Cover not available
Part of
The Perfect Volume: Papers on the perfect
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide and Marc Fryd
[Studies in Language Companion Series 217] 2021
► pp. 1–40

Chapter 1
The perfect volume

Papers on the perfect

| Norwegian University of Science and Technology
| University of Poitiers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Delimiting and describing the perfect: Typological approaches
  • 3.Morphology: Synthetic, periphrastic, ellipsis and expansion
  • 4.Semantics, prototypical readings and aoristic drift
  • 5.Evidentiality and the perfect
  • 6.The (present) perfect: Tense or aspect?
  • 7.The present perfect puzzle, remote and immediate past
  • 8.Overview and summary of the contributions in this volume
    • 8.1Part I: Perfects and their relatives: Typology, diachrony, and variation
    • 8.2Part II: Perfect extensions, hodiernality and aoristic drift
    • 8.3Part III: Morphology of perfects: Development, selection and omission
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.217.01eid
References (109)
References
Aa, Leiv Inge, Eide, Kristin Melum & Åfarli, Tor A. 2014. Somme mytar er fort avkledde: Perfektum partisipp i dialektkorpuset. In Språk i Norge og nabolanda, Janne Bondi Johannessen & Kristin Hagen (eds), 217–240. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Amaral, Patricia & Howe, Chad. 2010. Detours along the perfect path. Romance Linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Tuscon, Arizona, March 2009, [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 315], Sonia Colina, Antxon Olarrea & Ana Maria Carvalho (eds), 387–404. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis. 2010. Le passé surcomposé existentiel. Etudes Romanes de Brno 31(1): 97–109.Google Scholar
Baechler, Rafaela & Seiler, Guido. 2016. Introduction. In Complexity, Isolation and Variation, Rafaela Baechler & Guido Seiler (eds), 1–14. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berizzi, Mariachiara & Rossi, Silvia. 2010. Sure I’m after seeing him not five minutes ago. (J. Joyce) The After-Perfect Construction in Hiberno-English. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 10: 19–37.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 2016. Classifications. In The Oxford Guide to Romance Languages, Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), 63–72. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boulle, Jacques. 1987. Aspect et diathèse en basque. Actances 3: 86–119.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt. 1984. Morphologische Undursichtigkeit – Ein Charakeristikum kleiner Sprachen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistichen Linguistik 22: 48–68.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne. 2005. Live Fast, Die Young – The Short Life of Early Modern German Auxiliary Ellipsis [LOT Dissertation Series 115]. Utrecht: LOT.
Brugger, Gerhard. 1998. Temporal modification, the 24-hour rule, and the location of reference time. In Perspectives on Spanish Linguistics, Vol. 2, Luis Silva-Villar & Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach (eds), 1–23. Columbus OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Bull, William Emerson. 1960. Time, Tense and the Verb. A Study in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics with Particular Attention to Spanish. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1): 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Introduction. In Crellin & Jügel (eds), 1–13.Google Scholar
Cordova, Juan de. 1578. Arte en lengva zapoteca. Mexico: Casa de Pedro Balli. Republished by Nicolás León as Arte del idioma zapoteco de Juan de Córdova (Imprenta del Gobierno en la Escuela de Artes, Morelia, Michoacán, 1886). A facsimile edition of León’s edition was published as Arte del idioma zapoteco (Ediciones Toledo and INAH, Mexico City, 1987). [xzp]Google Scholar
Crellin, Robert & Jügel, Thomas (eds). 2020. Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curell, Hortènsia. 2002. The present perfect in English and in Catalan. In Meaning through Language in Contrast, Vol. 1 [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 99], Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (eds), 101–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2011. Quantitative explorations of the world-wide distribution of rare characteristics, or: The exceptionality of northwestern European languages. In Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar, Horst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds), 411–432. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2000. The tense-aspect systems of European languages in typological perspective. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–6], Östen Dahl (ed.), 3–25. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Velupillai, Viveka. 2013. The perfect. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Ch. 68. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Uribe-Extebarria, Myriam. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 157–186. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2000. Combining English auxiliaries. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 111–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2013. Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe. Studies in Language 37(3): 599–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Calquing a quirk: The perfect in the languages of Europe. In Crellin & Jügel (eds), 591–614.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Dumont, Jenny. 2013. Another look at the present perfect in an Andean variety of Spanish: Grammaticalization and evidentiality in Quiteño Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro, Gillian Lord, Ana de Prada Pérez & Jessi Elana Aaron (eds), 279–291. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Dyvik, Helge. 1999. The universality of f-stucture: Discovery or stipulation? The case of modals. In Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracey Holloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Eggers, Eckhard. 1998. Sprachwandel und Sprachmischung im Jiddischen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2005. Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. Tense, finiteness and the survive principle: Temporal chains in a crash-proof grammar. In Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-minimalism [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 144] Michael T. Putnam (ed.), 91–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The ghost of the Old Norse subjunctive: The Norwegian subjunctive participle. Special issue on Diachronic and Synchronic Studies on Time, Tense and Aspect in Varieties of English and Other Germanic Languages, Marc Fryd (ed.). Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 53(2): 1–28.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Figini, Valeria Erminia. 1996. Due caratteristiche sintattiche dell’inglese d’Irlanda a confronto: Il ‘present perfect’ e il ‘presente abituale’. QPL 16: 95–158.Google Scholar
Foulet, Lucien. 1920. La disparition du prétérite. Romania 46: 271–313.Google Scholar
Fryd, Marc. 2015. The narrative present perfect in English. In Thinking Modally: English and Contrastive Studies on Modality, Juan Rafael Zamorano Mansilla, Carmen Maíz, Elena Domínguez & Ma Victoria Martín de la Rosa (eds), 185–202. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2018. The Diachrony of Verb Meaning. Aspect and Argument Structure. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakis, Georgios. 1993. The tense-aspect system of the Indo-European verb. Word 44(3): 485–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra & Pianesi, Fabio. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 257–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grønn, Atle & von Stechow, Arnim. 2020. The perfect. In Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cecile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas E. Zimmermann (eds). 1–30. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline & Hoekstra, Teun. 1995. The temporal interpretation of predication. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 28: Small Clauses, Anna Cardinaletti & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), 77–107. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2018. Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral. In Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 97–115. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The inferential perfect in Scandinavian: A problem of contrastive linguistics. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17(2): 132–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herweg, Michael. 1991a. A critical account of two classical approaches to aspect. Journal of Semantics 8: 362–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991b. Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and states. Linguistics 29: 969–1010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, T. Ronald. 1976. Past tense replacement and the modal system. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, James D. McCawley (ed.), 86–100. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howe, Lewis Chadwick. 2006. Cross-dialectal Features of the Spanish Present Perfect: A Typological Analysis of Form and Function. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.
Howe, Chad & Schwenter, Scott A. 2008. Variable constraints on past reference in dialects of Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, Maurice Westmoreland & Juan Antonio Thomas (eds), 100–108. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1975. Speech and language: On the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. In Language as a Human Problem, Morton Bloomfield & Einar Haugen (eds), 45–71. Guildford: Lutterworth Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Izvorski, Roumyana. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 189–238. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of SALT XII, Brendan Jackson (ed.), 222–239. Austin TX: Universty of Texas. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1929. Über die heutigen Voraussetzungen der russischen Slavistik, Slavische Rundshau 1: 629–646.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924 [1965]. The Philosophy of Grammar. New York NY: The Norton Library. Also published in 1992 by The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Vol. 4: Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2000. Optional ha in Swedish and Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 66: 33–74. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
. 2001. The syntax of complex tenses. The Linguistic Review 18: 125–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Dobbelsupinum og irreal modus. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 21: 135–161.Google Scholar
Kallen, Jeffrey L. 1989. Tense and aspect categories in Irish English. English World-Wide 10(1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinnander, Bengt. 1974. Perfektum i sekundäranvändning. Nysvenska Studier 53: 127–172.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71(4): 669–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Werner. 1985. dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 13(51): 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, Brenda. 2018. Modals and perfect morphology. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 17: 43–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Ida. 2009. Participles in Time: The Development of the Perfect Tense in Swedish. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Levanto, Leonardo. 1732. Arte de la lengua zapoteca [John Carter Brown Library Manuscript]. <[URL]> (27 October 2020).
Lindgren, Kaj. B. 1957. Über den oberdeutschen Präteritumschwund. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, Juoko. 2000. The perfect: Aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–6], Östen Dahl (ed.), 365–383. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William B. 1995. Lehrbuch der modernen jiddischen Sprache. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1909 [1926]. Sur la disparition des formes simples du preterit. In Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Vol. 1, 149–158. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Magnotta, Elizabeth. 2011. Past simple & present perfect: Distribution in the Standard Italian of Greater Rome. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 21: 92–101.Google Scholar
Mallory, James & Adams, Douglas Q. 2006. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Martínez Atienza, María. 2008. Dos formas de oposición en el ámbito románico entre el pretérito perfecto compuesto y el pretérito perfecto simple. In Tiempos compuestos y formas verbales complejas, Ángeles Carrasco Gutiérrez (ed.), 203–229. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds), 96–113. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
1981. Notes on the English present perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 81–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCoard, Robert W. 1978. The English Perfect: Tense Choice and Pragmatic Inferences. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Mellet, Sylvie. 2000. Le parfait latin: Un praeteritum perfectum . In Passé et Parfait [Cahiers Chronos 6], Anne Carlier, Véronique Lagae & Céline Benninger (eds), 95–106. Leiden: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1909 [1926]. Sur la disparition des formes simples du preterit. In Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Vol. 1, 149–158. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
ter Meulen, Alice G. B. 1995. Representing time in natural language. In The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-time Reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2003. The aspectual makeup of Perfect participles and the interpretations of the Perfect. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 277–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2009. Double auxiliaries, anteriority and terminativity. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponelis, Frits. 1993. The Development of Afrikaans. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ritz, Marie-Eve. 2012. Perfect tense and aspect. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, Robert Binnick (ed.), 881–907. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ritz, Marie-Eve & Engel, Dulcie. 2008. Vivid narrative use and the meaning of the present perfect in spoken Australian English. Linguistics 46(1): 131–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2001. Mechanisms of syntactic change: The rise and fall of prepositional constructions in late Modern English. Paper presented at the Later Modern English conference, Edinburgh.
Rothstein, Björn. 2008. The Perfect Time Span. On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 125]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandøy, Helge. 1991. Attraksjon av supinum i færøysk og norsk. Danske Folkemål 33: 251–262.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott & Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2008. Defaults and indeterminacy in temporal grammaticalization: The “perfect” road to perfective. Language Variation and Change 20: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbat, G. 1976. Les temps du verbe en latin. Le parfait de l’indicatif actif. Revue d’Études Latines 54: 308–352.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario & Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–6], Östen Dahl (ed.), 403–439. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1996. The phrase structure of tense. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon [Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33], Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1985. Reichenbach revisited: One, two or three temporal relations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The tense systems of English, Danish and German. Handout, Workshop on Neurolinguistics, Morphology & Syntax, Dept. of Aesthetics & Communication, Aarhus University, 17 January.
Walker, Jim. 1998. The footballer’s perfect – Are footballers leading the way? In The Linguistics of Football, Eve Lavric, Gerhard Pisek, Andrew Skinner & Wolfgang Stadler (eds), 24–38. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik, Band III: Formenlehre, Erster Part: Geschichte der Indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Weissberg, Josef. 1988. Jiddisch, eine Einführung. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar