The grammar of the english verb phrase part 87 pps

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)