1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 8, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 8, 2022

Perfects Across Languages

Abstract

The theoretical study of perfects tends to be based on data from European languages, particularly English. To find the proper place for perfects, we have to go beyond English to be able to separate what is idiosyncratic from what is generalizable. A central function of perfects is to speak of how the present is different from the past, especially from the immediate past. A perfect typically relates how a past state changes into the present one. Crosslinguistically, we find two major types of perfect: constructions involving the auxiliary verbs ‘be’ and ‘have’, common in Indo-European and neighboring families, and iamitives, which are the result of the grammaticalization of words meaning ‘already’. The status of iamitives is controversial. In this review, I argue that they can be separated both from ‘already’ and from European-style perfects but that it makes sense to postulate a more inclusive crosslinguistic perfect category.

Keyword(s): aspect, grammaticalization, iamitives, perfects, tense
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-123428
2022-01-14
2025-02-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-031120-123428.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-123428&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson LB. 1982.. The ‘perfect’ as a universal and as a language-particular category. . In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. P Hopper , pp. 227–64. Amsterdam:: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker CL. 1970.. Double negatives. . Linguist. Inq. 1:(2):169–86
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bisang W, Sonaiya R. 1997.. Perfect and beyond, from pragmatic relevance to perfect: the Chinese sentence final particle le and Yoruba ti. . Sprachtypol. Univ. Forsch. 50:(2):143–58
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee JL. 1985.. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Typol. Stud. Lang 9. Amsterdam:: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee JL, Dahl Ö. 1989.. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. . Stud. Lang. 13:(1):51–103
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee JL, Perkins R, Pagliuca W. 1994.. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Churchward CM. 1985.. Tongan Grammar. Vava'u, Tonga:: Vava'u Press
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Coghill E. 2016.. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford Stud. Diachronic Hist. Linguist 21. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Crellin RSD, Jügel T, eds. 2020.. Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond. Curr. Issues Linguist. Theory Vol. 352:. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft W. 2016.. Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: theory and practice. . Linguist. Typol. 20:(2):377–93
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dahl Ö. 1985.. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford, UK:: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dahl Ö, ed. 2000.. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, Vol. 20-6: Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York:: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dahl Ö. 2016.. Thoughts on language-specific and crosslinguistic entities. . Linguist. Typol. 20:(2):427–37
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahl Ö. 2018.. Grammaticalization in the languages of Europe. . In Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective, ed. H Narrog, B Heine , pp. 79–96. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dahl Ö. 2020.. Indo-European perfects in typological perspective. . See Crellin & Jügel 2020 , pp. 636–67
  16. Dahl Ö. 2021. “Universal” readings of perfects and iamitives in typological perspective. . In The Perfect Volume: Papers on the Perfect, ed. KM Eide, M Fryd , pp. 44–63. Stud. Lang. Companion Ser 217. Amsterdam:: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dahl Ö, Hedin E. 2000.. Current relevance and event reference. . See Dahl 2000 , pp. 385–402
  18. Dahl Ö, Velupillai V. 2005.. The perfect. . In The World Atlas of Language Structures, ed. B Comrie, MS Dryer, D Gil, M Haspelmath , pp. 271–72, 280–81. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dahl Ö, Velupillai V. 2013.. The past tense. . In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. MS Dryer, M Haspelmath . Leipzig, Ger:.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol. http://wals.info/chapter/66
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dahl Ö, Wälchli B. 2016.. Perfects and iamitives: two gram types in one grammatical space. . Letras Hoje 51:(3):325–48
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Davies M. 2008.. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Corpus, online. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Drinka B. 2017.. Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect Through History. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ebert K. 2001.. Tense-aspect flip-flop and a somewhat elusive gram type. . In Aktionsart and Aspectotemporality in Non-European Languages, ed. KH Ebert, F Zúñiga , pp. 141–58. Zürich:: Univ. Zürich
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fortune G. 1949.. The conjugation of inchoative verbs in Shona. . Afr. Stud. 8:(3):132–40
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Francois A. 2003.. La sémantique du prédicat en mwotlap (Vanuatu). Louvain, Belg:.: Peeters
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gil D. 2015.. The Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area. . In Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The State of the Art, ed. NJ Enfield, B Comrie , pp. 266–355. Berlin:: de Gruyter Mouton
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gil D, Tadmor U. 2007.. The MPI-EVA Jakarta Child Language Database. Database, Dep. Linguist., Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol./Cent. Lang. Cult. Stud. , Atma Jaya Cathol. Univ. http://childes.talkbank.org/access/EastAsian/Indonesian/Jakarta.html
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grangé P. 2010.. Aspect and modality in Indonesian: the case of sudah, telah, pernah, sempat. . Wacana 12:(2):243–68
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Grønn A, von Stechow A. 2020.. The perfect. . In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ed. D Gutzmann, L Matthewson, C Meier, H Rullmann, TE Zimmermann , pp. 1–30. Bridgewater, NJ:: John Wiley & Sons
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Güldemann T. 2018.. Language contact and areal linguistics in Africa. . In The Languages and Linguistics of Africa, ed. T Güldemann , pp. 445–545. Berlin:: de Gruyter Mouton
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Haspelmath M. 2010.. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. . Language 86:(3):663–87
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Haspelmath M. 2019.. How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. . In Aspects of Linguistic Variation, ed. D Van Olmen, T Mortelmans, F Brisard , pp. 83–114. Berlin:: de Gruyter. , 1st ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Heath J. 2014.. A grammar of Yorno So. . In Dogon and Bangime Linguistics, ed. S Moran, R Forkel, J Heath . Jena, Ger.:: Max Planck Inst. Sci. Hum. Hist. https://dogonlanguages.org/sources/heath2014yornoso
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ikola O. 1949.. Tempusten ja modusten käyttö ensimmäisessä suomalaisessa Raamatussa verrattuna vanhempaan ja nykyiseen kieleen. 2 vols. Turku, Finl:.: Turun Yliop. Kustan.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Jenny M. 2001.. The aspect system of Thai. . In Aktionsart and Aspectotemporality in Non-European Languages: Proceedings from a Workshop Held at the University of Zurich, ed. KH Ebert, F Zúñiga , pp. 97–140. Zurich:: Univ. Zürich
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Johanson L. 2000.. Viewpoint operators in European languages. . See Dahl 2000 , pp. 27–188
  37. Kaswanti Purwo B. 2018.. Constructing a new grammar of Indonesian: from expectation to reality. . In Producing Indonesia, ed. E Tagliacozzo , pp. 195–216. Ithaca, NY:: Cornell Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Katz G. 2003.. On the stativity of the English perfect. . In Perfect Explorations, ed. A Alexiadou, M Rathert, A Stechow , pp. 205–34. Berlin:: de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kieviet P. 2017.. A Grammar of Rapa Nui. Berlin:: Lang. Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Klein W. 1994.. Time in Language. London:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kölligan D. 2020.. The perfect in Classical Armenian. . See Crellin & Jügel 2020:, pp. 352–76
  42. Koontz-Garboden A. 2007.. Aspectual coercion and the typology of change of state predicates. . J. Linguist. 43::115–52
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kortmann B, Lunkenheimer K, Ehret K, eds. 2020.. Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English (eWAVE). Corpus, Freiburg Inst. Adv. Study, Albert-Ludwigs-Univ. Freiburg, Ger.: https://ewave-atlas.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Krajinović A. 2020.. Tense, mood, and aspect expressions in Nafsan (South Efate) from a typological perspective: the perfect aspect and the realis/irrealis mood. PhD Thesis , Humboldt-Univ. Berlin/Univ. Melbourne:
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Krifka M. 2000.. Alternatives for aspectual particles: semantics of still and already. . In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Syntax and Semantics of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, pp. 401–12. Berkeley, CA:: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kulikov L. 1999.. Split causativity: remarks on correlations between transitivity, aspect, and tense. . In Tense-Aspect, Transitivity, and Causativity: Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov, ed. W Abraham, L Kulikov , pp. 21–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Laca B. 2010.. Perfect semantics. How universal are Ibero-American present perfects?. In Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 1–16. Somerville, MA:: Cascadilla
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Li CN, Thompson SA, McMillan Thompson R. 1982.. The discourse motivation for the perfect aspect: the Mandarin particle le. . In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. P Hopper , pp. 19–44. Amsterdam:: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Löbner S. 1989.. German schon – erst – noch: an integrated analysis. . Linguist. Philos. 12:(2):167–212
     [Google Scholar]
  50. McCawley JD. 1981.. Notes on the English present perfect. . Aust. J. Linguist. 1:(1):81–90
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Michaelis LA. 1992.. Aspect and the semantics-pragmatics interface: the case of already. . Lingua 87:(4):321–39
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nurse D. 2008.. Tense and Aspect in Bantu. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Olsson B. 2013.. Iamitives: perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. MA Thesis , Stockholm Univ., Stockholm, Swed:
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Parsons T. 1990.. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Persohn B. 2019.. Aspectuality in Bantu: on the limits of Vendler's categories. . Linguist. Discov. 16:(2):1–19
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Quinn G. 2001.. The Learner's Dictionary of Today's Indonesian. St. Leonard's, Aust:.: Allen & Unwin
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Ras J. 1979.. Javanese Literature Since Independence. The Hague, Neth:.: Nijhoff
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ritz ME. 2012.. Perfect tense and aspect. . In Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed. RI Binnick , pp. 881–907. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Silva IS. 1990.. Tense and aspect in Capeverdean Crioulo. . In Pidgin and Creole Tense/Mood/Aspect Systems, ed. JV Singler , pp. 143–68. Creole Lang. Libr 6. Amsterdam:: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Stassen L. 2013.. Predicative adjectives. . In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. MS Dryer, M Haspelmath . Leipzig, Ger.:: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol. https://wals.info/chapter/118
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Traugott EC, Waterhouse J. 1969. ‘Already’ and ‘yet’: a suppletive set of aspect-markers?. J. Linguist. 5:(2):287–304
     [Google Scholar]
  62. van der Auwera J. 1998.. Phasal adverbials in the languages of Europe. . In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, ed. J van der Auwera , pp. 25–145. Berlin/New York:: de Gruyter Mouton
     [Google Scholar]
  63. van Minde D, Tjia J. 2002.. Between perfect and perfective: the meaning and function of Ambonese Malay su and suda. . J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Southeast Asia Ocean. 158:(2):283–303
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Vander Klok J, Matthewson L. 2015.. Distinguishing already from perfect aspect: a case study of Javanese wis. . Ocean. Linguist. 54:(1):172–205
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Veselinova L, Devos M. 2021.. not yet expressions as a lexico-grammatical category in Bantu languages. . In The Expression of Phasal Polarity in African Languages, ed. R Kramer , pp. 445–96. Berlin:: de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-123428
Loading
Perfects Across Languages
Annual Review of Linguistics 8, 279 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-123428
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-123428
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-123428
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error