Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS PALACKIANAE OLOMUCENSIS FACULTAS PHILOSOPHICA PHILOLOGICA 99 – 2009 ACTA UNIVERSITATIS PALACKIANAE OLOMUCENSIS FACULTAS PHILOSOPHICA PHILOLOGICA 99 – 2009 ANGLICA III LINGUISTICA Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Olomouc 2009 Editors © Jarmila Tárnyiková, Markéta Janebová, 2009 ISSN 1802-8667 ISBN 978-80-244-2312-8 Contents Editors’ Note ......................................................................................................................... 7 Constraints on the Use of the Present Perfect........................................................................ 9 Markéta Janebová It is for you and I. Variation in the Pronominal System in American English.................... 25 Ela Krejþová The English Infinitive – Shod or Bare? (The Case of Help) .............................................. 39 Jaroslav Macháþek Some Notes on Countability in English and Czech............................................................. 49 Michaela Martinková The Semantic Field of Olfactory Perception in English and Czech.................................... 63 Jaroslav Peprník The Interaction between Word-Boundary Perception and Vowel Length in Native and Non-Native Speakers of Czech ........................................................................................... 89 Václav Jonáš Podlipský English Prepositional Phrase (beside, before and in front of) and its Complementation by Personal or Reflexive Pronouns ........................................................................................ 101 Václav ěeĜicha Vague Reference to Notional Categories .......................................................................... 115 Jarmila Tárnyiková English Analytic Predicates and the Apparent Specificity of Have .................................. 133 Ludmila Veselovská Editors’ Note Following Anglica I and Anglica II this serial volume is published under the heading of Anglica III, Linguistica, to explicitly reflect the conceptual change from the original coverage with separate Linguistics and Literature sections to a homogeneous linguistic series. The rationale rests primarily on pragmatic footing: with the everyday information explosion in every field of science, the traditional prototype of a philologist as a scholar with balanced knowledge of both language and literature (known from the classical Prague School period) has given way to a specialist prioritizing one of these domains in order to keep abreast of current trends and developments in the respective areas of his/her scholarly research. The editors believe that the new layout will cope with the present situation in a more reader-friendly way. Moreover, more space can be allocated to each of the contributions, with the consequent advantage of breadth and depth opened up for both theorizing and data-based discussions. Though bearing witness to the common intention of the contributors to combine new insights with current information about the state of research, the papers in this volume are far from being monothematic: they reflect the diversity of research topics approached from various levels of language representation, and observed from single-language or cross-language perspectives. The editors are grateful to the reviewers for their advice and assistance in the preparation of this volume. Thanks are also due to Matthew Sweney, who read the final draft and suggested many valuable amendments and language improvements. Olomouc, March 2009 Jarmila Tárnyiková and Markéta Janebová 7 Constraints on the Use of the Present Perfect Markéta Janebová Department of English and American Studies, Palacký University [email protected] Abstract: The paper is concerned with the constraints on the use of the present perfect. Above all, it focuses on the ‘resultative’ perfect. It is proposed that the constraints on this type of the present perfect follow from its ‘presuppositional structure’, which is defined as grammatical conditions of its use in a given situation (see Lambrecht 1994). It is argued that analysing this type of the present perfect in terms of information structure can account for the constraints on its use. These are related to the event-reporting function of the ‘resultative’ perfect which is manifested in the unavailability of this type with certain focal elements. 1 Introduction In 2002, when Robert Binnick published the Project on the Bibliography of Tense, Verbal Aspect, Aktionsart, and Related Areas,1 the chapter on the perfect included about 420 references, in comparison with ‘only’ 260 references to the progressive form. However, it is symptomatic that Binnick’s bibliography contains two chapters on the perfect: the first one is called ‘Perfect Aspect’, the other ‘Perfect Tense’, the references being mostly identical. Dan Slobin summarised the results of the discussion on the status of the present perfect to the effect that it could be a tense, an aspect, or ‘something else’ (1994: 124), and the discussion has not changed much since. The status of the present perfect with respect to the grammatical categories of tense and aspect is not the only point of contention; the question concerning the meaning of the present perfect in English has also been given considerable attention. Some linguists provide a uniform account of the present perfect (e.g. Inoue (1979), Dinsmore (1981), Portner (2003)), and the possible interpretations are mainly attributed to the aspectual class of the verbs and contextual resolution. They argue that the approach of those who distinguish semantically distinct types of the present perfect (e.g. McCawley (1971), Comrie (1985), Michaelis (1994), Leech (2004)) is untenable. The problem is that the criteria for distinguishing the meanings are not clear-cut, which is a serious drawback for any categorisation. That is why some authors avoid using the term ‘meaning’; for example, Huddleston says that ‘grammars commonly distinguish’ several ‘uses’ which may be difficult to distinguish, but ‘useful nevertheless’ (2002: 143). On the other hand, there are studies on the use of the present perfect which show that the conditions and constraints connected with its use do not apply to the present perfect as a whole (see e.g. Michaelis (1994)). For example, sentence (1) can be used in the meaning ‘he has got up at five o’clock in the past’, but not to describe a single unique situation: (1) He has got up at five o’clock. (Huddleston 2002: 144) 1 Binnick, Robert. Project on the Bibliography of Tense, Verbal Aspect, Aktionsart, and Related Areas. 18 Aug 2005 <http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE>. 9 The problem is that such conditions and constraints seem to be idiosyncratic, in other words, they do not seem to follow from the criteria used for the classification of the present perfect. The classic example is the following sentence: (2) The Chinese invented printing. (Murphy 1994: 26) This situation describes an event with a result obtaining at the moment of speaking, which is a definition of one of the types of the present perfect, but the present perfect is not used here. The explanation used in textbooks goes along the lines that it is not used for ‘things that happened a long time ago’ (ibid.: 26). The question arises: how long ago is long enough? Sentence (3) describes a situation which took place more than five hundred years ago, while the situation in (4) took place only some thirty years ago. Sentence (5) can even describe a situation which might have taken place several minutes before its uttering. It is clear that the argument based on the recency of a situation is not sufficient. (3) After a few hours in this the home of Johannes Gutenberg (he invented the printing press), the cruise heads upstream to Speyer for 8.00pm arrival. (BNC ED1) (4) Bernie Rhodes, The Clash’s notorious manager, was a long-time sidekick of Malcolm McLaren. Bernie says he invented punk rock. Nobody believes him. (BNC CAD) (5) John painted/ *has painted THIS picture. (Leech 2003:43) Referring to the grammatical conditions of use of the present perfect and the corresponding constraints, I would like to show that the constraints are not idiosyncratic. Consequently, if there are actual different grammaticalised conditions and constraints, then the inner classification of the present perfect is justified (grammaticalisation is used after Levinson, i.e. as ‘the encoding of meaning distinction ... in the lexicon, morphology, syntax and phonology of languages’ (1983: 9)). Above all, I will focus on the so-called resultative perfect. Following Lambrecht (1994), I will maintain that linguistic expressions have ‘presuppositional structures’, defined as grammatical conditions of its use in a given situation. It will be argued that the constraints on the use of the so-called resultative present perfect follow from its presuppositional structure and that analysing this type of perfect in terms of information structure can account for the constraints on its use. These will be related to the event-reporting function of the so-called resultative perfect which is manifested in the unavailability of this type with certain focal elements. 2 Constraints on the Use of the Present Perfect 2.1 Classification of the Present Perfect In 1971, James McCawley published the article ‘Tense and Time Reference in English’, in which he dealt with the classification of the present perfect. He distinguished the ‘universal’ perfect (used to describe situations continuing until the present moment), the ‘existential’ perfect (used to assert the existence of past situations),