2

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 141) has this section: enter image description here

Here, Tr is the time referred to (by the verb or verb group, e.g., have told, have been, told, was), and To is the time of orientation, which equates to the time of utterance in this question.

Now, my question is about the distinction made in the quoted portion of CGEL between the continuative and non-continuative readings of the perfect. If I understand it correctly, CGEL is making the distiction that the perfect locates Tr "before and up to To" and "wholly before To" in the continuative and non-continuative reading, respectively.

The following perfect in bold I think has the continuative reading:

(1) She has been writing the book since she was in her twenties and at last it's finished.

But here, Tr, the time referred to by the verb group has been writing, doesn't seem to extend up to the time of utterance (To), because at the time of uttrance, she's not longer writing the book.

Am I misunderstanding CGEL or is CGEL's distinction between the continuative and non-continuative reading of the perfect doesn't really apply to example (1)?

EDIT

Here's some evidence supporting CGEL's claim that the continuative reading's Tr includes To:

A 2002 linguistics paper titled "Event Structure and the Perfect - Stanford University" by Paul Kiparsky (page 5) quotes another paper (Mittwoch 1988) to say this:

The universal reading requires an adverb specifying a duration (such as always, since 1960 or for two years)...

[T]he boundaries that define the duration are understood in an exclusive way in the existential reading but in an inclusive way in the universal reading (Mittwoch 1988). The sentence

[10] I have been in Hyderabad since 1977.

is false on the existential reading if I last was in Hyderabad in 1977 or if I have just landed on my first visit there; it is the intervening time that counts (exclusive boundaries). For the universal reading of [10] to be true I must have been there in 1977 and I must be there now (inclusive boundaries).

(Boldface mine.) (Here, the existential reading refers to the experiential reading, whereas the universal reading refers to the continuative reading.)

So what this paper is saying is that the continuative reading must include the boundaries that define the duration specified by an adverb (e.g., since 1977).

Since this 2002 paper by a reputable linguist quotes a 1988 paper to make this point, I highly doubt that this specific claim made by this paper is questionable. Moreover, this paper's claim is in line with CGEL' explanation that the continuative reading's Tr includes To.

JK2
  • 6,553
  • 1
    Looks to me as though you are ignoring their definition of continuative / non-continutative, which does not say that a continuous / progressive perfect has to have the continuative reading. If you think that, in your sentence, Tr includes the time of utterance, why call it continuative? –  Jul 30 '19 at 09:39
  • @Minty You're right. They didn't say that a progressive perfect has to have the continuative reading. But I didn't say they did, either. I think of (1)'s has been writing as the continuative perfect, not merely because it's the progressive perfect, but because it does have the continuative reading as I know it. (Please let me know if you think (1)'s has been writing is the non-continuative perfect.) And I'm sure that CGEL's distinction between the two readings is supposed to apply to the progressive perfect as well as the non-progressive perfect. – JK2 Jul 30 '19 at 11:27
  • It seems to me that careful around the woodwork, I’ve been painting is fine, but careful around the woodwork, I’ve been painting since 5 am is questionable. If that’s right, I think the explanation is that since forces the continuative meaning, which would mean that (1) is continuative, as you say. OTOH what makes the second sentence sound odd could be that my early start has no bearing on the warning I am giving. –  Jul 31 '19 at 01:05
  • Is there a difference between those neighbours have been annoying me for 5 years, and at last they’re gone and those annoying people have been there for 5 years, and at last they’re gone, or is it just me? If there is a difference, I think it has a bearing on how (1) should be accounted for. –  Jul 31 '19 at 01:05
  • @Minty I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your own examples. Why not just discuss the given example? If you're wondering, though, CGEL says since doesn't force the continuative reading, only ever since does. – JK2 Jul 31 '19 at 02:11
  • I think they have a bearing on how (1) should be accounted for. An explanation that only works for one sentence is not much use - it needs to be generalisable. –  Jul 31 '19 at 02:19
  • @Minty I think this question is already hard enough to answer with the specific example, (1). Is my question not clear enough as it is? – JK2 Jul 31 '19 at 03:15
  • There are several possible analyses and I don’t think you can choose between them based on a single sentence. One is that (1) presents the activity of writing a book as continuing at the time of the utterance (I think writing a book can include dealing with editors, publishers, etc., but you can say it’s finished as soon as the actual writing is done). You can test that by looking at other dynamic verbs. Another is that for the present progressive, the continuative / non-continuative distinction is between time periods which abut t0 and time periods which do not... –  Jul 31 '19 at 03:43
  • ... but I think this may only apply to dynamic verbs, so you would have to consider some examples of stative verbs. If you want to explore the question in any meaningful way, you will have to look at other examples. –  Jul 31 '19 at 03:43
  • @Minty Firstly, your first analysis is not what I intended for example (1). It's not about dealing with editors or publishers, it's about just writing the book. You can certainly say (1) in this sense. I don't understand your second analysis. I'd like to make it clear that this is not a question about the present perfect progressive in general; it's a question about the specific example provided in the question. – JK2 Jul 31 '19 at 04:24
  • I think you're equating two different tenses/aspects. I think this is because the same verbs are used to create the tense/aspect in the past perfect and what you have in your example. "He may (have been) here..." - (have been) present perfect / "She has been writing the book..." - (has been writing) should, I think be seen as something other than the present perfect as a whole. I mean "has been" shouldn't be seen separately from "has been writing", which can be referred to as the present past continuous or present past progressive. That's how I see it, but I may be wrong. – Zebrafish Jul 31 '19 at 07:59
  • Just thinking about this more, notice how in the CGEL example the present perfect isn't followed by the present participle, whereas in your example it is? Maybe this is a difference, in other words, as I said, it's often called the past perfect continuous or past perfect progressive because it combines the past perfect with the progressive or continuous use of the present participle, ie., (... has been writing...), not "has been here...." – Zebrafish Jul 31 '19 at 08:05
  • @Zebrafish Sorry, but your analysis is not in line with CGEL's description of the perfect tense. CGEL doesn't treat the perfect progressive form as a non-perfect form. So, no, there's no way this issue can be resolved with your analysis. – JK2 Jul 31 '19 at 08:26
  • If you're going to adhere to the prescriptions of CGEL, then saying "I've been writing a book since I was ..." and you are still writing the book, then if 1) CGEL doesn't allow that form as a non-perfect tense, and 2) sounds as if you are still writing the book, then I'd suggest the description in CGEL isn't an exhaustive one of how English is spoken in real life. Also note, that it's not obvious whether you intend a perfect or imperfect tense in that sentence until you add "and at last it's finished." So the the tense itself, I'd argue cannot be deduced solely from "has been writing". – Zebrafish Jul 31 '19 at 09:05
  • In other words, "I've been writing a book since I was 15, and I have finally finished it" and "I've been writing a book since I was 15; it's almost finished" both sound like fine English to me (and you presumably), but you say that CGEL treats "I've been writing" as a non-perfect tense, then I'm inclined to believe that, as I said before, its descriptions aren't exhaustive of how the language is spoken in real life. I find this isn't uncommon with grammars or style guides, there always seem to be exceptions. Of course, if you want to assert that CGEL is infallible, then there's a discrepancy. – Zebrafish Jul 31 '19 at 09:09
  • @Zebrafish Please note that I said, "CGEL doesn't treat the perfect progressive form as a non-perfect form." – JK2 Jul 31 '19 at 09:53
  • OK, so "She has been writing the book since she was in her twenties..." by itself is taken to mean present perfect continuous (or progressive), and is perfect (at least that's how I see it.) However you can either add ", and has finally finished it" to mean a perfect tense, or ", and will finish it soon" to mean imperfect tense, right? In that case it seems to me that it can be treated as both, and specified by the extra information provided. I've noticed in the CGEL examples it doesn't mention anything about the event ending, but in your example sentence it does: "and at last it's finished." – Zebrafish Jul 31 '19 at 10:20
  • 3
    @JK2: Are you asking: "can the continuative perfect extend to immediately before the time of speaking, but not actually include it?" I think the answer is "yes' and the CGEL is being careless in its explanation, although maybe they mean to define continuative so the answer is "no". But if that's what you're asking, it would be good to be more explicit; it took me a while to figure out your question. – Peter Shor Aug 01 '19 at 16:17
  • Is there a section in this CGEL reference that refers specifically to present perfect progressive? Because from my reading of your question, present perfect progressive will always fall into the "continuative" group. – Karlomanio Aug 01 '19 at 16:57
  • I think Peter Shor has the right answer. The definition of continuative as you give it is 'Tr before and up to To'. 'Up to' could also be interpreted as up to but not including the exact moment of utterance. A related way of looking at it is to think of To as an extended present such as today, this week, e.g. I've been smoking for 25 years, but today I gave up cigarettes. – S Conroy Aug 01 '19 at 19:06
  • @PeterShor Sorry, but I don't understand why you're suggesting CGEL is simply being careless. The quoted portion explicitly states at the outset "...extending forward to include To". Moreover, [ib] means "it's possible that he has been here ever since," which I think clearly indicates that the situation of him being here extends forward to include To. Now returning to your first question, I think you can certainly say (1) even the day after she finished writing the book. No? – JK2 Aug 02 '19 at 03:01
  • @Karlomanio I don't think there's such a section. But the question is why (1) doesn't seem to fall into the continuative group. – JK2 Aug 02 '19 at 05:42
  • @SConroy CGEL's wording is such that "up to" does include the moment of utterance. Otherwise, they wouldn't have defined the "non-continuative" as "Tr wholly before To". – JK2 Aug 02 '19 at 05:44
  • If she finished the book yesterday, couldn't you say "She was writing the book for years, and at last it's finished"? So the preterite is excluded only if you define "continuative" as including "To", which may be why CGEL has defined "continuative" in this way. – Peter Shor Aug 02 '19 at 08:56
  • @PeterShor "She was writing the book for years, and at last it's finished" does work for me if she finished the book yesterday. So maybe "has been" in "She has been writing the book for years, and at last it's finished" is the non-continuative reading in CGEL's analysis, but it still can convey a continuous reading solely due to the continuous aspect "be + writing"?? – JK2 Aug 02 '19 at 09:17
  • I think it still works with the CGEL definition if you see To as today/this week etc. Tr is then wholly before today/this week. – S Conroy Aug 02 '19 at 12:42
  • @SConroy No. As I have said in the question, To is the time of utterance. It's the exact moment of speaking, not some period of time such as 'today' or 'this week'. – JK2 Aug 02 '19 at 12:53
  • My understanding is different (unless you have other info that is not provided in the question) and I tried to explain why in the last comment. – S Conroy Aug 03 '19 at 00:09
  • @SConroy Please see the EDIT for more evidence. – JK2 Aug 03 '19 at 02:45
  • @PeterShor Please see the EDIT. – JK2 Aug 03 '19 at 02:45
  • That extra info just muddies the water for me. If it were a more precise definition from CGEL itself, it would help. If someone says: "You look exhaused!" And your answer is "I have been running", you won't be running at the exact moment of utterance. The effects, though, reach into the moment of utterance. I'm not going to convince you, so will leave it at the that. – S Conroy Aug 03 '19 at 14:48
  • I agree with @SConroy. I'd like to edit my answer, but I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. It seems to me. Yes, you have a point. It depends on where you are or what you are doing at that point. – Karlomanio Aug 06 '19 at 15:26
  • (1) 'She has been writing the book since she was in her twenties and at last it's finished' switches from a Tr includes To stance to a Tr has ended before To stance as one moves from one independent clause to the other. It's clumsy, but I'd say idiomatic enough to be considered acceptable grammar. Like switching to the historic present mid-dialogue. I'd probably use separate sentences. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 17 '23 at 09:42

2 Answers2

1

The time of the utterance is confined to the clause in which the tense is used. "and now it's finished" or "and at last..." establishes a new time-reference in a separate clause.

Consider:

I've been looking forward to this birthday dinner all week. It's delicious.

After the meal is over, you wouldn't use the present perfect:

That was delicious. I'd been looking forward to it all week.

TimR
  • 2,999
0

In this instance if we talk about the example you are giving, this could be interpreted as a non-continuative action

She has been writing the book since she was in her twenties

This sounds to my ear more the exception than the rule. I would never have thought of this example, had you not have brought it up.

Your point is well-taken. This excerpt from Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) has not taken into account times when the present perfect progressive could express an action that is not continuative, ie. Tr wholly before To.

Karlomanio
  • 1,291
  • 7
  • 13
  • Okay, then. Could you just forget example (1) for the moment and consider a context where she has just finished writing the book? In that context, consider example (1') She has been writing the book since she was in her twenties. This example is "an independent clause," but it can be uttered even after the book is finished. I see no difference between (1) and (1') as long as both are uttered after the book's finished. – JK2 Aug 03 '19 at 04:15
  • You might be right. But the problem is, all the grammars and linguistic papers that I know of classify example (1) as an instance of the continuative/universal reading of the perfect. – JK2 Aug 07 '19 at 04:38
  • So you're also looking for a reference to justify or not justify your reading? – Karlomanio Aug 07 '19 at 14:07
  • Of course, I'd need some evidence, if I were to treat (1) as the non-continuative perfect. – JK2 Aug 07 '19 at 14:21
  • What kind of evidence were you looking for? I understand the need for evidence, but what if the source of evidence is incorrect? What if someone needs to write a new thesis paper to justify that this is so? – Karlomanio Aug 07 '19 at 15:31