The grammar of the english verb phrase part 42 ppsx

280 5. The absolute use of the present perfect then ‘account for’ the twenty years, and are thus treated as filling the period up to now. In other words, the subsituations mentioned are selected according to what the speaker deems relevant as filling and characterizing the period leading up to now. (This phenomenon is similar to the phenomenon that one can say I am establishing a multinational corporation although one is actually watching a movie at t 0 .) In the example under discussion, the perfect forms refer to situations which fill a period leading up to now that is set up by the time-specifying adverbial in the preceding sentence: for the last twenty years establishes an Adv-time. As noted in 2.23.1, an Adv-time ‘contains’ the situation time (in terms of either inclusion or coincidence Ϫ in this example it is in terms of coincidence). Since one of the uses of the progressive form is to express that a situation is con- tinuous (i. e. in progress) throughout a given period, the progressive form is used to refer to the present perfect situation filling the pre-present. In sum, the only difference between (4) and (5) below is that the filled Adv-time is a past time span in (4) and a pre-present one in (5): (4) From two to four I was writing a letter to our sponsors. (5) (uttered on coming out of the study) For the last two hours I’ve been writing a letter to our sponsors. Examples (6) and (7) are similar to (5), except that in (7) the pre-present period is to be inferred rather than being expressed by a time-specifying adverbial: (6) What have you been doing for the last two hours? (ϭ ‘With what action(s) have you filled the last two hours?’) (7) What have you been doing? (This implies something like ‘since I last saw you’, which could imply a period of two minutes, as in A couple of minutes ago you disappeared, but now you’ve reappeared and I can see you’ve been up to some- thing: what have you been doing?, or twenty years, as above.) The fact that questions (6)Ϫ(7) can easily be put to someone who is just coming in, or has just come in, makes it clear that the progressive form is not used to trigger a continuative interpretation: the situation(s) referred to by have been doing are not continuing at t 0 . The perfect forms do not receive an indefinite reading either, because the time at which the situation time of the hypersitua- tion is temporally located (in terms of coincidence) is each time quite definite, since it is a period whose terminal point is adjacent to t 0 (and the latter is the most definite time conceivable, since it is the speaker’s deictic centre). The only interpretation that makes sense is an up-to-now reading. Because (6) and (7) ask for specificational information, this reading is a (nonquantificational) con- stitution interpretation rather than an unmarked up-to-now reading. 5.27.2 This conclusion is in keeping with the observation (made in 5.18.3) that a present perfect sentence implicating a ‘direct’ (see 5.37.1) present result VI. The relation between the W-readings and (non)progressive aspect 281 receives an indefinite interpretation, which means that it refers to a bounded (complete) situation and is therefore in the nonprogressive form. Compare: I’ve emptied the cesspool. (direct result: the cesspool is now empty) I’ve been emptying the cesspool. (The speaker does not suggest that the cesspool is empty, but may be explaining why he smells awful Ϫ see 5.18.3.) This means that the progressive form does not normally implicate the coming about of the direct present result of a pre-present telic situation, but can de- scribe the pre-present situation itself. Thus, unlike I’ve emptied the cesspool, which implicates ‘The cesspool is now empty’ (ϭ the direct present result of the pre-present telic situation of my emptying the cesspool), I’ve been emptying the cesspool describes the situation itself. In other words, while the present perfect is normally nonprogressive on an indefinite reading, a nonquantificational constitution reading as a rule requires the use of the progressive form (if the conditions for its use are satisfied, e. g. the VP must be dynamic and agentive). For example, compare the sentences in the following pairs: (a) I have been redecorating the drawing-room. (nonquantificational constitution reading or unmarked up-to-now reading: the speaker is not concerned with a possible direct present result but with the nature of his action filling the pre-pres- ent) (b) I have redecorated the drawing-room. (indefinite reading: the speaker is primar- ily concerned with the direct present result ‘The drawing-room is redecorated now.’) (a) [“Who’s going to answer the application letters?”] Ϫ “I’ve already answered the application letters.” (indefinite reading: the stress is on the direct result ‘The application letters do not need answering any more.’) (b) I have been answering the application letters this morning. (nonquantificational constitution reading or unmarked up-to-now reading: the speaker tells the hearer what he has spent this morning doing, i. e. what his pre-present actions have been.) (a) [So this is Christmas] and what have you done? (from John Lennon’s song Happy Christmas (War is Over)) (indefinite reading; the speaker is concerned with the direct result of the action: ‘What have you achieved?’.) (b) What have you been doing in the past year? (nonquantificational constitution reading: the speaker wants to know how the pre-present (ϭ the past year) has been filled ‘situationwise’.) (a) [“Oh, there you are.] What have you been doing?” Ϫ “I’ve been writing letters.” (nonquantificational constitution readings) (b) [“Oh, there you are.] Where have you {been / *been being}?” Ϫ “I’ve {written / been writing} three letters.” (nonquantificational constitution readings, but the progressive cannot be used in the question because be is used as a stative verb; 282 5. The absolute use of the present perfect the reply I have been writing three letters is fine because Where have you been? is reinterpreted as ‘What have you been doing?’.) In the following examples, both the question and the reply receive a nonquanti- ficational constitution reading: “What have you been doing today?” Ϫ “I have been studying.” (The question says: ‘Tell me about your pre-present action(s).’ The reply describes the action.) “Where have you been?” Ϫ “I’ve been making up the beds.” “What have you been doing?” Ϫ “I’ve been shopping.” 5.27.3 The only case in which a present perfect sentence yielding a nonquanti- ficational constitution reading does not have to be progressive is when it is a ‘specificational’ (see 5.20) question whose presupposition is formulated in the form of a clause with an indefinite present perfect. (An indefinite perfect is not normally progressive.) For example: What {has happened / has been happening} to you? (specificational: the speaker asks for the specification of a value for the presupposed variable ‘the x that has happened to you’.) The presupposition ‘Something has happened to you’ yields an indefinite read- ing, but the sentence as a whole asks for specification of the nature of the relevant situation(s) in the pre-present and is therefore given a nonquantifica- tional constitution reading (see 5.19.1). Because both aspects of interpretation are present, the verb form may or may not be progressive. 5.28 The duration-quantifying constitution reading and (non)progressive aspect In the previous section we have seen that as a rule the progressive form needs to be used (in verb phrases that are dynamic and agentive) if the present perfect sentence is to receive a nonquantificational constitution reading, i. e. when the focus is on the nature of the situation(s) filling the pre-present. By contrast, the progressive form is never used if the present perfect sentence measures the duration of the pre-present, i. e. when it receives a ‘duration-quantifying’ (see 5.19.1) constitution interpretation: Seven long years have {passed / *been passing} since the death of my wife. Six months have {elapsed / *been elapsing} since then. The reason for this is obvious. In the duration-quantifying reading, the sentence expresses the result of ‘measuring’ the pre-present. The situation referred to is therefore the state of the pre-present having a certain duration. States are not normally referred to by a progressive form. Besides, measuring the duration of a period requires considering it from beginning to end. The situation of a VI. The relation between the W-readings and (non)progressive aspect 283 period having a certain duration must therefore be represented as bounded Ϫ see 1.46.2). It follows that the progressive form cannot be used, because the progressive refers to a middle part of the situation only and thus fails to repre- sent it as bounded. (This is true irrespective of the tense used. There are very few contexts in which one can talk of seven years as being in the process of passing, whatever the tense: *Seven years {have been / are / were / will be} passing {since my accident / before my graduation}. Only sentences referring to a predetermined (and ‘pre-measured’) situation, like a prison sentence, form an exception: My seven years of imprisonment are passing, [but I still have three to go].) 5.29 The number-quantifying constitution reading and (non)progressive aspect 5.29.1 For the same reason, the progressive form is not normally used when the sentence is to receive a ‘number-quantifying constitution interpretation’ (see 5.19.1), i. e. when the focus is on the number of discrete occasions on which a situation has actualized in the pre-present: How many times have you {visited / *been visiting} Ireland? He’s {insulted / *been insulting} me three times so far! I {have eaten / *have been eating} steak tartare at least five times since we’ve been on holiday. When the speaker is concerned with measuring a hypersituation by counting the number of times a subsituation has actualized (or, which amounts to the same thing, the number of subsituations constituting the hypersituation), it is very improbable that he is thinking of these actualizations as incomplete (i. e. in progress). Still, it is not impossible for the speaker to scan the pre-present for actualizations and at the same time be concerned with their on-goingness. However, this is only possible when the context provides the temporal vantage points from which the subsituations are viewed as in progress: Four times, I’ve been working on my dissertation but had to leave off doing so. (ϭ ‘So far there have been four occasions when I was in the process of working on my dissertation when I had to stop and do something else.’) In such sentences it is not the ‘hypersituation’ filling the pre-present period that is represented as in progress. On a quantificational constitution reading the hypersituation filling the pre-present is always a state. States are not nor- mally referred to in the progressive form. If the progressive is used, it is the individual subsituations whose number is counted that are represented as in progress (as in the above example). In other words, the above example does not form an answer to ‘Has the hypersituation of your-working-on-your-disser- 284 5. The absolute use of the present perfect tation-four-times been in progress throughout a period leading up to now?’ but answers the question ‘How many times has a situation of your-working-on- your-dissertation been in progress in a period leading up to now?’. The sentence is therefore interpreted as ‘So far there have been four situations of my being in the process of working on my dissertation …’. 5.29.2 As noted in 5.21.3, a sentence receiving a number-quantifying constitu- tion interpretation sometimes refers to a series of situations, the last of which is in progress at t 0 . Even in that case the perfect form must as a rule be nonpro- gressive, except if all the subsituations are explicitly represented as ‘background situations’ (i. e. if the context provides the temporal vantage points from which the subsituations are viewed as in progress): This is the third time I {have watched / *am watching / *have been watching} this programme. This is the third time I {*have watched / *am watching / have been watching} this programme and been interrupted. This is the third time I’ve been watching this programme when you’ve arrived. [I don’t really watch this rubbish every week, you know. It’s just a coincidence that the only times I’ve watched it, you’ve arrived during my watching it.] (Each of the subsituations referred to by I’ve been watching this programme is a background situ- ation.) These examples illustrate the following: (a) In spite of the fact that there is a situation of watching in process at t 0 , the present tense cannot be used in Standard English (while it must be used in most other Germanic languages in this type of sentence expressing a number-quantifying meaning). The fact that the speaker is concerned with the question of how many times a situation has actualized in a period leading up to now is apparently sufficient to require the use of the present perfect in English. (b) On a number-quantifying constitution interpretation, the present perfect form which has to be used is not normally a progressive form, unless all the pre-present subsituations are explicitly represented as background situ- ations. 5.29.3 In some cases, the ‘series’ of situations constituting the hypersituation (referred to in a sentence receiving a number-quantifying constitution reading) is a set which is a singleton Ϫ see 5.21.3. In that case the one and only actual- ization of the situation may be in progress at t 0 . Even then, the tense to be used is the present perfect because a hypersituation (consisting of a gap and one subsituation) is said to fill a period leading up to now. VI. The relation between the W-readings and (non)progressive aspect 285 This is the first time you {have spoken / *are speaking} to me. Is that the first cigarette you {have smoked / *are smoking} today? In such examples, the progressive form cannot be used (even though the single subsituation is in progress at t 0 ), unless the subsituation is explicitly represented as a background situation during which another situation actualizes: [Now that I come to think of it,] this is only the first cigarette {I’ve smoked / *I’ve been smoking} today. [Now that I come to think of it,] this is only the first cigarette I’ve been smoking today [and had to throw away.] The latter sentence means ‘Of the cigarettes I’ve smoked today, this is the first one that I’ve had to throw away while I was smoking it’. This means that This is the first cigarette I’ve been smoking today and had to throw away does not make two discrete statements Ϫ ‘this is the first cigarette today’ and ‘I’ve had to throw it away’ Ϫ but only one: ‘This is the first cigarette today I’ve had to throw away while smoking it’. This statement implies that the present subsitua- tion is not the first today: there has been at least one subsituation of my smok- ing a cigarette earlier today which was not interrupted by my having to throw it away. In sum, the following rules apply in the relative clause forming part of the pattern ‘{definite NP (e. g. it / this / that / that cigarette} ϩ is the ϩ ordinal numeral or superlative ϩ noun head ϩ relative clause’ if the reference is to a pre-present hypersituation consisting of a number of subsituations of which the last is located at t 0 : (a) The relative clause uses a progressive present perfect form if the present subsituation is seen as background for another situation. The time of the latter situation is the vantage time from which the background situation is seen as being in progress: This is the first letter I’ve ever been writing [and couldn’t finish because of a bomb scare.] This is the second time I {have been speaking / *am speaking} to him [and {have had / had} to put the receiver down because someone came into the room.] (b) Otherwise, the relative clause uses a nonprogressive present perfect form: This is the first time (that) she {has gone out / *goes out / *is going out / *has been going out} for months. This is only the second time (that) I {have paid / *pay / *am paying / *have been paying) a contribution. That’s the fifth glass of champagne (that) he {has drunk / *drinks / *is drinking / * has been drinking} today. The painting he’s working on now is the best he {has produced / *produces / *is producing / *has been producing} since he started painting two years ago. 286 5. The absolute use of the present perfect As noted in 5.21.3, the temporal interpretation of the clause in the present perfect here combines a quantificational constitution reading Ϫ the speaker is concerned with the number of actualizations in a period leading up to now Ϫ with a partly continuative interpretation: the last situation in the series is in progress at t 0 . However, the quantificational constitution aspect of meaning rules out the use of the progressive, unless this form is needed to represent the individual subsituations as background situations for something else, as de- scribed in (a). . 280 5. The absolute use of the present perfect then ‘account for’ the twenty years, and are thus treated as filling the period up to now. In other words, the subsituations mentioned. 2.23.1, an Adv-time ‘contains’ the situation time (in terms of either inclusion or coincidence Ϫ in this example it is in terms of coincidence). Since one of the uses of the progressive form is to. I’ve emptied the cesspool, which implicates The cesspool is now empty’ (ϭ the direct present result of the pre-present telic situation of my emptying the cesspool), I’ve been emptying the cesspool