading is unacceptable: I cannot have ‘my accident’ more than once.) Similarly: It’s (been) five years since I’ve seen him. (implies ‘I haven’t seen him for five years’. The situation is ‘repeatable’ in the sense that it could have actualized (once or several times) in the specified pre-present period.) It’s (been) five years since I {saw / *have seen} him on the 20 th anniversary of his marriage. (The situation of seeing him on the 20th anniversary of his marriage is not repeatable.) It’s (been) five years since {I last saw him / *I’ve last seen him}. (Last blocks the idea of repeatability.) In sum, a since-cleft with the present perfect in the since-clause is a special specificational construction which can be used to express two readings at once: the speaker specifies the length of the pre-present and at the same time says that a situation has not actualized in that period. It’s (been) a year since we’ve been in the cellar. (specifies the length of the relevant period leading up to t 0 and expresses that there has not been an actualization of the since-clause situation in that period.) The condition that the since-clause of a since-cleft can use the indefinite perfect (instead of the past tense) only if the situation referred to is potentially repeat- able fits in with other constraints on indefinite perfects, viz. the constraint that blocks the use of the present perfect of verbs of creation whose direct object refers to an effected entity (see 6.34), and the constraint which (on the whole) blocks the indefinite present perfect in clauses referring to dead people (see 5.34): That cottage {was / *has been} built by my grandfather. Shakespeare {didn’t live / *hasn’t lived} in Scotland. Still, repeatability cannot be an over-all condition for indefinite perfects gen- erally, as the constraint in question does not apply to indefinite perfect clauses V. More on the up-to-now reading of the perfect 265 that receive a recency reading, as in [Have you heard the news?] John has died! (which is an example of a present perfect clause with a ‘hot news’ function Ϫ see 5.14). 5.21.2 Apart from since-clefts, there are also ordinary it-clefts highlighting the duration of the pre-present: It’s since 1968, not since 1986, that I’ve known Jack. (The speaker corrects a previ- ous statement that he has known Jack since 1986. The that-clause receives a continu- ative interpretation.) It’s been three weeks now that I haven’t heard from him. (indefinite reading of the that-clause) It’s only three days that he’s been dead [and the heirs are already quarrelling among themselves]. (continuative reading of the that-clause) This type of sentence is a normal it-cleft with a durational adverbial as focused constituent. The head clause each time expresses the specificational speech act ‘X is: [indication of period (which is the length of the pre-present zone)]’ in the same way as a constitution perfect does on a duration-quantifying reading. The that-clause, which represents the presupposition of the specificational con- struction, receives either a continuative or an indefinite interpretation. In the first example, the it-cleft combines the message ‘I have known Jack since x’ with the assertion ‘x ϭ 1968 (not 1986, as you said just now)’. The correspond- ing noncleft specificational construction is the simple (ϭ one-clause) sentence I’ve known Jack since 1968 (with the nuclear accent on 1968). Like any it-cleft with a truly specificational function, the kind of cleft il- lustrated by the above examples normally requires that the value specified for the variable (in this case: the measure phrase) should contrast with other poten- tial values which are not selected. (It is only when the value constituent is anaphoric and the new information is expressed in the that-clause, as in It’s since then that I’ve been feeling ill, that the value constituent need not be contrastive. However, in that case the it-cleft is not truly specificational.) Hence the difference in acceptability between the following: ?? It is since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 that I have been in contact with my cousins in the west. It is only since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 that I have been in contact with my cousins in the west. (Only creates a sense of contrast between 1989 and earlier times.) ?? It’s only since 2003 that I have been living here. Of the first two examples, only the version with only is fine, because only implies ‘This could have happened earlier but has only happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989’. In other words, because of the presence of only, 1989 is contrasted with earlier times. However, out of context ?? It’s only since . on the up-to-now reading of the perfect 259 subsituations in the pre-present’, which allows the hypersituation to involve gaps in between the actualizations of the subsituations or to consist of. constitution reading is that the speaker expresses the result of scanning the entire pre-pres- ent for situations actualizing within that period. Whether the result of counting the number of actualizations. him? The ‘x’ of the variable is represented by the question word. The sentence What did you give him? presupposes the existence of ‘an x that you gave him’ and asks for the specifica- tion of a