The grammar of the english verb phrase part 47 potx

6. The present perfect vs the preterite in clauses without temporal adverbials 6.1 Introduction 317 6.2 Actualization focus 319 6.3 The influence of definite noun phrases 320 6.4 The present perfect vs the preterite in wh-questions 322 6.5 The present perfect vs the preterite in when-questions 326 6.6 Summary 330 316 6. The present perfect vs the preterite in clauses without temporal adverbials Abstract Before embarking on a discussion of the fourth absolute tense, viz. the future tense (chapter 7), we provide a brief chapter on the principles guiding the choice between the past tense (or ‘preterite’) and the present perfect, both of which can be used to locate a ‘bygone’ situation in time. Our concern here is with clauses that do not contain a time-specifying adverbial Ϫ for the role played by such adverbials in the selec- tion of the one or the other of the two tenses, see chapter 12. In the present chapter, we first have a look at the central notion of ‘actualization focus’, i. e. the phenomenon that the speaker focuses on one or other aspect of a past situation and therefore has to use the past tense. We then address the use of the preterite vs the indefinite present per- fect in clauses with a definite noun phrase and in wh-questions other than when-questions. Fi- nally, we consider the use of the present perfect yielding a number-quantifying constitution read- ing in when-questions. 6.1 Introduction 317 6.1 Introduction The speaker is concerned with NOW when he uses the present perfect and with THEN when he uses the preterite. In other words, the present perfect implies that the speaker’s ‘temporal focus’ is on the pre-present time zone, whereas the past tense puts the tempo- ral focus on the past time-sphere. Whether the speaker is concerned with NOW or THEN can be clear from the way the sentence is used in context or from particular constituents of the sentence. In this chapter we will not deal with the impact of particu- lar types of temporal adverbials but will examine the relevance of ‘actualization focus’ and the impact of definite noun phrases and of question words. 6.1.1 This chapter is about the factors that determine the choice between the past tense and the present perfect when the clause does not contain a temporal adverbial and refers to a ‘bygone situation’, i. e. a situation that is wholly anterior to t 0 . We will first deal with the past tense versus the ‘indefinite perfect’ (ϭ the use of the present perfect in clauses receiving an ‘indefinite’ (see 5.4.1) interpretation), and then Ϫ in section 6.5 Ϫ with the past tense versus a ‘number-quantifying constitution perfect’ (see 5.19.1) in when-questions. The other readings of the present perfect are not relevant because none of them can appear in a formal environment (without a time-specifying adverbial) in which the past tense can also be used. In other words, while we can contrast I’ve seen him with I saw him and When have I lied to you? with When did I lie to you?, we cannot contrast with past tense clauses such present perfect clauses as re- ceive a ‘continuative reading’ (see 5.7), an ‘unmarked up-to-now reading’ (see 5.18), a ‘nonquantificational constitution reading’ (see 5.19.1) or a ‘duration- specifying constitution reading’ (see 5.19.1). For ease of reference, in connection with the present perfect the term ‘bygone situation’ will only be used to refer to the indefinite reading, except in 6.5, where we discuss the use of when-questions receiving a number-quantifying constitution reading. 6.1.2 When, in a noninterrogative clause referring to a bygone situation, there is no time-specifying adverbial, both the preterite (ϭ past tense) and the indefi- nite present perfect are in principle possible. The preterite is used when we are thinking of the time of actualization of the bygone situation or when we are concerned with the actualization of the situation itself (i. e. with the question of when / where / why / how the situation took place, or who was involved in it Ϫ see 4.7.1). The indefinite present perfect (as we will continue to call a present perfect receiving an indefinite interpretation) is used when the speaker 318 6. The present perfect vs the preterite in clauses without temporal adverbials wishes to announce the actualization of the situation as news or when he is otherwise concerned with its current relevance. Compare: Have you seen ‘King Lear’? (indefinite perfect: ‘Have you ever seen ‘King Lear’?’) Did you see ‘King Lear’? (The speaker is thinking of a particular production of the play, for example, that which was shown on TV the other day. Since he assumes that the addressee understands which production he has in mind, the situation of seeing ‘King Lear’ is located at a definite bygone time.) You can’t imagine the difficulties Henry got me into! (The emphasis is on what happened then : that was a very difficult time for me.) You can’t imagine the difficulties Henry has got me into! (One interpretation implies that the speaker is currently in difficulties as a result of having been got into difficul- ties by Henry: ‘You can’t imagine the difficulties that I am having because of him’. This is an indefinite reading, highlighting the present ‘direct result’ (see 5.37.1) of a single bygone situation. Another interpretation is that the speaker has, at various times in the past, been in difficulties as a result of having, at indefinite times in the past, been got into difficulties by Henry and that the speaker is currently in some way affected by this experience. For example: ‘He’s got me into terrible difficulties over the years. [I’m not getting involved in one of his schemes again.]’ This is an indefinite interpretation of the ‘experiential’ kind (see 5.13), which does not suggest a direct present result but refers to the indirect present result that my experience has been widened as a result of various bygone situations.) [“Have you ever received a reply to any of your letters of application?” Ϫ “Yes, I have.] A Canadian firm offered me a job in Toronto, [but I declined because I would rather stay in Britain].” (The offer has only historical significance. The speaker has already lost interest in it. The form has offered would be difficult to interpret in this context: the present perfect would suggest that the offer is still relevant whilst the ensuing context shows that the offer has been declined and is thus ‘out of play’.) [“Have you ever received a reply to any of your letters of application?” Ϫ “Yes, I have.] A Canadian firm has offered me a job in Toronto. [Isn’t that splendid?]” (The speaker is still excited about the offer and clearly intends to accept it. The past tense form offered would not have the implication that the speaker intends to accept the job, though it does not rule out the possibility.) The puppy you gave me has grown into a magnificent collie. (While the present perfect implies (a) that the dog is still alive and (b), given normal world-knowledge, that the speaker still has the dog, the preterite would imply that the dog is in some way no longer on the scene Ϫ for example, it is dead, or has been given away.) {Did you go / *have you gone} to bed after eleven? (The speaker has a particular time in mind.) 6.1.3 The above examples illustrate the basic principles underlying the choice between the preterite and the present perfect which were explained in 2.38.1 and 5.35.1: the speaker is concerned with NOW when he uses the present perfect and with THEN when he uses the preterite. In other words, the present 6.2 Actualization focus 319 perfect implies that the speaker’s ‘temporal focus’ (see 11.1.1) is on the pre- present time zone, whereas the past tense puts the temporal focus on the past time-sphere. Whether the speaker is concerned with NOW or THEN can be clear from the way the sentence is used in context or from particular constitu- ents of the sentence. The impact of particular types of temporal adverbials was referred to in 4.6.1 and 5.5.2 and will be discussed in more detail in chapter 12. In the rest of this chapter we will examine the relevance of ‘actualization focus’ and the impact of definite noun phrases and of question words. 6.2 Actualization focus When there is ‘actualization focus’, i. e. concern with some aspect of the bygone situa- tion (such as where?, how?, when?, etc.) we use the past tense. By contrast, to introduce a new topic into the current discourse we use the present perfect. 6.2.1 We normally use the indefinite perfect when a bygone situation that is relevant to the present is referred to for the first time. We do not use it to talk about any aspect of a situation that the hearer is already familiar with. Senten- ces in which this is done concentrate on the past situation itself (i. e. show ‘ actualization focus’ Ϫ see 4.7), and therefore make use of the past tense. (In other words, expressing actualization focus is equivalent to putting the temporal focus on the past situation.) “Some idiot has put diesel in the tank instead of petrol. Which of you did that?” Ϫ “I did.” It follows that the present perfect is often used to introduce a topic into a conversation; the next sentence(s) then use(s) the past tense to give further details about the situation in question. I have tried using that kind of detergent, but the result was not satisfactory. “Have you ever considered growing roses there?” Ϫ “Yes, I have. But my wife de- cided against it.” “I’ve lived in China.” Ϫ “When was that?” I have drunk champagne a couple of times, but I didn’t like it much. I’ve visited the ESA headquarters. It was fascinating. I’ve just moved your trunk into another room. It was surprisingly heavy. “[I’m giving up my job.]” Ϫ “So I’ve heard.” Ϫ “When did you hear about it?” Ϫ “The milkman told me this morning.” 320 6. The present perfect vs the preterite in clauses without temporal adverbials 6.2.2 In some cases the fact that the situation has actualized is ‘given’ (ϭ assumed known) information because it is obvious from the extralinguistic context. In that case there is actualization focus at once: You should be glad that you {were / *have been} born rich. (Self-evidently, it does not make sense to introduce the situation of the addressee having been born: it is given information that whoever exists was born.) How {did you get / *have you got} that scar on your cheek? (The existence of the scar is given information: the speaker can actually see it when uttering this sentence. This means that there is actualization focus at once, in this case on the aspect ‘how?’.) In this context we can also refer to section 5.35, where it is pointed out that the present perfect cannot be used if the clause combines a verb of creation with a definite object NP (e. g. Who {built / *has built} that cottage over there?). It may also be noted here that examples like the above ones refute the widespread claim that the preterite requires there to be a definite (ϭ assumed identifiable to the hearer) past time at which the situation is located. This is not to say that it is not true that many past tense sentences are only fully interpretable if the time of actualization is known Ϫ for example, there is not much point in saying The door was closed without such a temporal ‘anchor’. However, the above examples make it clear that being anchored to a definite time is not an absolute requirement of the preterite, and therefore has nothing to do with the semantics of the preterite. The requirement holds for the W- interpretation of most past tense sentences, because the temporal anchor is usually necessary to see the applicability and relevance of the utterance. How- ever, the requirement does not apply to the above examples because identifi- ability of the exact time of actualization is unnecessary for (and irrelevant to) the correct understanding of the intended interpretation of these sentences. (The same is true if the preterite is used to express a contrast between what is present and what is W-bygone, as in He is no longer the successful painter that he was.) 6.3 The influence of definite noun phrases The use of the indefinite perfect is prevented by the presence of a definite NP that entails actualization focus. We therefore have to use the past tense in examples like How {did Sue get /*has Sue got} the scar on her hip? 6.3.1 The fact that the hearer is already familiar with the situation is some- times clear from the use of a definite NP. (Formal definiteness is usually a sign 6.3 The influence of definite noun phrases 321 that the speaker assumes that the hearer can identify the referent of the NP.) This explains why the use of the indefinite perfect is prevented by the presence of a definite NP entailing actualization focus, i. e. by the presence of an NP whose definiteness entails that the situation referred to is interpreted as definite (assumed to be identifiable). (That not all definite NPs have this effect is shown in 6.3.2.) Thus, the past tense is the rule in examples like the following: How {did Sue get / *has Sue got} the scar on her hip? (As is clear from the use of the definite NP the scar on her hip, the speaker knows, and assumes that the hearer also knows, that Sue has a scar on her hip. It follows that both also know that there must be a time in the past when Sue got the scar, and that she must have got it in a particular way. The question that is asked concerns that way. This means that there is actualization focus.) [He says that] he has witnessed a terrible accident. (The indefiniteness of the NP a terrible accident reveals that the speaker does not expect the hearer to know about the accident. The accident is mentioned here for the first time, i. e. it is introduced as a topic into the discourse. This means that there is no actualization focus, hence no temporal focus on the past.) [He says that] he {witnessed / *has witnessed} the accident that everybody is talking about. (The relative clause tells the hearer which accident the speaker is referring to. This renders the NP definite: its referent is identifiable. This means that the existence of the accident is presupposed when the speaker makes a statement about it. The speaker therefore uses the past tense to talk about the past accident: there is actualization focus on the fact that the speaker saw the accident happen when it did.) [These flowers are lovely.] Who {did you get / *have you got} them from? (That the referents of these flowers and them are assumed to be identifiable is clear from the use of these definite NPs. That these definite NPs entail actualization focus is in keeping with the fact that the wh-question Who did you get them from? carries the presupposition ‘You got these flowers from someone’.) [This cake tastes wonderful.] {Did you bake / *have you baked} it yourself? [I have been to a bullfight once,] but I did not enjoy it. 6.3.2 As already said, this does not mean that every definite NP excludes the use of an indefinite present perfect. The only definite NPs that have this effect are those that entail actualization focus, i. e. that make it clear that the speaker is not introducing a bygone situation but is focussing on some past aspect of a bygone situation whose existence is (or is taken to be) given information in the current world of discourse. I have bought the book that you recommended to me. (The existence of the referent of the definite NP the book that you recommended to me is given information in the current world of discourse, but the situation of my having bought it is new information.) . selec- tion of the one or the other of the two tenses, see chapter 12. In the present chapter, we first have a look at the central notion of ‘actualization focus’, i. e. the phenomenon that the speaker. will not deal with the impact of particu- lar types of temporal adverbials but will examine the relevance of ‘actualization focus’ and the impact of definite noun phrases and of question words. 6.1.1. puts the tempo- ral focus on the past time-sphere. Whether the speaker is concerned with NOW or THEN can be clear from the way the sentence is used in context or from particular constituents of the