<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="abstract.xsl"?>
<paper type="Presentation" n="245.xml">
    <paperID>245</paperID>
    <contribution_type>Presentation</contribution_type>
    <authors>Zic Fuchs, Milena (1); Broz, Vlatko (2)</authors>
    <organisations>1: University of Zagreb, Croatia; 2: University of Zagreb,
        Croatia</organisations>
    <title>The present perfect from a diachronic perspective: an analysis of aspectual and tense
        constructions</title>
    <topics>
        <topic>Old_English</topic>
        <topic>Middle_English</topic>
        <topic>Syntax</topic>
        <topic>Semantics</topic>
        <topic>Language_Change</topic>
        <topic>Grammaticalisation</topic>
    </topics>
    <abstract>
        <p class="nonindent">According to some historical linguists, the early English HAVE + past participle
            construction had only one meaning (e.g. Mustanoja 1960: 499-500, Carey 1994), namely
            the <strong>resultative</strong> perfect. However, recent research has demonstrated
            that the Old English HAVE + past participle construction has much more in common
            with the Modern English <em>present perfect</em> than was previously thought (Lee
            2003 and Łęcki 2010). Reading of the literature of both diachronic and synchronic
            analyses opens up terminological issues of the usage of “uses”, “meanings” and
            “functions”. Such terminological ambiguity is in fact a reflection of the
            uncertainty as to the true nature of HABBAN + past participle construction or the
            <em>present perfect</em> in Modern English.</p>
        <p>A recent synchronic corpus-based analysis of the <em>present perfect</em> (Žic Fuchs
            2009) has shown that we are faced with four constructions each reflecting a specific
            meaning, the most frequent two being the resultative and the experiential, which are
            primarily aspectually marked. The other two meanings, the perfect of persistent
            situation and the perfect of recent past, exhibit lower frequency counts and
            features of relative tense. This study differs from views expressed by authors such
            as Klein (1994) and Declerck (2006) have gone to great lengths to prove the status
            of the <em>present perfect</em> as belonging to the tense system. On the other hand,
            Lyons (1968: 315-316) and Comrie (1976) see it predominantly as aspect.</p>
        <p>On the basis of an extensive analysis of HAVE + past participle constructions in Old
            and Middle English corpora (<em>The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old
                English Prose </em>and <em>Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second
                    Edition</em>), the development of aspectual and relative tense meaning
            constructions will be demonstrated. Frequency of occurrence of different meaning
            constructions will be compared to contemporary evidence found in Modern English
            corpora. Thus the basic aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the
            development of meaning constructions that we find in Modern English <em>present
                perfect.</em></p>
    </abstract>
    <bibliography><h2>References:</h2>
        <p class="hangingindent">Carey, K. (1994) “The grammaticalization of the Perfect in Old
            English: An Account Based on Pragmatics and Metaphor” In: Pagliuca, William (ed.)
            <em>Perspectives on grammaticalization. </em>Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and
            History of Linguistic Science. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
            Company, pp. 103-117</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Comrie, B. (1976) <em>Aspect, </em>Cambridge: Cambridge
            University Press</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Declerck, R. (2006) <em>The Grammar of the English Tense
            System, The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase, </em>Vol I, Mouton de Gruyter,
            Berlin, New York</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Klein, W. (1994) <em>Time in Language. </em>Routledge: London
            and New York</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Łęcki, A. (2010) <em>Grammaticalisation Paths of </em>Have
            <em>in English. </em>Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Lee, J.H. (2003) “The “have” perfect in Old English: How close
            was it to the Modern English perfect?” In Minkova, D. &amp; Stockwell, R. (eds.)
            <em>Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective.
            </em>Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 373-97</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Lyons, J. (1968). <em>Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics.
        </em>Cambridge University Press</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Michaelis, L.A. (1998) <em>Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time
            Reference. </em>London and New York: Routledge</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Mustanoja, T.F. (1960) <em>A Middle English Syntax.
        </em>Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.</p>
        <p class="hangingindent">Žic Fuchs, M. (2009) <em>Kognitivna lingvistika i jezične
            structure: engleski </em>present perfect, Zagreb: Nakladni zavod
            Globus</p></bibliography>
    <all_emails>mzicfuch@ffzg.hr, vbroz@ffzg.hr</all_emails>
    <time>Friday 24 August, 14.00-16.00 (Room G201)</time>
</paper>