The grammar of the english verb phrase part 45 doc

IX. ‘Current relevance’ and ‘present result’ 301
IX. ‘Current relevance’ and ‘present result’
The present perfect tense implies ‘current relevance’: the bygone situation is considered
as being relevant at t
0
. Current relevance is equivalent to ‘concern with NOW’, which
is what distinguishes the present perfect from the preterite (which implies ‘concern with
THEN’). However, current relevance does not necessarily mean that the speaker is
concerned with a present result of the bygone situation.
5.36 The present perfect and current relevance
5.36.1 According to one linguistic tradition, the most important, or even only,
semantic difference between the present perfect and the past tense is that the
former expresses ‘current relevance’ (i. e. the bygone situation is still relevant
at t
0
) while the past tense does not. As noted in 1.21.6 and 2.10.1, this claim
then usually leads to the further claim that the present perfect is not a tense
but an aspect: ‘current relevance’ is said to be equivalent to ‘perfect aspect’. In
2.10 the claim that there is no such thing as a present perfect tense has been
rejected. However, we do subscribe to the view that the present perfect tense
implies current relevance. In our opinion, current relevance is equivalent to
‘concern with NOW’, which is what distinguishes the present perfect from the
preterite (which implies ‘concern with THEN’).
5.36.2 On the other hand, we distance ourselves from those linguists who
narrow current relevance down to ‘resultativeness’, i. e. who claim that what
distinguishes the present perfect from the preterite is that only the former repre-
sents the bygone situation as having yielded a result which is still holding at
t
0
. It will be shown in 5.37 that, except in the ‘hot news’ use of the perfect,
the idea of a present resultant state is only an implicature of the present perfect,

which arises in some contexts, but not in others. On some W-interpretations,
such as the up-to-now readings, the implicature does not arise at all.
5.37 The present perfect and the idea of present result
5.37.1 It has sometimes been claimed that a sentence in the present perfect
is, or at least can be, used to express a present result. This may or may not be
correct, depending on the meaning that is assigned to ‘present result’. Compare:
I’ve locked up the shop. (resultative reading: ‘The shop is locked up.’)
[I’ve taken a lot of responsibility in my first job already. I’ve taken the takings to
the bank, I’ve dealt with difficult customers and] I’ve locked up the shop. (This does
not suggest that the shop is locked up now.)
302 5. The absolute use of the present perfect
Clearly, these examples are different as regards what is meant by ‘present re-
sult’. However, it is not possible to state flatly that the first implies a present
result and the second does not. What we can say is that the first suggests that
the immediate effect on the world produced by the situation of locking up the
shop still holds at t
0
, whereas the second does not, but it is difficult to rule out
entirely some sort of understanding of present result in the second example,
e. g. ‘I am seen as a responsible employee’, ‘I have shown that I am very capa-
ble’, etc. These examples show that (as noted in 5.32.4) we must distinguish
between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ results. A
direct result is the resultant state
that inevitably comes about when a situation is completed: the completion of
the action of locking up the shop automatically (and immediately) produces
the state of the shop being locked up. (This need not be a lasting result, but it
is there immediately after the locking up.) An
indirect result is not an imme-
diate and automatic result, but one which is linked with the preceding action
because the link in question is in keeping with the meaning of the sentence and

the context in which it is used. That it is not an inevitable (automatic, natural)
result is clear from the second example above, which allows the reading in
which the present result is ‘My colleagues consider me over-zealous and there-
fore dislike me’.
5.37.2 A direct result obtains as soon as the situation producing it is finished.
Roughly speaking, and allowing for the fact that what counts as ‘recent’ in one
situation may be far from recent in another (compare, for example, recency in
connection with the birth and death of stars with recency in connection with
locking a door), the chance that the direct result still holds at t
0
decreases
according as the lapse of time between the bygone situation and the present
becomes greater. This is true irrespective of whether we use the present perfect
or the past tense. Thus both I’ve just locked the door and I locked the door a
minute ago implicate that the door is locked now. However, neither
I
have
recently locked the door [but
you
never have] nor I locked the door a year ago
invite this interpretation, because the distance between the situation and t
0
is
sufficiently long for it to be possible (in fact, likely) that the temporary direct
result has been undone by the actualization of another situation.
5.37.3 The past tense does not implicate that the direct result produced by
the past situation is still holding at t
0
because the past is felt to be separated
from the present. Thus, I locked the door does not suggest anything that is

relevant to the present. However, the same is not true of I have locked the
door, which locates the situation in a period leading up to t
0
. As we saw in
5.1.2, unless an adverbial or context indicates otherwise, the pre-present is
conceptualized as the shortest time span leading up to now that makes sense
(i. e. that is in keeping with the semantics and pragmatics of the sentence and
its context). This means that in I have locked the door the present perfect
IX. ‘Current relevance’ and ‘present result’ 303
implicates recency, which in its turn implicates that the direct result is still
holding at t
0
. This explains why I have locked the door implicates ‘The door
is locked’, whereas I locked the door does not.
5.37.4 Of the three W-types of sentences in the present perfect, only the ones
receiving an indefinite reading can implicate a present direct result, and even
then the ‘experiential use’ of the indefinite perfect (see 5.13.1) forms an excep-
tion. Thus, none of the following examples implicates the persistence of a
direct result:
Have you ever been to Japan? (indefinite reading of the experiential usage type)
I’ve been waiting for you for the last ten minutes. (continuative reading)
[“What have you been doing?”] Ϫ “I’ve been digging the vegetable patch.” (non-
quantificational constitution reading; note that, out of context, I’ve dug the vegetable
patch would be interpreted as nonexperiential indefinite and hence as referring to a
direct result.)
Fourteen years have passed since then. (duration-quantifying constitution reading)
So far I’ve had three jobs [and none of them lasted a month]. (number-quantifying
constitution reading)
5.37.5 The fact that a present perfect sentence yielding an indefinite reading
can implicate the persistence of the direct result entails that such a sentence

can be used as an indirect way of conveying a message about the present.
A parcel has arrived for Gordon. (message: ‘There is a parcel for Gordon.’)
He has learnt to type. (message: ‘He can type.’)
They’ve cut off the electricity. (message: ‘We don’t have any electricity.’)
I’ve been to the hairdresser’s. (message: ‘My hair is done.’)
I’ve finished my homework. (message: ‘My homework is done.’)
She’s been bitten by a goat. (This implicates that the injury is current, i. e. that it is
not healed yet.) (Compare with She was bitten by a goat, which implicates that the
injury is healed or in some other way no longer exists Ϫ perhaps she is dead Ϫ or
that even if the injury is not healed it is no longer causing trouble.)
5.37.6 The idea of a direct result is not incompatible with the implicature
that there are also indirect results. Thus, the message ‘My hair is done’ (impli-
cated by I’ve been to the hairdresser’s) can be evoked to trigger other inter-
pretations, such as ‘My hair looks nice now’, ‘I don’t need to have my hair
done for some time’, etc. Similarly, saying I’ve finished my homework may be
an indirect way of asking ‘Can I go out to play now?’. There can even be
contexts in which the importance of the present direct result is downgraded in
favour of the importance of an indirect present result. For example, She has
closed the door, whose default implicature is clearly ‘The door is closed’, can
be used in contexts that do not invite the interpretation ‘The door is closed’ as
304 5. The absolute use of the present perfect
a direct result communicated by the utterance. This is the case, e. g. if the door
has just been painted. Then the primary result the speaker wants to convey by
She has closed the door is likely to be ‘The door is probably now stuck to the
door-frame (and the new paint will be a mess when we open the door again)’
rather than simply ‘The door is closed’.
5.37.7 In some present perfect sentences there is an idea of indirect result
without there being an idea of direct result. Such sentences too can be used as
an indirect way of conveying a message about the present:
This gate has often been locked in the past, but now nobody bothers to do so

any more.
This gate has been locked in the past, but now nobody bothers to do so any more.
This gate has often been locked, but now nobody bothers to do so any more.
None of these sentences carries the direct result implicature ‘The gate is now
locked’ because that implicature is blocked by in the past and/or cancelled by
the but-clause. However, in a suitable context an indirect result implicature
like ‘The sheep may be all over the road’ can arise, in the same way as I haven’t
had breakfast can implicate ‘I can’t go to work yet.’ Similarly, the sentence
Your boy has fallen off the swing.
can be used to explain the existence of a present indirect result, e. g. that there’s
a very loud wailing coming from the direction of the swings, or that several
people are currently grouped round the swing, etc. It is not really possible to
tell what the direct result is.
5.37.8 It should be clear now that, contrary to what is sometimes claimed in
the linguistic literature, the idea of ‘present result’ does not form part of the
semantics of the present perfect. (As noted in 2.15.1, the semantics of a tense
is the temporal structure it realizes.) It is true, though, that ‘current relevance’
follows from the fact that the situation is located in the pre-present rather than
in the past, and that that current relevance meaning is most readily interpreted
as result, if that is possible. The latter statement Ϫ the present perfect implies
a result if the context allows it Ϫ means that the idea of a present result is no
more than a cancellable implicature of the (indefinite) present perfect. The
implicature results from the fact that the choice of the present perfect means
that the speaker is concerned with the present relevance of the bygone situa-
tion. The idea of present result represents the most salient form of present
relevance, and will therefore suggest itself unless there is some contextual or
pragmatic factor ruling it out or rendering it unlikely. It is in keeping with this
that the implicature of a direct present result arises only when the lapse of time
between the bygone situation and the present is relatively short, so that, failing
any indication to the contrary, the speaker can assume that the direct result

which the bygone situation has produced is still holding.
IX. ‘Current relevance’ and ‘present result’ 305
The ‘relative shortness’ of the lapse of time between the bygone situation
and t
0
may of course be different according to the pragmatics of the sentence
and its context which determine the kind of interpretation that is assigned to
the sentence involving the indefinite present perfect:
I haven’t had breakfast yet. (The speaker may be referring to a present indirect
result: his message may be ‘I cannot leave for the office yet; I need to have breakfast
first’. This resultative interpretation of the indefinite perfect is partly determined by
our pragmatic knowledge that breakfast is eaten every day. If breakfast was eaten,
say, once a week, the fact that the speaker has not had breakfast yet today would
not necessarily lead to the conclusion that today he cannot leave for the office with-
out having breakfast first.)
(doctor to patient) Have you had a cold? (This implies a relevant period of only a
few weeks, because it is common for a person to have a cold at least once a year
and because the effect of a cold does not last longer than a few weeks.)
(doctor to patient) Have you had malaria? (The question may relate either to a
relatively short period leading up to now or to a period which is as long as it is
possible for the question to be asked about, namely the addressee’s lifetime. In both
cases the speaker is considering the possibility of a present result, viz. that the illness
might be currently affecting the addressee or might affect the addressee again in
the future.)
(doctor to patient) Have you had rubella? (This is a ‘present result’ question for
which the relevant period of occurrence of the questioned present perfect situation
is the addressee’s life, since the most obvious interpretation of the question Ϫ namely
that it is asked in order to ascertain the addressee’s current immunity to rubella Ϫ
involves the assumption that an occurrence at any time in the addressee’s life is rel-
evant.)

All this is in keeping with what was said in 5.1.2, viz. that when the pre-present
period remains implicit (unspecified), it is normally interpreted as the shortest
time span leading up to now that is in keeping with the semantics and pragmat-
ics of the sentence and its context.
5.37.9 In the previous subsections we have spoken about ‘direct’ and ‘indi-
rect’ present results. Let us now have a closer look at the factors determining
which of these two kinds of result is implicated on an indefinite perfect inter-
pretation.
(a) If the situation referred to in the present perfect is represented as telic and
bounded, the direct present result which may be communicated by the
choice of the indefinite present perfect concerns the state of affairs that
comes about when the situation is completed:
I have written a book. (message: ‘There now exists a book of which I am the au-
thor.’)
Ian has shut the window. (message: ‘The window is shut now.’)
I have learned to drive. (message: ‘I can drive.’)
306 5. The absolute use of the present perfect
This does not mean, however, that the direct result is necessarily the most
salient or most relevant present result in the given context (see 5.37.6). More-
over, there are examples of bounded telic sentences in the present perfect where
there is no clear idea of direct present result. For example, although I have
written a book has ‘there exists a book by me’ as direct result (because it has
an ‘effected entity’ as direct object), it is not clear what the direct present result
is of I have run a mile, though this sentence too is telic and bounded.
(b) If the situation referred to is not represented as telic or/and is not repre-
sented as bounded, the idea of a present result can only be suggested by
the context or the pragmatics of the situation. In other words, it is not a
direct result but an indirect one:
John has been in the cellar. (atelic) (This sentence may, according to context, sug-
gest ‘So he must be dirty’, ‘So he must be cold’, ‘So he must have found out our

secret’, etc.)
I have been writing a book. (telic but not bounded) (This sentence may, according
to context, suggest ‘That’s why I am so tired’, ‘That’s why I haven’t been to the
pub much recently’, etc. Ϫ see also section 5.26.3 above.)
There is no suggestion of a direct result here. Any resultative reading that may
be selected is a context-dependent indirect result reading.
5.37.10 The implicature of a present result does not arise when the bygone
situation is explicitly represented as broken off before t
0
and as no longer
belonging to the speaker’s world of thinking:
I have, until recently, been a contributing member to SPLC for several years, and
until recently, I have been proud of that association. [(…) Unfortunately, the SPLC’s
new focus is detracting from our solid reputation, and if it does not change soon, I
fear that the damage to an excellent organization will be permanent.] (www)
5.37.11 In a literary (or semi-archaic) register, the verb go allows the direct
present result to be expressed not only by have gone but also by be gone:
{Jill has gone / Jill is gone}.
[Today it is fruitless to seek Matthews’s own views on the future,] for he is gone
from the bungalow and not likely to be back for some time. (www)
Now that Sharon is gone, we’ll have to appoint a new secretary. (is gone ϭ ‘is no
longer with us’)
[Christmas in Panama this year is a season of genuine Thanksgiving.] Noriega is
gone. [Things are on the mend and there remains a widespread sense of gratitude
to Uncle Sam for making a new start possible.] (COB-S) (ϭ The Noriega regime
is over.)
It should also be noted that unlike has gone, which denotes a movement and
implicates a resultant state, be gone normally directly denotes a present state
IX. ‘Current relevance’ and ‘present result’ 307
(without referring to a movement producing it). The only normal inter-

pretations are therefore ‘be away’, ‘no longer be at a (contextually given)
place’, ‘have disappeared’, or ‘be over’, ‘be dead’. This explains why we cannot
say *Jill is gone home (whereas we can say Jill has gone home). In other words,
be gone normally expresses a pure state, without reference to movement.