I. Relevant classes of temporal adverbials 595 I watched TV all afternoon. *Bill arrived all afternoon. 12.4 (Non)inclusive heterogeneous time-specifying adverbials 12.4.1 Within the class of heterogeneous time-specifying adverbials, which can only indicate a period as a whole, there is a formal distinction between prepositional phrases introduced by within or in (in the sense of within) and other adverbials. As noted in 1.46.1, (with)in-adverbials, which we can refer to as inclusive adverbials, can only be added to a clause with a ‘telic VP’ (see 1.39). Compare: I have received three threatening letters. (receive three letters is a telic VP) I have received three threatening letters {in / within} the last four weeks. (inclusive adverbial) I have been working very hard. (work hard is an atelic VP) *I have been working very hard {in / within} the last four weeks. (inclusive adver- bial) I have been working very hard for the last four weeks. (noninclusive adverbial) 12.4.2 Not every temporal adverbial introduced by in is an inclusive adver- bial. Time-specifying adverbials like in the past, in 1999, etc. are not inclusive. Neither is in a few days in I’m leaving in a few days. We can only speak of an inclusive meaning if the in-adverbial measures the duration of the period con- taining the time(s) of actualization of the situation(s) referred to and (at the same time) measures either the length (duration) of one bounded situation or the number of subsituations making up a bounded repetitive hypersituation: I met him twice in a few days. (inclusive) I’ll see him in a week. (noninclusive because in a week does not measure the duration of a bounded situation) I’ve visited him three times in one week. (inclusive) He wrote that novel in less than two weeks. (inclusive) I’ve written several novels in the past. (not inclusive because in the past does not measure the length of the repetitive hypersituation) 596 12. Preterite vs present perfect in clauses with temporal adverbials II. Temporal adverbials and the choice between past tense and present perfect Now that several types of temporal adverbials have been identified, we can examine which types are (in)compatible with either the present perfect or the past tense. It should be clear that in doing so we will not be concerned with the relative past tense. A relative past tense form is generally incompatible with a time-specifying adverbial because it implies that the temporal location of the situation time is to be inferred from the relation of T-simultaneity (ϭ coinci- dence) with the binding time (see 8.17.2). As noted in 8.26.1, a situation time cannot derive its temporal specification from two different mechanisms Ϫ the use of a tense form expressing coincidence and the presence of a time-specifying adverbial Ϫ at once, even if the times they refer to coincide with one another. Hence the difference of interpretation between Jim whispered that he was still thirsty (where was is naturally interpreted as expressing simultaneity) and Jim whispered that he was still thirsty at three o’clock (where Jim’s being thirsty can only be interpreted as anterior to his whispering, which means that was is now an absolute tense form). 12.5 Nondeictic adverbials Nondeictic adverbials, by virtue of being unanchored, are compatible both with the past tense (e. g. I got up at two a.m.) and with the present perfect (on an indefinite, often repetitive reading, e. g. [You don’t believe I’ve ever got up at two a.m.? I can assure you.] I have got up at two a.m. [Several times.]). In 12.1.1, a nondeictic Adv-time-adverbial has been defined as an adverbial specifying an Adv-time which is not related to a temporal ‘anchor’ and which is therefore automatically ‘zone-independent’, as in the following examples: He got up at five o’clock. (nondeictic Adv-time: at five o’clock is naturally under- stood as belonging to a particular day, but the day in question is not anchored to a given orientation time.) I’ve heard that name at some time or other. (nondeictic: the Adv-time specified by at some time or other is not linked to a given temporal anchor.) Nondeictic time-specifying adverbials never specify a period including t 0 be- cause an interpretation involving reference to t 0 is automatically a deictic inter- pretation. However, this does not mean that nondeictic time-specifying adver- bials cannot combine with a present perfect. In fact, it follows from their being II. Temporal adverbials and the choice between past tense and present perfect 597 unanchored that they can combine with any tense (except the present tense), because they do not help to specify the temporal location of the situation time. [I think] I’ve met him at some time or other. [You don’t believe] I’ve ever got up at two a.m.? [I can assure you,] I have got up at two a.m. [Several times.] The present perfect is possible in these sentences because the situation times are clearly conceived of as lying within a period leading up to t 0 . (In both examples this period is likely to be the speaker’s lifetime.) What is uppermost in the speaker’s mind is not the time when a specific situation actualized but the fact that a particular kind of situation has actualized (once or several times) in a period up to t 0 . To see this better, compare: (1) John left the office at five o’clock. (2) [“John has never left the office at five o’clock.” Ϫ “That’s not true!] John has left the office at five o’clock. [Many times. I saw him.”] In (1), at five o’clock indicates a deictic (anchored) time interval because it is interpreted in relation to a particular time (day) that is assumed to be identifi- able from the context or is ‘given’ by virtue of its including t 0 . In (2), in con- trast, at five o’clock is not a deictic indication of time because it is not interpre- ted in relation to a particular day referred to in the context or any other given time. Whereas (1) states that five o’clock was the time when John left the office on a particular day, (2) states that the situation of John leaving the office at five o’clock has actualized at least once in the pre-present (i. e. within an un- specified period leading up to t 0 ). In other words, whereas (1) locates the semel- factive situation of John’s leaving the office at a particular past time, (2) ex- presses that the situation of John leaving the office at five has actualized on at least one (unspecified, indefinite) day in a period up to t 0 . In (2) the adverbial at five o’clock thus belongs to the description of the situation itself, whereas in (1) it denotes the past Adv-time specifying (i. e. ‘containing’ Ϫ see 2.23.1) the situation time of the situation. This semantic difference between (1) and (2) has a syntactic correlate in the fact that at five o’clock is a necessary adverbial adjunct in (2) whereas it is an optional one in (1) (unless it is the only constituent there that expresses new information). This appears from the fact that at five o’clock can be fronted in (1) but not in (2): At five o’clock John left the office. *At five o’clock John has left the office. When present perfect sentences of the kind exemplified by (2) are used without a context such as given in (2), they usually involve a repetitive time adverbial: 598 12. Preterite vs present perfect in clauses with temporal adverbials John has often gone swimming at six o’clock in the morning. Many a time, passengers have been terrified when their plane began to lose height. I have occasionally left before Tom (did). However, the sense of repetition does not come exclusively from the adverbial. Even if the latter is dropped (in which case have normally receives the nuclear accent because the sentence contradicts a claim to the contrary), there is a sense of (at least potential) repetition. The following sentences suggest paraphrases like ‘It has happened on occasion that ’ or ‘It has happened at least once that ’: John has gone swimming at six o’clock in the morning. I have left before Tom (did). Passengers have been terrified when their plane began to lose height. It is precisely the lack of information concerning the temporal location of the situation time(s) that produces this potentially repetitive reading. Sentences like those above express no more than that, in a period up to now, there has been one or more instances of a situation of the type ‘swimming at 6 a.m.’, or ‘leaving before Tom’, etc. No information is given concerning the precise tem- poral location of these instances, nor about their frequency. 12.6 Past-zone adverbials Past-zone adverbials are only compatible with the past tense, not with the present perfect (not even when there is a clear idea of present relevance or resultativeness). For example: [I know what it means to be in the army.] I {served /*have served} during the Falklands war. 12.6.1 A time-specifying adverbial specifying a time in the past zone (i. e. a bygone time which is seen as disconnected from the present time-sphere) can combine with the past tense, but not with the present perfect. I {went / *have gone} to London yesterday. (speaking in the evening) The plumber {came / *has come} this {morning / afternoon}. A ‘bifunctional adverbial’ (which specifies both duration and time Ϫ see 2.22.3) may similarly be a past zone adverbial: [“When were you at university?”] Ϫ “We {were /*have been} at university from 1986 to 1990.” (Note that, because the adverbial provides the new information asked for, it is taken to specify the full period, so that the situation time is taken to be the II. Temporal adverbials and the choice between past tense and present perfect 599 time of the full situation. This reading is due to the Gricean Maxim of Quantity, which stipulates that all relevant information must be given. The relevant informa- tion (ϭ the information asked for) is the time of the full situation.) [“From 1986 to 1990 I was in India. What were you two doing during that time?”] Ϫ “We {were /*have been}at university from 1986 to 1990.” (Because the adverbial represents given information Ϫ the new information (ϭ information asked for) being what the addressees did in that period Ϫ the Adv-time coincides with the situation time, but the situation time may be only part of the time of the full situation. The reply is perfectly true if the addressees attended university from 1985 to 1991.) Note that from 1986 to 1990 can easily be fronted in the second example (where it represents given information), but not in the first (where it represents new information). 12.6.2 Perhaps it needs stressing that the rule that the past tense has to be used with adverbials specifying a past Adv-time applies even if there is a clear idea of present relevance or resultativeness. [I know what it means to be in the army.] I {served /*have served} during the Gulf war. “[Can we enter the building?]” Ϫ “Yes, the janitor {has opened the door / opened the door a minute ago /*has opened the door a minute ago}.” This illustrates the fundamental claim (made in section 2.3.1) that the basic meaning of a tense is to locate a situation in time in a particular way. The use of a tense is wholly determined by its semantics (ϭ temporal structure), which has to fit in with the temporal information given by the time-specifying adver- bial or by the context. 12.7 Noninclusive heterogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials Noninclusive heterogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials normally combine with the present perfect only: I {*was / have been} fascinated by insects from childhood. 12.7.1 When a noninclusive heterogeneous time-specifying adverbial indicates a pre-present zone (i. e. a bygone period which leads up to t 0 ), it is as a rule the present perfect that is used: From the beginning of May until now I have been ill. (continuative reading) From the beginning of May until now I have been ill three times. (‘quantificational constitution’ reading Ϫ see 5.4.7) 600 12. Preterite vs present perfect in clauses with temporal adverbials At least a dozen accidents have happened here over the past four years. (quantifica- tional constitution reading) So far nothing much has been done about the problem. (indefinite reading) 12.7.2 It should be noted, however, that not every noninclusive heterogeneous adverbial that is used (or can be used) as a pre-present-zone adverbial allows any of the three W-readings. For example, some pre-present-zone adverbials (e. g. from childhood) are only compatible with a continuative reading. Com- pare: I have been fascinated by insects from childhood. (continuative reading) *I’ve been in France exactly six times from childhood. (From childhood clashes with the quantificational constitution reading imposed by six times.) *I have seen a dragonfly from childhood. (The continuative reading and an up-to- now reading are pragmatically excluded; from childhood does not allow an indefi- nite reading.) The reason why from childhood only allows a continuative reading is that it is a ‘ situation-unbounding’ adverbial. This means that it functions as a bifunctional duration adverbial referring to a period whose endpoint is expli- citly left vague, which means that it precludes the situation from being repre- sented as bounded. Obviously, a nonbounded pre-present situation cannot come to an end before t 0 . 12.7.3 Since-adverbials can be used as noninclusive heterogeneous pre-pres- ent-zone adverbials, as in I’ve never seen him again since (then). Because since can be used in various ways (viz. as a preposition, adverb or conjunction) and because the choice of tenses is complex in sentences containing a since-clause, since-adverbials will be treated extensively in a separate section, viz. 12.11 below. For the moment we will restrict ourselves to saying that the present perfect is the unmarked tense in clauses containing a since-adverbial which identifies a period up to t 0 : He [went to his study after dinner and] has been working ever since. (continuative reading) [Four years ago he was on an airplane that had to make an emergency landing in a field.] He has not travelled by air since. (indefinite reading) Since then he has travelled by train. (continuative habit or indefinite single-situa- tion reading) I’ve been in China no less than eleven times since 1996. (constitution reading) 12.7.4 The choice of tense Ϫ preterite versus present perfect Ϫ in clauses containing until now is discussed in 12.13.3Ϫ7 below. II. Temporal adverbials and the choice between past tense and present perfect 601 12.8 Noninclusive homogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials Noninclusive homogeneous pre-present-zone adverbials mostly (and those of the type for the {past / last} two weeks exclusively) combine with the present perfect, but the past tense is sometimes used, though not normally in Br. E., to imply a break between the past and the present. This class consists of a limited number of adverbials, the most important of which are in the past, just, lately, recently and prepositional phrases of the type for the {past / last} two weeks. The latter combine with the present perfect only (at least if they indicate a period up to now), 2 while the former mostly combine with the present perfect, but the past tense can be used in order to focus on a period which is treated as a past (i. e. closed off) period in spite of its leading up to, or almost up to, t 0 . Since recently, lately and just are discussed in detail in 12.17 below, we will restrict ourselves here to illustrating this rule with examples of in the past. This adverbial normally collocates with the pres- ent perfect when it indicates an indefinite period-up-to now: Planning permission has been given in the past for the conversion of the two ward blocks into residential accommodation. (LOB) Washington is today closer to Moscow than any city in Europe has been in the past. (LOB) Trinidad, Australia and Canada might all be expected to make a greater contribution than they have done in the past. (LOB) I have many times in the past seen squirrels in the woods across the railway, [but they have always been grey]. (LOB) In the past few weeks there has been a prolonged discussion between Ministries as to whether the cuts should apply uniformly across the board. (LOB) In fact such Yugoslav activity has been particularly intensified in the past year or so. (LOB) Occasional examples in the past tense can be found, provided there is some kind of break between the past and the present: Syndicalism (…) grew in the cities, not in the country areas, and was closely associ- ated with anarchism in the past before the Falangists and Catholics made it ‘respect- able’ in its current form of national verticalism. (LOB) 2. For example: In other words, they should carry on as they have been doing for the last 10 years. (LOB) The stores had been hit by the same strike wave that has paralysed the port of Tako- radi for the past week. (LOB) . between the past and the present. This class consists of a limited number of adverbials, the most important of which are in the past, just, lately, recently and prepositional phrases of the type for. Ϫ the use of a tense form expressing coincidence and the presence of a time-specifying adverbial Ϫ at once, even if the times they refer to coincide with one another. Hence the difference of. inclusive. Neither is in a few days in I’m leaving in a few days. We can only speak of an inclusive meaning if the in-adverbial measures the duration of the period con- taining the time(s) of actualization