Observations on the Present Perfect in English

World Englishes, Vol 18, No. 1, pp. 79±83, 1999. 0883±2919 SHORT ARTICLES Observations on the present perfect in English PAUL RASTALL* ABSTRACT: Observation of actual sentences shows that the expected incompatibility of the present perfect in English and adverbs `of finished time' may be set aside by speakers whose focus of attention is on the current relevance of the event to the moment of speaking. The criterion of `current relevance' has also led to a recent new usage. Communicational problems and conflicts here appear to be resolved pragmatically with reference to the principal purpose of communicational activity. This suggests a significant amount of flexibility in linguistic processing with grammatical form subordinate to communicational function. The writers of the standard reference grammars (both for native speakers and for English language learners) have all rightly stressed that in English: (a) the present perfect is predominantly a present tense;1 (b) it refers to past time `with current relevance' (as Quirk et al. put it, 1985: 190) to the moment of speaking; (c) and it has collocational compatibility with `indefinite time adverbs' (as Swan (1980: 494±5) puts it), such as recently, lately, often, sometimes, already, etc. It is said to be incompatible with `adverbs of finished time (e.g. yesterday, last weekend, then, in 1965)' (Swan, 1980: 495). Thus with regard to (b), Jespersen (1933: 241) says, `the [present] perfect is used with an indication of some length of time to denote what has lasted so long and is still.' He hath beene dead foure dayes (A.V.) How long have you lived here? This may be called the `inclusive present'. Thomson and Martinet (1980: 152) comment, `this tense may be said to be a sort of mixture of present and past. It always implies a strong connexion with the present and is chiefly used in conversations, letters, newspapers and television and radio reports.' Swan tells us that `if we say that something has happened or has been happening, we are generally thinking about the present as well as the past' and Quirk et al. (1985: 192) say `the present perfect relates the action more directly to the present time [then the past simple].' The various writers are agreed on the uses of the present perfect which are to refer to: . a state leading up to the present moment of speaking, e.g. Fred has been unhappy for weeks I've lived/been living there for two years.2 . a sequence or repeated events at indefinite times leading up to the time of speaking, e.g. I've often thought about that problem All of my children have been abroad. * Nagoya University of Commerce and Business Administration, Sagamine 4-4, Komenoki-cho, Nissin, 470±01 Aichi, Japan. E-mail: prastall@nucba.ac.jp A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 80 Paul Rastall . a habit (or recurrent event) in a period leading up to the time of speaking, e.g. Joe has been a member of the team for ten years I've been going to that church since I was young. (See Quirk et al. (1985: 192±3), Thomson and Martinet (1980: 152±3), and Swan (1980: 493±5.) As Quirk et al. say (1985: 193), the implications of the use of the present perfect are that the relevant time zone leads up to the present; the event is recent; and the result of the action still obtains in the present time. As far as point (c) above is concerned, all of the writers mentioned point out the collocational compatibility of the present perfect with `indefinite' adverbial expressions such as just, lately, recently, yet, never, ever, so far, up to now and constructions with for and since (for weeks, for two days, since last Saturday, since yesterday, etc.). Quirk et al. contrast adverbials of that sort with adverbials of `finished time' (1985: 194) which typically collocate with the past simple, e.g. yesterday, a week ago, earlier this week, last Monday, the other day, at 4 o'clock, on Tuesday. Those collocational compatibilities have often been usefully exploited in EFL materials to help students to acquire the distinction between the two tenses. (Two examples among many might be the New Cambridge English Course, 2 (Swan and Walter, 1990: 44 ff) and Access to English ± Starting out (Coles and Lord, 1974: 73 ff).) Swan (1980: 494) attempts to clarify the distinction further by drawing attention to the difference between I've spoken to the boss about my holiday and I spoke to the boss today about my holiday. The point is that the sentence with the present perfect has a present relevance (we expect to hear the outcome of the conversation and its consequences), whereas the use of today contextualises the event as one considered to be completed in the past `time zone'. According to Swan, the sentence *I've spoken to the boss today about my holiday is unacceptable. Similarly, he draws attention to the differences between Utopia has declared war on Fantasia and Utopia declared war on Fantasia last night. One would not expect *Utopia has declared war on Fantasia last night. Swan's remarks and those of other writers on this matter are undoubtedly substantially correct, but they are not entirely so. Observation of news broadcasts frequently (and of written materials occasionally) reveals cases in which the present perfect is combined with adverbials of `finished time' when a past simple may be expected. Some recent examples from the BBC are the following: At the hospital in Kinshasa staff have been paid just once last year. The first snows have fallen several weeks ago. Manchester United have gone back to the top of the Premier Division by beating West Ham 2±1 earlier today. I've been there [on a mountain] when a friend has died before. There has been an accident on the M1 earlier this morning and delays are expected. A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999 Observations on the present perfect in English 81 We've already seen 60 mm of rain in parts of India last night and more is on the way. (Weather forecast delivered the next day.) The Secretary of State has stated the position quite clearly last week. It is . . . I have announced new measures yesterday to deal with the situation. We have invited comments from interested parties at the press conference we held two days ago. There isn't the employment protection we have created in the 1950s. We have flown in the Alps last month. The strike by Israeli refuse workers has been called off on Sunday. Just on Sunday we have heard of a big deal which has been signed by Philips Petroleum. There is confusion tonight after a court has disqualified Mr Carey this afternoon from standing for election. They have admitted misconduct at their trials last week. I have been to America once. I have eaten snails on one occasion. 700 people have been killed in an incident last week. (A number of the sentences were said by government ministers or others in response to questioning.) While the examples are all drawn from British English, I am given to understand that similar phenomena are found in American English. I am not in a position to comment on other Englishes, for example in the Indian sub-continent or the Caribbean. It is important to note that, although the sentences in question seem awkward because of the expectation of a past simple tense, they are not `errors' or the products of non-standard speakers. It is interesting to note that Jane Austen once wrote in a personal letter quoted by David Cecil (1978: 74) You scold me so much in the nice long letter which I have this morning received from you that . . . This morning is clearly in the past `time zone' and a past simple might have been expected in her period also in such a sentence. The point about such examples is that they show up a potential for a conflict in the conditions of use of the present perfect in English. The criterion of `current relevance' to the moment of speaking is quite evident in all of the cases adduced, but in each case the speaker also wishes to convey the point in time when the past event occurred. Where this falls in the past `time zone', we would normally expect a past simple. However, as we can see, the current relevance or newsworthiness of the information may override the latter consideration. The focus of communicational attention is on the current relevance of the statement and not on the time adverbial. Here is an example of a pragmatic consideration overcoming a grammatical convention. The conflict for the speaker (and the slight surprise for the hearer) arises, of course, because the normally incompatible pieces of information ± the present perfect and the `finished time' adverbial ± occur in the same sentence. I have not seen this mentioned in any of the grammars I have consulted. Normally (and perhaps when the speaker is more prepared and less spontaneous) we get the situation described by Thomson and Martinet (1980: 157±8): `The present perfect is often used in newspapers and broadcasts to introduce an action which will then be described in the simple past tense. The time of the action is very often given in the second sentence.' They give the example, The Prime Minister has decided to continue with his plan to build the X-type aircraft. This decision was announced yesterday . . . Clearly, speakers may combine apparently incompatible pieces of information and `pay the price' of resolving the communication conflict in a way which sets aside a `normal' A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999 82 Paul Rastall grammatical convention. One should not regard grammatical conventions as too rigid. The cases in point show a flexibility in their implementation by speakers for specific communicational purposes. Speakers should not be thought of as simply implementing `rules' of some sort. Grammatical conventions are merely the linguist's way of describing verbal behaviour. Where such behaviour departs from a norm, the linguist must account for the variation.3 There is another increasingly frequent use of the present perfect in English which also involves a pragmatic emphasis on the current relevance of the action. This time, the present perfect is used at the expense of the present simple. It is the use of the present perfect mainly by sports commentators (and others concerned such as players or team managers) when simultaneously commenting on recorded action replays. One might expect in such circumstances that the present simple would be used. In fact, some commentators do still use the present simple in such cases as they did previously. The circumstances seem to be similar to those described by Swan ± `in commentaries on games (such as football or tennis matches) . . . the present simple is used for the quicker actions which are finished before the sentences which describe them) . . .' (1980: 499). He goes on to give the example, And Smith passes to Devaney, Devaney to Barnes . . . and Taylor intercepts, Taylor to Peters and he shoots . . . as might be heard in a football commentary. Quirk et al. make the same point (1985: 180). A moment later, when the outcome of the shot is known, we might hear Peters has scored. That use of the present perfect is quite expected. What is not expected, but quite understandable, is the recent tendency to use the present perfect when reviewing the videotape of the events. The playing of the videotape footage (but not the original soundtrack) is shown simultaneously with the (new) commentary (and thus we expect (and sometimes still hear) the present simple), but the outcome of each action is already known and has current relevance to the next action or the present (i.e. the outcome of the entire event). Thus, we hear in such circumstances: Look, Smith has beaten his man . . . he's crossed the ball to Jones, but the ball's bobbled at the last moment and he hasn't made a good contact with the ball and he's shot over the bar. or in describing the videotape of a relay race in athletics The Americans have made a real mess here. Their first runner has come up to the changeover, but, look, the second has gone off far too early. The first runner hasn't been able to catch up., They've gone out of the change-over zone . . . He's looked back . . . and finally he's dropped the baton. While the first present perfect (have made) is entirely predictable, the subsequent uses are definitely on the increase, although they may still appear slightly non-standard (the present simple being expected as in the example from Swan above). Currently, it seems to be restricted to commentating on an action replay of sporting action, or perhaps videoed police evidence, e.g.: The driver's gone through a red light and he's just missed another vehicle, he's spun out of control. At present, it is unlikely that the present perfect would be used in more `formal' news reporting of simultaneous video footage. A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999 Observations on the present perfect in English 83 As we can see, the Prime Minister leaves 10 Downing Street and comes over to the crowd and addresses a few words to them and shakes hands with some wellwishers . . . (Again, the examples are from British English. Readers may wish to consider usage in these circumstances in other Englishes.) It is likely, however, that the use will spread. The criterion of current relevance seems to be alive and well in current English. As we have seen, the communicational purpose of relating a past (often recent) action to the present may override expected grammatical conventions and lead to unexpected combinations and usages. Issues of grammatical form are subordinate to issues of communicational function. NOTES 1. One corollary of this is that when a verb of reporting is in the present perfect (has said, has claimed) the reported verb is not expressed in the indirect speech form. It appears in the same form as in the original speech, as is the case with a present tense verb of reporting; thus, he says/has said he will do it, but he said he would do it with a past tense verb of reporting. 2. In connection with this usage Jespersen (1933: 243) remarks, somewhat incongruously that, `when the time indicated is not yet completed (today, this year, not yet), the perfect is naturally used.' It is an odd piece of terminology for a `perfect tense' to refer to an incomplete action. 3. I have drawn attention to other cases of communicational conflict between the expected sequence of signs in speech and ease of communication (and its resolution) in A Functional View of English Grammar (Rastall, 1995: 69±71). REFERENCES Cecil, D. (1978) A Portrait of Jane Austen. New York: Hall and Wang. Coles, M. and Lord, B. (1974) Access to English ± Starting Out. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jespersen, O. (1993) Essentials of English Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman. Rastall, P. R. (1995) A Functional View of English Grammar. Lewiston and Lampeter: Mellen. Swan, M. (1980) Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swan, M. and Walter C. (1990) New Cambridge English Course 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomson, A. J. and Martinet, A. V. (1980) A Practical English Grammar (3rd edn). Oxford: English Language Book Society/Oxford University Press. (Received 4 August 1998.) A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999