on characterizing the "perfect"

The best topics from Languages & Linguistics, kept on a permanent basis.
Post Reply
User avatar
Radius Solis
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Si'ahl
Contact:

on characterizing the "perfect"

Post by Radius Solis »

Just a note for those who may be interested.

For as long as I've been acquainted with linguistics, I have found all descriptions of the English perfect that I've run across to be wholly unsatisfying.

* In the LCK Mark characterizes it as basically conveying completion. This has several flaws, most notably 1. you can use it with incomplete actions ("I have done a lot but there's still more to go!") and 2. you can also use the simple past for complete ones ("I did everything on my list.") Mark describes this as "mess" that diverges from prototype. For the purpose of explaining the completion prototype to new people, this works, but for the purpose of describing English we can surely do better.

* Often in our community, and at least some of the time in academic linguistics, you see the perfect characterized as a "past event with present relevance". The trouble here is that we do not normally mention much anything that lacks some kind of present relevance (c.f. Grice). What is "present relevence" even supposed to mean? Descriptions of this sort sometimes treat the perfect as a "bridge" aspect, serving to connect the past to the present - or, in some other languages, the perfective to the imperfective, or the irrealis to the realis. There may be merit to this angle of attack, but I'm mainly concerned with English rather than cross-linguistics at the moment.

Both valiant efforts, but my gut feeling has always been that neither of them hits a home run.


An hour ago I happened across the Perfect aspect article on Wikipedia, only to find a characterization there that does: the perfect "calls a listener's attention to the consequences generated by an action, rather than just the action itself."

My native-speaker intuition says: Bingo.

I have been able to come up with no examples where the perfect doesn't have this effect, and no examples of this effect caused by any of our other grammatical TAM operations. Nor can I think of any situation where this distinction is not the chief motivation to use the perfect over some other form. If you can, please post.

That said, the statement is a touch on the muddy side. I might propose a clarity improvement: "Rather than simply mentioning a past action, the perfect integrates its consequences into the situational context of the speech act." (This doesn't extend so well to the pluperfect and future perfect, though.)

Criticism welcome.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Post by Salmoneus »

I think an improvement would be to say that it's for past events with present relevance. It's not just the consequences, it's present consequences - otherwise you use the pluperfect instead.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
Niedokonany
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:31 pm
Location: Kliwia Czarna

Post by Niedokonany »

The holy WALS treats constructions which have a resultative use (i.e. underlining consequences of some action at a relevant time) and an experiential use (have you ever...?) as "perfects".
uciekajcie od światów konających

User avatar
Radius Solis
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Si'ahl
Contact:

Post by Radius Solis »

Salmoneus wrote:I think an improvement would be to say that it's for past events with present relevance. It's not just the consequences, it's present consequences - otherwise you use the pluperfect instead.
To paraphrase something you yourself once said to someone else: I refer you to the post you replied to, in which I answer your response to it.

Vardelm
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:37 pm
Contact:

Re: on characterizing the "perfect"

Post by Vardelm »

Radius Solis wrote:...the perfect "calls a listener's attention to the consequences generated by an action, rather than just the action itself."
Perhaps something like...
...the perfect "calls a listener's attention to the present consequences generated by a past action, rather than just the action itself."
....?


I prefer the term "retrospective" for the perfect. I think it captures the idea that you are looking at an action that has been completed, but you are doing it from the present time and weighing its impact.


Also, as a side note:
Radius Solis wrote:This has several flaws, most notably 1. you can use it with incomplete actions ("I have done a lot but there's still more to go!")
I would say that the definition given still applies to that sentence. "You have done a lot" shows that "a lot" is completed: it's perfect.

TomHChappell
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 807
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm

Post by TomHChappell »

The retrospective (often called "perfect"), which is arguably an aspect but (IMO more) arguably not, does indeed call the speech-act-participants' attention to the effects of the action spoken of, rather than to the action itself.

The time at which the action took place (or will take place), is anterior to the time at which the action's effects are relevant, that is, to the time at which the effects are those to which the speaker wants to call the addressee's attention.

Some grammarians sometimes speak of "relative tense" (a.k.a. "vorzeitigkeit" or "anteriority"). It's values are "anterior vs simultaneous vs posterior". "Anterior" means "happened before some other event also spoken of"; "posterior" means "happened after some other event also spoken of"; "simultaneous" means "overlapping in time with some other event also spoken of".

Speaking of retrospective as a modification of tense, rather than "past event whose effects are still relevant in the present", we might better say "anterior event whose effects are still relevant simultaneously".

So, a "past retrospective" or "past perfect" or "pluperfect", would be calling attention to the effects, at some past time, of some action which took place anterior to that past time.

A "future retrospective" or "future perfect", would be calling attention to the effects, at some future time, of some action which has taken place, or is taking place, or will take place, anterior to that future time.

And similiarly, a "present retrospective" or "present perfect" (a.k.a. "retrospective" or "perfect"), would be calling attention to the effects, at the time of the speech-act,, of some action which has taken place, anterior to the time of the speech act.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's been discussion on the ZBB before about this.
See, for instance, http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.p ... rospective and that whole thread, and http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.p ... ive#710669, among others.

And, on the CBB; http://conlanger.com/cbb/viewtopic.php? ... fect#33513 and its thread, and http://conlanger.com/cbb/viewtopic.php? ... fect#21047 and its thread, for instance.

One idea that was raised in the discussion I remember, (but which I can no longer find, so maybe it was pruned), was that there're constructions similar to the "retrospective", except they are to aspect as "retrospective" is to tense; or, they are to mood as "retrospective" is to tense.

For instance this contributor (whose name I've forgotten) stated that in some languages (I forget which ones), a "retrospective"-like construction is used to indicate a perfective-aspect event (that is, the speaker does not intend to discuss the internal temporal structure of the event) whose effects are relevant to an imperfective-aspect situation; perhaps a completed event whose effects have ongoing relevance.

And s/he stated that in some languages (I forget which ones), a "retrospective"-like construction is used to indicate a realis-mood situation (one whose occurrence is a matter of fact) whose effects are relevant to an irrealis-mood situation; perhaps the realis-mood "retrospective" situation's effects, affect whether or not some other situation, about which the speaker is mostly speaking, is possible; or desirable; or obligatory; or some such thing.

If those remarks are true, that is another reason for me to think calling "retrospective" an "aspect" is not universally the best idea.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize if you think this is condescending, but:
Are you absolutely sure you haven't mixed up "perfect" with "perfective"?
(Avoiding such mix-ups, and avoiding unnecessary questions about potential mix-ups, is one good reason to call this thing "retrospective" instead of "perfect".)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia's article screws up the use and definition of "anterior", as well as calling "perfect" an aspect, which it might not be.
"Anterior" is not correctly used in place of "perfect". They don't mean the same thing. What's perfect (I'd rather say "retrospective") is anterior, but not all that's anterior is perfect. A "perfect" verb refers to an event, whose effects are still relevant at a more-focused (or more-interesting or more-topical) time, such that the "perfect" event was anterior to the more-topical or more-focussed time.

User avatar
faiuwle
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:26 am
Location: MA north shore

Re: on characterizing the "perfect"

Post by faiuwle »

Radius Solis wrote:That said, the statement is a touch on the muddy side. I might propose a clarity improvement: "Rather than simply mentioning a past action, the perfect integrates its consequences into the situational context of the speech act." (This doesn't extend so well to the pluperfect and future perfect, though.)
It could be easily applied to pluperfect, IMO, by changing it to "Rather than simply mentioning a past action, the pluperfect integrates its consequences into the situational context of a later past action." Similarly, I think future perfect would make a future action's consequences relevant to a (yet more) future context, but it's still basically the same thing. In that respect, I guess prospective (about to X) is sort of a reversal of future perfect - the preconditions (if you will) of the future action having an effect on the present context.

tl;dr - that is my intuition, too.
It's (broadly) [faɪ.ˈjuw.lɛ]
#define FEMALE

ConlangDictionary 0.3 3/15/14 (ZBB thread)

Quis vult in terra stare,
Cum possit volitare?

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Post by Salmoneus »

Radius Solis wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:I think an improvement would be to say that it's for past events with present relevance. It's not just the consequences, it's present consequences - otherwise you use the pluperfect instead.
To paraphrase something you yourself once said to someone else: I refer you to the post you replied to, in which I answer your response to it.
But, dearest, the difference is that I DID read the post, and that's WHY I used exactly that formulation. The point being that you raise the definition, discard it, and then essentially arrive at the same definition again, only this time with a flaw.

Or: I refer YOU to the post you refer me to, in which you answered your reply to my reply to it.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Post by zompist »

I find most of these definitions too vague to evaluate. "Relevance" is particularly bad— as Radius points out, everything we say is relevant, otherwise why say it?

It might help to get down to specifics.

1. I went to Paris.
2. I was going to Paris.
3. I've gone to Paris.

There's definitely a completion aspect to (3) as opposed to (2), but it's shared with (1).

To me, (3) sounds like it's recording an accomplishment; compare "I've read Aristotle", "I've learned Chinese", "I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate". The simple past implies the same activity but doesn't make a big deal of it.

4. I've lived in Paris (for 10 years).
5. I lived in Paris.

Strangely, adding in the parenthetical removes the idea of completion. I think this is a special sense with a clear meaning: an action that started in the past and still continues. Compare "I've chosen the darkness", "I've always voted Socialist", "I've joined the Mormons".

6. I've done some pretty bad things.
7. I did some pretty bad things.

The meaning is about the same, but (6) seems more subjective: the speaker owns up to his responsibility. Thus it's more appropriate for an apology (the quotation is from Tiger Woods). Sentences like (4) may influence the meaning, as (6) doesn't seem to draw as sharp as line between past and present. Similarly, "I've been shot" sounds more immediate and subjective than "I was shot" or even "They're shooting me". And "You've been drinking vodka" sounds more accusatory than "You drank vodka".

8. I've got rhythm.
9. I have rhythm.
10. I've gotten rhythm.
11. I had rhythm.

First, the easy bits: 8 definitely implies continued possession unlike (11), and (10) focusses on acquisition instead (cf. "I've got the cash", I have it, vs. "I've gotten the cash", I acquired it).

I'm not sure 8 differs from (9) in anything but register— it just sounds more colloquial.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Post by Salmoneus »

zompist wrote:I find most of these definitions too vague to evaluate. "Relevance" is particularly bad— as Radius points out, everything we say is relevant, otherwise why say it?
But it's only sometimes RELEVANT that it's relevant. I'd say the perfect marks relevant relevance. Or rather: by saying 'it has present relevance', we're contrasting it to a present non-relevance, even if that non-relevance is only relative.

I distrust definitions that are not vague. If they aren't vague, they're not true. There AREN'T hard-and-fast rules about the use of tenses. [Or those rules are not exhaustive][/quote]

It might help to get down to specifics.

1. I went to Paris.
2. I was going to Paris.
3. I've gone to Paris.

There's definitely a completion aspect to (3) as opposed to (2), but it's shared with (1).

To me, (3) sounds like it's recording an accomplishment; compare "I've read Aristotle", "I've learned Chinese", "I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate". The simple past implies the same activity but doesn't make a big deal of it.[/quote]
But some of your examples might confuse. "I've read Aristotle" is normally an experiential, rather than a perfect, although both meanings are possible. I'd say the experiential is more about accomplishment than the perfect is. "I've gone to Paris" isn't an accomplisment, it's an explanation for why you don't seem to be in New York anymore.

Going to Paris is an action with a telic state attached. "I've gone to Paris" indicates that that state still holds.
4. I've lived in Paris (for 10 years).
5. I lived in Paris.

Strangely, adding in the parenthetical removes the idea of completion. I think this is a special sense with a clear meaning: an action that started in the past and still continues. Compare "I've chosen the darkness", "I've always voted Socialist", "I've joined the Mormons".
Without the date, it's interpreted as an experiential, not a perfect, so you're no longer living in Paris. So, the telic state doesn't hold. With the time reference, it can't be interpreted as an experiential anymore, so it must be a perfect. "To live somewhere" isn't telic, so its 'telic state' is just a continuence of its own state. So, you're still living in Paris.

"I've chosen the darkness" and "I've joined the Mormons" are both perfects. The telic states of each verb still apply in the present, while those of "I chose the darkness" and "I joined the Mormons" needn't - in that case, you may no longer be chosing the darkness, and you may no longer be a Mormon.

"I've always voted Socialist" is an experiential. Past indicatives with "always" or "never" or the like require the experiential unless there is a qualification, and the experiential is superficially the same as the perfect.

[So, we can't say **"I never voted Socialist" unless it's followed by "until X", or follows "what happened when X" or "without Ying" or the like. Likewise, we can't say **"I've never gone to Paris", only "I've never been to Paris", unless it's qualified, as in "I've never gone to Paris without an umbrella" or "I've never gone to Paris in the Spring".]
6. I've done some pretty bad things.
7. I did some pretty bad things.

The meaning is about the same, but (6) seems more subjective: the speaker owns up to his responsibility. Thus it's more appropriate for an apology (the quotation is from Tiger Woods). Sentences like (4) may influence the meaning, as (6) doesn't seem to draw as sharp as line between past and present.
"I've done some pretty bad things" - the telic state of the action remains - in this case one part of that state is being guilty. Well, OK, 'telic' is the wrong word. "Immediate result state", perhaps. Anyway, in the other case, the guilt does not remain. For a more straightforward example:

6a. I've eaten some bad food. - the immediate result state of eating is that the food is in you, so you're likely to be sick.
Similarly, "I've been shot" sounds more immediate and subjective than "I was shot" or even "They're shooting me". And "You've been drinking vodka" sounds more accusatory than "You drank vodka".
I don't think you need to bring in subjectivity or morality. In the first case, the immediate result state of being shot is that you're bleeding - "I was shot" suggests the immediate result state has passed (you're either better or you've progressed to slow death on a hospital bed). In the second case, the immediate result of drinking vodka is being drunk. However, there is a second meaning here, as a continuous experiential.
8. I've got rhythm.
9. I have rhythm.
10. I've gotten rhythm.
11. I had rhythm.

First, the easy bits: 8 definitely implies continued possession unlike (11), and (10) focusses on acquisition instead (cf. "I've got the cash", I have it, vs. "I've gotten the cash", I acquired it).

I'm not sure 8 differs from (9) in anything but register— it just sounds more colloquial.
To me, this is about the weird issues of 'got' and 'gotten', which are in flux for me and vary a lot with dialect.


---------------


So, my summary theory:

1. Verbs are either states or actions that result immediately in states - particular states, not any old consequences. Call this, and the states of statives, the Core State.
2. The perfect is used where the Core State endures into the present, but the action occured or the State was entered before the present.

However, there's also a superficially identical form, differing only for the verb 'to go', which is an experiential. There are instantive and stative forms of the experiential. So:

3. The experiential is used to indicate a past event that has salient present non-physical consequences upon the mental or social resources of the subject.
4. The experiential is demanded for past events qualified with 'always' or 'never' (and maybe other things) unless another qualification is offered. I think this is because these qualifiers say "I'm not talking about a particular time period", and hence demand that we be talking about the present, via an experiential, unless we qualify the qualifiers ourselves.

Examples of experientials:
"You've been drinking vodka!" (when I'm not drunk, but may be an alcoholic)
"I've made one fortune, I can make another!" (when the first fortune has been lost)
"I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate"

All three are different from normal perfect semantics, but match my proposed experiential semantics.

Note also that the experiential seems to require an object. "You've been drinking vodka" or "I've eaten eels" can be read as either perfects or as experientials, but "You've been drinking" and "I've eaten" can only be read as perfects.

Anyway, I think that much of the confusion is that there are two different things here that just happen to look the same in most cases (and in most cases context can tell the difference - it may be that we've developed the explicit difference for 'to go' precisely because it's one of the few verbs where both perfect and experiential are commonplace), but which have different rules of usage.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

Rodlox
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:02 am

Re: on characterizing the "perfect"

Post by Rodlox »

Radius Solis wrote:* In the LCK Mark characterizes it as basically conveying completion. This has several flaws, most notably 1. you can use it with incomplete actions ("I have done a lot but there's still more to go!")
well, in that example, you've completed a lot (presumably of separate tasks that may be related), and you have more yet to do.

so..."present-perfect & to-be-perfect-in-future"?
MadBrain is a genius.

User avatar
Terra
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 10:01 am

Post by Terra »

I don't think you need to bring in subjectivity or morality. In the first case, the immediate result state of being shot is that you're bleeding - "I was shot" suggests the immediate result state has passed (you're either better or you've progressed to slow death on a hospital bed). In the second case, the immediate result of drinking vodka is being drunk. However, there is a second meaning here, as a continuous experiential.
If I may, I want to interject here with an interesting use of "before". Compare:
1) I was shot. - Can't refer to the immediate result state of the action, but only the later result.
2) I've been shot. - Can refer to either the immediate result or the later result, though usually the latter.
3) I've been shot before. - Can only refer to the later result.

Interesting how a normally temporal preposition turned into an adverb that can do this. Also, it never fails to throw off non-native speakers that I know.

User avatar
psygnisfive
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:26 pm
Location: College Park, MD; Fort Lauderdale, FL
Contact:

Post by psygnisfive »

You might want to check out some of the formal semantics literature on aspect, this comes up quite a bit. I believe the sort of generalization that they have is that if you have some sort of plurality of events that constitute a non-singular event (e.g. running, in which parts constitute running as well) then the perfect is sort of saying that the latest bound on the plural event includes the reference interval of time with some portion prior to that interval. There's undoubtedly more to it, and more is being discovered every day. One of my fellow grad students (Alexis Wellwood, in case you're interested in looking up her stuff; she's working a lot on this sort of thing recently) apparently found a previously unknown phenomena going on with "have" in certain infinitival complement verbs, where "V to V" means one thing, but "V to have V" means another, maybe different in voice or who knows what.
[img]http://wellnowwhat.net/male_gay.png[/img]

"We haven't thought that about grammars in 34 YEARS! Get with the times! If you need a ride, we'll give you one, just ask!" - Richard Larson, to Daniel Everett

Post Reply