166

Appendix A: Sentence Judgment Task

Cuestionario de oraciones

INSTRUCCIONES: Por favor, completa las siguientes frases con la forma (o del verbo o de la preposición) entre paréntesis que te suena mejor. En este trabajo, no hay una repuesta «correcta». Si las dos formas te suenan igual (o sea, no tienes ninguna preferencia), subraya las dos formas.

1. Juan (ha leído/leyó) un libro hoy.2. Esta semana, nosotros (hemos visitado/visitamos) a nuestros abuelos.3. Yo me (he levantado/levanté) esta mañana a las seis.4. Esta mañana Susana (ha terminado/terminó) su trabajo.5. Liliana (ha lavado/lavó) su coche ayer.6. Ayer (he visto/vi) a Juan en el mercado.7. Mi familia y yo (hemos visitado/visitamos) Brasil el año pasado.8. En 1976, Marcos (ha viajado/viajó) a Francia.9. Isabel (ha corrido/corrió) un maratón.

10. Rodrigo (ha escrito/escribió) unas canciones el verano pasado.11. Samuel (ha estado/está) en Madrid desde las siete.12. Diego (ha estado/está) en Londres al menos desde el domingo.13. Laura ya (ha comido/comió) la rebanada del pastel.14. Juan ya (ha vivido/vive) en Madrid por tres años.15. Ya (he estado/estoy) en Barcelona desde las ocho de la mañana.16. Manuel (ha estado/estuvo) enfermo dos veces desde el verano.17. Diana (ha tocado/toca) el piano durante dos horas.18. Silvia (ha corrido/corre) desde las seis de la tarde.19. María (ha querido/quería) ser médica desde que era niña.20. Marcos (ha vivido/vivió) en Madrid una vez desde que era niño.21. En varias épocas desde su juventud, el Sr. Rodríguez (ha querido/quería)

tener su propia casa.22. Marcos ha estado enfermo (por/en) dos horas.23. Yo he tocado el piano (por/en) una hora.24. Daniela ha corrido un maratón (por/en) tres horas.25. Los trabajadores han construido una casa (por/en) dos semanas.26. Marcos y yo no (hemos visitado/visitamos) la costa del sur todavía.27. Sr. Rogel no (estuvo/ha estado/está) en Barcelona desde el sábado pasado.28. Yo no (he llegado/llegué) al trabajo esta mañana a tiempo.29. La profesora no (calificó/ha calificado) los exámenes ayer.30. El año pasado, los padres de David no (han ido/fueron) a la playa.31. ¿Dónde (has comprado/compraste) ese libro?32. ¿(Desayunaste/has desayunado) esta mañana?33. ¿Qué (has hecho/hiciste) ayer por la tarde?34. ¿Ya (ha llegado/llegó) Juan?

Appendix A 167

35. ¿Ya (terminaste/has terminado) el trabajo por hoy?

Ahora, completa los siguientes diálogos con la forma apropiada del verbo en mayúsculas según el contexto.

36. Marcos: ¿Cómo va todo contigo? Quiero que me hables sobre tu día hoy? Cristina: Pues, esta mañana SALIR de la casa a las nueve. Después, PASAR

por la universidad para entregar mi proyecto final. Entonces, REUNIRME con Daniela para almorzar. Nosotros IR al cine por la tarde para ver la nueva película de Batman. No me GUSTAR nada. Después, DEJAR a Daniela en la biblioteca y VOLVER a casa.

_________________, _________________, ________________, ________________, ___________________, ________________, ________________37. Padre: ¿Qué tal tu visita al zoológico ayer? Hija: Nosotros LLEGAR al zoológico a las once y nuestra profesora nos

COMPRAR las entradas. Primero, VISITAR la exhibición de osos polares y después PASAR por la zona de los reptiles. Después de comer, unas amigas y yo IR a la sala de animales acuáticos para ver los peces. Cuando mi amiga Laura VER los tiburones, casi DESMAYARSE. Nosotras DIVERTIRNOS mucho.

_________________, ________________, _______________, ________________, ___________________, _________________, ________________, ________________

168

Appendix B: Interview Protocol

I Basic introductory questions

1. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo vives aquí? ‘How long have you lived here?’2. ¿Has vivido fuera de Madrid/Valencia/Cuzco? ‘Have you ever lived outside of Madrid/Valencia/Cuzco?’3. ¿Has vivido fuera de España/Perú? ‘Have you ever lived outside of Spain/Peru?’4. ¿Qué estudiaste en la universidad? ‘What did you study in college?’5. ¿Cuánto tiempo tienes en tu trabajo? ‘How long have you been in your job?’6. ¿Qué piensas hacer en el futuro? ‘What would you like to do in the future?’7. En tú tiempo libre, ¿qué te gusta hacer? ‘What do you like to do in your free time?’8. ¿Vive tu familia aquí? ‘Does your family still live here?’9. ¿Cómo es tu grupo de amigos/amigas?

‘What is your group of friends like?’10. Describe la zona en que vives. ‘Describe the area where you live.’

II Context- dependent questions

11. ¿Qué piensas sobre las personas que vienen aquí para aprender español? ‘What do you think about the people that come here to learn Spanish?’12. ¿Crees que es importante aprender una lengua extranjera? ‘Do you think it’s important to learn a foreign language?’13. ¿Qué opinas sobre el sistema educativo en España/Peru? ‘What do you think about the educational system in Spain/Peru?’14. Si pudieras vivir en cualquier país del mundo, ¿dónde vivirías? ‘If you could live in any country in the world, where would it be?’15. Cuéntame tu día hoy. ‘Tell me about your day today.’16. Cuéntame tu día ayer. ‘Tell me about your day yesterday.’17. Descríbeme un viaje que hiciste en el pasado. ‘Describe a trip that you took in the past.’18. Cuéntame tu semana la semana pasada. ‘Tell me about your week last week.’

Appendix B 169

19. ¿En qué estás trabajando ahora en los estudios/el trabajo? ¿Por cuánto tiempo? ‘What are you currently working on in your studies/at work? For how long?’20. Cuéntame algunas noticias recientes de España/Perú. ‘Tell me about some recent news from Spain/Peru.’21. ¿Qué tipo de experiencia tienes en tu área de estudio/en tu trabajo? ‘What type of experience do you have in your field/job?’22. Descríbeme tu última reunión familiar. ‘Describe your last family gathering.’23. ¿Qué experiencia tienes con los extranjeros? ‘What experience do you have with people from other countries?’24. ¿Qué experiencia tienes con personas de otros países hispanohablantes? ‘What experience do you have with people from other Spanish- speaking

countries?

170

1 Introduction

1. Throughout this book I use the terms ‘periphrastic past’/‘perfect’ and ‘simple past’/’preterit’ interchangeably. Moreover, when referring to the simple and periphrastic past forms in Spanish, it should be noted that the former is usually referred to as the pretérito perfecto simple or pretérito indefinido and the latter as the pretérito perfecto compuesto.

2. Labelle (2003) discusses uses of the French imparfait in different sequencing contexts. Note the examples in (i) and (ii), both from Labelle (2003) (imper-fective verb forms in bold):

(i) Habitual sequence of events: Tous les jours, Paul allait à la piscine, nageait vingt longeurs, s’habillait

et allait au travail. ‘Every day, Paul went to the pool, swam twenty lengths, dressed, and

went to work.’ (Labelle 2003: 165, example 1)(ii) Narrative sequence of events: Le lendemain, Jean donnait sa démission et partait pour Paris. ‘The next day, John handed in his resignation and left for Paris.’

(Labelle 2003: 165, example 2)

Example (iii) demonstrates the ‘imparfait narrative’, which is limited to specific types of contexts. The Spanish imperfective past (or imperfecto) also displays perfective uses, though it does not have the same variety of uses as the French imparfait (cf. Rodríguez 2004):

(iii) Habitual sequence of events:Todos los días, Pablo iba a la piscina, nadaba veinte etapas, se vestía e iba a trabajar.‘Every day, Paul went to the pool, swam twenty lengths, dressed, and went to work.’

3. PASTPERF � Simple perfective past (i.e. preterit). 4. To test this prediction, Portner offers the following examples:

(i) I have been diagnosed with cancer. (Portner 2003: 502, example 77a)(ii) I was diagnosed with cancer. (Portner 2003: 502, example 77a)

In an out- of- the- blue context, (i) suggests that the speaker is still ill at the moment of speech, whereas (ii) does not necessarily do so. Portner’s argument is that the sentences differ because (i) is relevant to some topic in the dis-course, and one of the ways that the proposition denoted by the perfect might be relevant is that it indicates the speaker’s current state of health.

5. CL � cliticized pronoun. 6. In a recent analysis of data from pre- Classical and Classical Latin, de Acosta

argues that the genesis of the periphrastic have- perfect ‘corresponded to

Notes

Notes 171

three separate syntactic structures, each with a distinct meaning: an adnomi-nal type [shown in (i)], attained state type [(ii)], and an affectee type [(iii)]’ (2011: 144). Of these three constructions, de Acosta maintains that the ‘attained state type’ – shown in example (ii) – is the most likely source for the modern periphrastic past forms in Romance.

(i) longa nomina contortiplicata habemuslong.ACC.NEUT.P names.ACC.P twisted.ACC.NEUT.P have.PS.1P

‘we have long, complicated names’(Plautus, Persa 707 taken from de Acosta 2011: 144, example 3)

(ii) hominem servom suos domitos habereman.ACC servant. ACC his. ACC.M.P controlled.ACC.M.P have.INF

oportet oculos et manusbefits.PS.3S eyes.ACC.P and hands.ACC.P‘it behooves a manservant to have his eyes and hands controlled’(Plautus, Miles Gloriosus 546 taken from de Acosta 2011: 144, example 4)

(iii) habent exsuctas ab sole animorum virtuteshave.PS.3P drained.ACC.F.P by sun.ABL spirit.GEN.P valor.ACC.P‘they have their strength drained away by the sun’(Vitruvius, De Architectura 6,1,10 taken from de Acosta 2011: 144, example 5)

7. Detges (2000) refers to this possibility as the Resultative I construction. 8. This number is of course conservative given that I have excluded a number

of forms (e.g. the imperfective past) from consideration. 9. In Spain interviews were conducted at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

in Madrid and at the Universidad de Valencia in Valencia. In Peru interviews were conducted at the Asociación Pukllasunchis Bilingual School in Cusco. A subsample of the data gathered from interviews conducted in 2009 at the Universidad de Alcalá de Henares in Spain is also used in this analysis. The par-ticipants from Alcalá de Henares did not complete the sentence judgment task.

10. Indicates numbering in sentence judgment task. See Appendix II for the complete list of test sentences.

11. Later in the analysis, I address the claim that the perfect expresses ‘imperfec-tivity’, arguing against proposals like that of Moreno de Alba (1978) which claim that the perfect in Mexican Spanish expresses imperfective aspect. While it is the case that certain interpretations of the perfect can indeed be described as imperfective (namely the Continuative use, see Chapter 2), the perfect in Mexican Spanish still embodies a wide array of other meanings that do not fit into the rubric of imperfectivity.

2 Perfect Features

1. I do not wish to confuse the term ‘perfect’ with ‘perfective’ which is purely aspectual. While numerous analyses evoke the term ‘perfect’ to describe aspectual properties, I remain largely agnostic as to the status of the Spanish periphrastic past as either temporal or aspectual.

2. See also Bybee (1985), Bybee and Dahl (1989), and Thieroff (2000) for more on the description of the category ‘anterior’.

172 Notes

3. To be clear, I do not believe that Bybee et al. were claiming that ‘anterior’ is equivalent to ‘perfect form’. In fact, they argue that the ‘gram’ anterior is a cat-egorical notion that receives various cross- linguistic structural instantiations.

4. See Burgos (2004) for an in- depth discussion of these structures in (Argentine) Spanish and their relation to anteriority.

5. It should be noted that while Reichenbach’s system has received considerable attention as a descriptive device in analyzing tense/aspect in natural lan-guages it is not viewed as a semantic treatment per se (von Stechow 1995).

6. There are a number of other terms used in the literature for the concepts similar to speech time, event time, and reference time (see e.g. Klein 1994). Nevertheless, I will use these labels for the sake of simplicity.

7. As both McCoard (1978) and Dowty (1979) point out, Reichenbach’s approach cannot be seen as an adequate semantic theory since the truth conditions for the simple past and the present perfect would be identical given their corre-sponding configurations in (6). Dowty admits that the factors that distinguish the uses of the simple past and the perfect are perhaps pragmatic. While there is no denying the impact that Reichenbach’s work has had on the development of studies of tense and aspect, both in the semantic and pragmatic literature, we are still left with its shortcomings as a formal semantic theory (see von Stechow 1995 for a discussion of the limitations of Reichenbach’s proposals).

8. The so- called Result State Theorists would claim that the primary function of the perfect does not necessarily stipulate a precedence relation between the event time and the reference time. Instead, the perfect is treated as a stativizer whose main function is the predication of some eventuality with a resultant state that continues into the moment of utterance (see Parsons 1990, Michaelis 1998, de Swart 1998, Nishiyama and Koenig 2010 for a more detailed discussion of the Result State Theories of the perfect).

9. See also McCawley (1971), Binnick (1991), Nishiyama and Koenig (2010), and more recently Portner (2011) for a discussion of perfect uses.

10. Comrie’s original labels are given in parentheses.11. In the semantic literature, Experiential and Continuative perfects are often

referred to as Existential and Universal, respectively.12. Following Schmitt (2001), among others, I refer to this reading of the

Portuguese periphrastic past as ‘iterative’, though it is not the case that all iterative readings show iterations of an entire event. In example (i) below, the perfect does not entail that João has iteratively read the entire book but rather that he has been in a state of reading parts of the book. The difference between the ‘true’ iterative reading and the iterations of subevents reading can be attributed to the distinction between simple telic events (achieve-ments) and complex telic events (accomplishments) (cf. Vendler 1967 and Dowty 1987). In (i) below, the whole event of João’s arriving is iterated in the past, while in (ii) only subevents of the house- painting are iterated.

(i) AchievementO João tem chegado tarde ao escritório.‘João has been arriving late to the office.’

(ii) AccomplishmentO João tem pintado a casa.‘João has been painting the house.’

Notes 173

13. Craige Roberts (p.c.) has suggested to me that the iterative or Continuative reading of the Portuguese pretérito perfeito composto can be considered a sub-case of Comrie’s Perfect of Persistent Situation. Comrie offers the following example: I’ve shopped here for years (1976: 60). Interestingly, in Portuguese this same proposition would be expressed by the simple present – e.g. Eu faço as compras neste lugar ha muitos anos.

14. There is currently no consensus as to whether or not the time of speech is included in the interval denoted by a Continuative perfect. Some scholars maintain that the perceived inclusion of the speech time is merely pragmatic (see Mittwoch 1988, Abusch and Rooth 1990). Others make the claim that the speech time is included by assertion (see Iatridou et al. 2001). The often cited evidence for the latter of these two claims is represented by examples like (i) below, which Iatridou et al. claim is a clear contradiction:

(i) María ha estado enferma desde el martes pero ahora está mejor. ‘Maria has been sick since Tuesday but she’s better now.’

Though it is not crucial to the current analysis to accept one or the other position regarding speech time inclusion, I do not believe that (i) constitutes a contradiction since it can be clearly understood to indicate that María has very recently recovered from her illness.

15. Semantic accounts of the Continuative/Experiential distinction include Dowty (1979), Richards (1982), Mittwoch (1988), and Vlach (1993). For an overview of pragmatic accounts, the reader is referred to Inoue (1979), McCoard (1978), Heny (1982), Klein (1992, 1994), Portner (2003), and Schaden (2009).

16. Iatridou et al. (2001) argue that Continuative perfects arise only in the pres-ence of explicit adverbials of a certain type. For example, with adverbials such as since and for three days the Continuative reading is optional (as in example 17). If the perfect occurs with adverbials like at least since or always, however, the Continuative reading is required. Following Dowty (1979) and Vlach (1993), Iatridou et al. claim that this distinction reflects the fact that some adverbials are perfect- level (i.e. have scope over the perfect operator) while others are eventuality- level, scoping only over the underlying predicate. The class of adverbials requiring the Continuative interpretation is perfect- level.

17. Burgos refers to the ‘Hot News’ anterior gram and argues that other forms may also express this function – e.g. the simple past.

18. According to Portner (2003), a speaker who utters (ii) as a response to (i) accepts the question and offers the perfect as means of determining an answer. Hot News perfects are similar in that a specific relation between the proposi-tion and the discourse must hold. This observation seems to run counter to the use of Hot New perfects described above since they are most frequently found in contexts in which little or no common ground has been supplied – e.g. as in newspaper headlines. I submit, however, that relevance is indeed the pertinent contextual factor that licenses both Experiential and Hot News perfects; it is the type of relevance, however, that distinguishes the two uses. Experiential perfects on the one hand are licensed by relevance to a local discourse topic (or Question Under Discussion in the model proposed by Roberts 1996), while Hot News readings on the other require relevance at a more global level.

174 Notes

(i) Do you think that the Earth will ever be hit by any celestial bodies?(ii) The Earth has been hit by giant asteroids before (and it probably will be

again).19. The situation of the French passé composé is actually more complex than

indicated here. While it is certainly the case that this particular interpreta-tion (i.e. the Continuative perfect) is at best marginal with this form in French, it nonetheless persists under the influence of negation as in Je ne l’ai pas vu depuis un an ‘I haven’t seen him for a year’.

20. In Bulgarian, there is also a perfect participle based on an imperfective stem that can give rise to interpretations other than the Continuative type (e.g. recent past).

21. One reviewer points out that the Greek structure in example (25) is not entirely parallel to the corresponding forms in French and Bulgarian, for example. The form zisi is ‘a remnant of an earlier infinitive, and is best ana-lyzed as a participle synchronically’. With this caveat in mind, I have glossed zisi as a PARTICIPLE only for reasons of exposition.

22. It must be noted that the status of this issue is markedly different than that presented by other types of temporal semantic incompatibility. Note the following examples:

(i) *John ate dinner tomorrow.(ii) *John will eat dinner yesterday.

(iii) John has eaten dinner *tomorrow/?? yesterday.

What we observe about the distinctions shown in (i)–(iii) is that the purported ungrammaticality of the use of adverbs such as yesterday is not parallel to the clearly contradictory uses of the adverbs tomorrow and yesterday with the simple past and simple future respectively. That is, the use of yesterday with the English present perfect in (iii) does not create the same ‘dissonance’ as that generated in (i) or (ii). In fact, native speakers of (American) English routinely make use of such adverbials with the perfect.

(iv) He [Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito] has, certainly, in 1985, criticized the separation of church and state. (NPR’s Talk of the Nation, 01/02/06)

(v) I’ve seen Rebel without a cause ... years ago. (NPR’s This American Life, 10/01/05, talking about being a fan of James Dean)

(vi) This is what has been already confirmed yesterday by the Lebanese cabinet (Davies 2008, oral)

Comrie cites similar examples of the use of these types of adverbials with the perfect, noting that ‘temporal specification is acceptable in English, provided it is added as an afterthought to a sentence with a Perfect verb’ (1976: 55). In general these types of examples represented in (iv)–(vi) are discarded since in almost all cases the adverbials are both sentence final and separated by intonational phrase boundaries, suggesting that they are just afterthoughts. Still, with the simple past such ‘afterthought’ modification is not allowed.

(vii) John went to the market ...a. *tomorrow.b. *but only tomorrow.

Notes 175

At issue here is whether or not to treat this incompatibility as semantic or syntactic. Intuitively, we as speakers should not have any obvious problems with using a past- denoting adverb with a form that denotes an event or state that is at least partially located in the past. I maintain that this effect is due mainly to pragmatic features, namely the incongruence of the presup-position of discourse relevance associated with the present perfect and the intended discourse reference time evoked by the speaker (cf. Portner 2003). Given the examples above, we are left with the open question of accepting if there exists an incongruity between the periphrastic past, at least in English, and (certain types of) past adverbials. For the current analysis, I leave this question unaddressed, though the following examples do indeed suggest that speakers are a bit at odds with how to treat such cases.

(viii) Quite a bit has been going on today and yesterday. (Davies 2008, oral)(ix) Now a Connecticut judge has ruled, RULED yesterday, that Skakel

should be tried as an adult. (Davies 2008, oral)

23. See Mittwoch (1988) and Pratt and Francez (2001).24. Example taken from Musan (2001: 360, example 1–7a).25. Iatridou et al. note that there are some cases in English in which since is

allowed without perfect morphology. Note the following examples:

(i) It is two years since he died. (from Iatridou et al. 2001: 193)(ii) It is 50 years since the total breakdown in communication between the

United States and Japan led to war. (Davies 2008, oral)

Though it is certainly possible to find cases like (i), even in seminatural speech as in (ii), the use of the English present tense in these cases is relegated to literary or formal registers. The claim that it represents a case in which since adverbials are used more generally with nonperfects is thus dubious at best (see also Mittwoch 1988 for a discussion of these types of examples).

26. See von Stechow (2002) for an extended discussion of seit adverbials in German.27. See Howe (2011) and Howe and Ranson (2010) for a discussion of the ‘to

do/to make’ adverbials in Romance.28. Before moving on, a word of caution is in order. In her discussion of gram-

maticalization pathways, Norde (2009) observes that ‘people tend to base their analyses on results (a superficial comparison of initial and final states) rather than on a detailed examination of the change itself’ (2009: 33). For Norde, pathways of grammatical change are typological trends that, while robust and cross- linguistically salient, are nonetheless subject to occasional reversals or divergences. With respect to the simple vs periphrastic past in Romance, it is crucial to keep in mind that the behavior of the passé composé in Modern French should be viewed as one of several possible pathways of development. It is this assumption about the nondeterminate nature of pathways that underlies the entire monograph.

29. Additional ‘perfective’ uses of the imperfecto include the expression of sequence in dreams, as in (i), and in journalistic styles, shown in (ii) (see Reyes 1990, Rodríguez 2004). With respect to the latter, Butt and Benjamin note that the imperfecto is ‘sometimes used as an alternative to the preterite in order to produce a dramatically drawn- out effect’ (1994: 215).

176 Notes

(i) A mediodía entraban cuatro individuos portando maletines de cuero, encaño-naban al público, y el gerente, a la primera amenaza, les abría la bóveda.‘At noon four individuals entered (IMP) [the bank] carrying leather cases, they herded (IMP) the crowd, and after only the first threat, the manager opened (IMP) the safe for them.’ (from Presagios by José Alcántara Alm’anzar 2000; description of main character’s dream)

(ii) Un cuarto de hora después ... dos grapos asesinaban a un policía armado ‘A quarter of an hour later ... two members of GRAPO murdered an

armed policeman’ (from Butt and Benjamin 1994: 215)

30. Example taken from Berman and Slobin (1994: 250, example 12a).31. Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) make the claim that morphosyntactically similar

forms do share semantic features by virtue of these formal similarities. The fact that the perfect in Spanish and the French passé composé differ semanti-cally is a reflection of language-specific syntactic properties relating to tense and aspect.

32. For Table 2.3, I have not included a category related to the behavior of the periphrastic past with respect to the present tense in each language. Nevertheless, with the exception of English, all of the other languages have present tense forms that can indicate an eventuality beginning in the past and continuing into the present (see e.g. example 38). A more thorough discussion of this feature in the evolution of perfect > perfective cross- linguistically and cross- dialectally will be provided in subsequent chapters.

33. For further discussion on perfect constructions across Romance languages see Harris (1982), Harris and Vincent (1988), Squartini (1998), Squartini and Bertinetto (2000), and Giacalone Ramat (2008).

34. Use of the pretèrit perfet simple in Catalan (with the exception of Valencian and Belearic varieties) is found almost exclusively in written language (Harris and Vincent 1988, Pérez Saldanya 1998). In the spoken there are two forms, one with auxiliary ha (from Latin HABERE), as in example (53a), and the other with anar ‘to go’ – e.g. David va cantar ‘David sang’. What is interesting about this form is that it does not use the typical range of Latin descendants as an auxiliary (e.g. ‘to have/to hold’, ‘to be’), opting instead for the verb anar. Detges (2004) argues that this form does not readily fit into treatments of semantic change that assume only a limited range of lexical sources for auxiliaries (see e.g. Kuteva 1995, 2001).

35. Spanish does employ the verb tener ‘to have’ (from Latin TENERE) in small clause constructions with Resultative or Causative meaning, as in (i) below. Harre (1991) discusses the possibility of having perfect- type interpretations with these constructions, though there is evidence that suggests that tener does not express the same features as the periphrastic past with haber. For example, while the small clause tener construction allows for a V � DO � ADJ configuration, this order is not possible with the perfect, as shown in (ii).

(i) Tengo las cartas escritas.have.1 the letters.FEM.PL written.FEM.PL

‘I have the letters written.’(ii) a. He escrito las cartas.

have.1 write.PARTICIPLE the letters‘I have written the letters.’

Notes 177

b. *He las cartas escritas.have.1 the letters.FEM.PL written.FEM.PL

Similarly, with predicates that have distinct adjectival and past participle forms, the tener Resultative construction is only compatible with the adjecti-val form. Note the examples in (iii) below (taken from Harre 1991: 57):

(iii) a. Tengo despierto al niño.have.1 awake.MASC.SG ACC-the child.MASC.SG

‘I have the child awake.’ (where despierto ‘awake’, adj.)b. *Tengo despertado al niño.

have.1 awake.PARTICIPLE ACC-the child.MASC.SG

36. Also available in Spanish is the possibility that the form used primarily for the subjunctive past is used with past perfect meaning in literary contexts. Though in these cases this form does not conserve its subjunc-tive meaning, it is still subject to the syntactic restrictions of a subjunc-tive clause. Namely, it cannot occur in a matrix clause. Observe the example in (i):

(i) Y en la propia Nicaragua, la dinastía de Somoza, que fuera directamente colocada en el poder por Estados Unidos ...‘And in Nicaragua itself, the Somoza dynasty, which had been directly installed in power by the United States ...’ (M. Benedetti in El País taken from Butt and Benjamin 1994: 227)

It is not surprising that this form should retain uses as a perfect in Spanish since in other Romance languages it is this synthetic form that serves as the past perfect (see also Vincent 1987).

(ii) O João comera o dia anterior.the João eat.PASTPERF the day before‘João had eaten the day before.’

37. Equating the placement of English object pronouns with that of Spanish is not entirely appropriate since the English pronoun it (or him or she, for example) is tonic, i.e. not a clitic.

38. I should point out that in Portuguese and some varieties of Spanish it is possible to have affirmative responses using a simple auxiliary similar to the English case. Thus, in example (i) below, the auxiliary tenho can be used as an affirmative response to A’s question.

(i) A: Você tem visitado sua avó?‘Have you been visiting your grandmother?’

B: Sim, eu a tenho visitado.‘Yes, I have been visiting her (recently).’

B′: Tenho.‘Yes.’ (Lit. ‘I have’)

Studies of this usage in Portuguese, however, suggest that the response in B′ is perhaps better understood as a more general strategy employed in Portuguese for providing affirmative responses (see Armstrong 2008). According to these

178 Notes

analyses, B’s response above using the simple auxiliary would not constitute a stranded auxiliary of the type shown in example (64):

(ii) A: Você visitou sua avó?‘Did you visit your grandmother?’

B: Sim, eu a visitei.‘Yes, I visited her.’

B’: Visitei.‘Yes.’ (Lit. ‘I visited’)

3 The Spanish Perfects

1. Semantic reduction in this case refers to the loss of the original lexical mean-ing of possession expressed by HABERE in Vulgar Latin and Early Romance (see Green 1988, Vincent 1988, Penny 2000). Moreover, phonological attrition has also played a role in the development of Latin HABERE, which in many varieties is subject to variable deletion in spoken registers (see Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos 2008).

2. See Harre (1991) for a discussion of the Spanish tener � NP � PARTICIPLE con-struction in Spanish.

3. For recent treatments see Jara Yupanqui (2006), Kempas (2006), Wright (2008), Rodríguez Louro (2009), and Burgo (2010), among others.

4. The notion of a ‘default’ in the realm of temporal reference is not particu-larly well understood. Comrie suggests that a default expression is one that ‘is felt to be more usual, more normal, less specific than the other’ (1976: 11). Intuitively, this definition does capture the observation that many speakers from Madrid, for example, view the periphrastic past as more common or normal than the preterit. Still, I am not completely satisfied with such a characterization since it has little to say about the actual meanings and uses of a particular form. Instead, I adopt the notion of default as proposed by Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos (2008), which relies on empirical factors such as frequency and degree of temporal specificity.

5. Studies such as that of Lope Blanch (1972) and Moreno de Alba (1978, 1998, 2003) argue that the periphrastic past in Mexican Spanish expresses imper-fective or durative aspect since it is generally used to indicate eventualities that began in the past and continue into the present. Moreno de Alba (2003) notes that the difference between (i), with the simple past, and (ii), occurring with the periphrastic past, is that with the former the friendship is viewed as having terminated, while the perfect gives rise to the reading in which the friendship continues into the present:

(i) Fue mi amigo.‘He was my friend.’ (from Moreno de Alba 2003: 110)

(ii) Ha sido mi amigo.‘He has been my friend.’ (from Moreno de Alba 2003: 110)

While I agree with Moreno de Alba’s observations, this distinction is not unique to Mexican Spanish, especially with a stative predicate like ser mi amigo ‘to be my friend’, which would produce a Continuative interpretation in virtually every dia-lect of Spanish. It is perhaps more appropriate to argue, as will be demonstrated

Notes 179

in this chapter, that in the cases where there is a potential Continuative/Experiential ambiguity, the Continuative interpretation, which is imperfective, is favored. Moreover, I am hesitant to label the periphrastic past as imperfective as a whole since there are certainly uses that exist outside the scope of imper-fectivity (e.g. Experiential uses). Nevertheless, such claims do exist in the litera-ture both for Spanish (see Mackenzie 1995) and for English (see Katz 2003).

6. Common throughout the description of the periphrastic past in Spanish is use of the term ‘imperfect’ or ‘imperfective’ to describe specific dialectal cases. Lope Blanch (1972), for instance, notes that the Mexican perfect can express durative or imperfective aspect (see also Moreno de Alba 1978, Company Company 2002). According to Lope Blanch, the category of imperfectos represents the cases in which an eventuality begins in the past and continues to the moment of speech. This particular usage of the term ‘imperfective’ is better understood as describing a particular type of reading that arises with the perfect, namely the Perfect of Persistent Situation (see Comrie 1976), which is distinct from the aspectual category of imperfective. I assume that use of the term imperfecto with respect to the periphrastic past in Spanish is meant to capture the observation that this form is compatible with events which continue into the present while the simple past is not (see also Moreno de Alba 2003 for an extended discussion of the Spanish perfect as imperfective).

7. Interestingly, in many of the cases in which the perfect emerges as the domi-nant form, the simple past is often relegated to certain registers – e.g. formal or written language. Though the case of the French passé simple is arguably the most visible of these examples, there are others, such as German, Italian, and Catalan, in which a simple past has been partially or completely exiled from colloquial use.

8. Otálora Otálora also notes that the preterit is preferred over the perfect in some Spanish regions such as Galicia and Asturia (1970: 138).

9. Though not quite as extensively analyzed as Peninsular Spanish, the perfect in American Spanish, specifically in the South American region, has been treated by a number of authors. Among them are Schumacher- de Peña (1980), Hardman de Bautista (1982), Westmoreland (1988), Bustamante López (1991), Stratford (1991), DeMello (1994), de Jonge (1995), Mackenzie (1995), Klee and Ocampo (1995), Klee (1996), López Morales (1996), Escobar (1997), Penny (2000), Feke (2004), Jara Yupanqui (2006), and Rojas Sosa (2008).

10. Frequencies for the Argentine data are taken from Rodríguez Louro (2009). The frequencies for the Mexican and Peninsular samples are adapted from Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos (2008), based on the corpora developed by Lope Blanch (1971, 1976) (Mexican Spanish) and Marcos Marín (1992) (Peninsular Spanish).

11. The figures for Salvadoran Spanish are taken from Hernández (2004) and those from Peruvian Spanish from Caravedo (1989).

12. Similar studies concerning the simple vs periphrastic past distinction in Argentine Spanish have reported similar, albeit less striking, overall frequencies of usage. Burgos (2004) quotes figures from Kubarth (1992b) that demonstrate a simple past usage of 87 percent (N � 1602) and 13 percent (N � 232) for the periphrastic past. While these figures are not as dramatic as those presented by Rodríguez Louro (2009), they are nonetheless suggestive of a marked prefer-ence for the simple past with a concomitant marginalization of the perfect.

180 Notes

13. I have included the frequency distributions obtained from my own inter-views in Table 3.4 (i.e. MAD05 and VAL05). The frequency distributions for the Canary Islands data are from Serrano (1995). Note that in both cases the figures are parallel to those obtained from the COREC corpus (Marcos Marín 1992 in Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos 2008).

14. I will revisit this claim regarding the co- occurrence with temporal adverbials as a useful criterion in discerning patterns of perfect usage. In fact, I will claim that while compatibility with definite past adverbials is a necessary condition for emergent perfective meaning with a periphrastic past, it is not a sufficient condition.

15. Throughout this monograph, reference to ‘English’ is restricted solely to vari-eties of American English, which is considerably different from other varieties with respect to its usage of the present perfect (see Elsness 1997, Ritz and Engel 2008, or Ritz 2010 for examples). Though not completely analogous to the Peninsular/Mexican Spanish split, British English does display a broader array of contexts in which the present perfect is used. Example (i) illustrates this observation. Note that most varieties of American English would prefer the simple past dusted or didn’t dust instead of the present perfect.

(i) ‘Great Elephants’ said Gandalf, ‘you are not at all yourself this morning – you have never dusted the mantelpiece!’ (from The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien 1937)

16. Since the temporal domains in which the Peninsular perfect expresses perfectivity are limited, then it also follows that the range of definite past adverbials would also be limited, excluding cases such as last week or ten years ago. Another possibility, however, concerning these co- occurrence patterns is that temporal expressions like a las siete can be understood as VP- internal modifiers, thus occurring inside the scope of the perfect operator. This type of argument would predict that in examples like (10) or (11), the perfect operator is able to combine with a predicate like wake up at seven. Notice that such predicates are in fact compatible with perfects as long as an Experiential interpretation is understood. Observe (i) below:

(i) Me he levantado a las cinco una vez en mi vida, y nunca lo haré otra vez.‘I got up at five o’clock only once in my life, and I’ll never do it again.’

17. Examples (15) and (16) were cited in Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos (2008: p. 2 example 1a and p. 8 example 7, respectively).

18. See also Arnauld and Lancelot (1754) and more recently Brugger (2001) for a discussion of the so- called ‘24-hour’ rule commonly used to describe the use of the passé composé in seventeenth- century French.

19. For the interviews conducted in Alcalá de Henares in 2009 (see example 23), the speakers were asked instead to narrate a typical day, followed by a request to provide specific examples from the current day. Otherwise, the interview protocol used in Alcalá de Henares was the same as the interviews conducted in Madrid, Valencia, and Cusco (see Appendix B).

20. One potentially important caveat for this observation about narrative uses of the perfect in Peninsular Spanish is its distribution with respect to the imperfective past. In typical Spanish past narratives, the preterit is used to foreground events in the narrative while the imperfective past

Notes 181

marks background or ongoing events. At this stage in the distribution of perfect- marked narratives, however, there does not seem to be the same interplay between the periphrastic past and the imperfective past. In fact, there are very few examples of the imperfective past used in conjunction with the perfect in the narratives gathered in my Madrid and Valencia samples. Similarly, none of the examples presented in Schwenter (1994a) expresses the type of periphrastic/imperfective past interplay as might be expected in typical narratives. One exception can be found in (i) below which has the form quedaban in the imperfective past occurring in a relative clause that describes the data that the informant needed to input into the computer:

(i) He termininado de meter unos datos en el ordenador que me quedaban.‘I finished inputting some data that I had left over into the computer.’ (MAD05 063005: Interview 12)

Despite the example in (i), this observation is quite telling since it suggests that we should be cautious regarding the claim that the Peninsular perfect is wholly compatible with narrative sequence.

21. The gloss for example (24) was provided by Rodríguez Louro (2009).22. This pattern is also typical in Portuguese.23. In this respect, the perfect is similar to the Spanish imperfective past, which

also is used to express background events in narratives.24. With a temporal adverbial such as still, the English present can have a

Continuative- type interpretation with stative predicates, as in (i). Burgos (2004) suggests that the same is true for activity predicates (see example ii), though it does not seem to be the case that the interpretation of either (i) or (ii) is ‘Continuative’ in the same sense discussed above. Example (ii) would not be uttered by a speaker starting his/her 17th mile in a marathon to indicate that her/she is still in the process of running. Likewise, I suspect that the supposed Continuative interpretation of (i) is actually generic in nature.

(i) I still live in Athens. (ii) I still run.

25. In claiming that the Spanish periphrastic past expresses the subinterval property, I am following Katz (2003: 218) who proposes that the present per-fect in English is a stative operator and as such has the subinterval property, defined by Dowty (1987: 18) as the following:

(i) If δ is an atelic predicate, then necessarily δ(x1, ..., xn) is true for interval I if and only if δ(x1, ..., xn) is true for all subintervals of I′ of I.

Informally, this property requires that an atelic predicate be true at any subinterval. Thus, if I say ‘Mary slept’, it must be true that ‘Mary sleep’ hold at every subinterval of the interval during which ‘Mary slept’ is true. With telic predicates like ‘write a letter’, the converse is true; that is, ‘Mary wrote a letter’ requires that ‘Mary write a letter’ is false for all proper subintervals.

26. ‘The present [tense] is a form that, in terms of its aspect, expresses imper-fectivity; in other words, it expresses events that are taking place and whose end point is not determined’ ... ‘[and] there’s no doubt that compound forms sometimes acquire an imperfective form: it only happens however when

182 Notes

the imperfectivity has a specific beginning point for the eventuality’ (García Fernández 2000a: 345, 350).

27. Descriptions of the periphrastic past in many varieties of Mexican Spanish have traditionally emphasized the aspectual characteristics of the form. Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos note that the perfect in Mexican Spanish ‘expresses durative aspect in describing situations initiated in the past that continue up to utterance time’ (2008: 5), citing other properties of this form that have been cited in the literature such as temporal recency (Company Company 2002). While I agree with the general statement that the temporal/aspectual features of the periphrastic past are variable across Spanish dialects, producing cases like Mexican Spanish in which the periphrastic past often produces imperfective meaning, this tendency is crucially not part of the core semantics of the form, i.e. required imperfectivity (see Amaral and Howe 2010).

28. A more accurate description of the semantics of the periphrastic past in Portuguese is that it has a required multiple event (i.e. pluractional) mean-ing. See Amaral and Howe (2010) for further discussion of this meaning.

29. See Dowty (1979) and Smith (1997) for in- depth discussions of the semantics of negation in relation to tense and aspect. Squartini and Bertinetto (2000) also provide some general comments about the effects of negation with respect to the periphrastic past in Romance.

30. In a questionnaire study with speakers from the North- Central region of Spain, Bartens and Kempas (2007) provide informants with a range of sentences designed to test speakers’ preference for either the simple or peri-phrastic past across possible reading types – e.g. Experiential, Continuative. For the two sentences indicating a situation of event duration, shown in (i) and (ii) (Bartens and Kempas 2007: 157), the informants reported a preference for the periphrastic past, 95 and 85 percent, respectively, which are among the highest levels of preference reported in their study. This is not surprising due to the fact that use of the simple past in these two cases would have disfavored (though not precluded) a Continuative reading.

(i) Siempre he querido hacerlo.‘I have always wanted to do it.’

(ii) Últimamente, he tenido bastante trabajo.‘Lately, I have had a lot of work.’

31. It is doubtful that the preterit in Argentine Spanish is the only form used with Hot News functions as Burgos proposes. His survey only includes headlines from a single day (27 September 2000) and single source, Radio Nacional. Thus, his survey is not representative of the general distribution of the periphrastic past in these contexts. A quick survey of newspaper head-lines from Argentina turned up the following Hot News perfect headlines:

(i) Ha suscitado justificada controversia, la posibilidad de que el municipio de Bariloche suscriba un convenio para transferir parte del bosque comunal de Llao- Llao a la empresa que adquirió el hotel de ese nombre ...‘A real controversy has been provoked, the possibility that the city of Bariloche signs an agreement to transfer part of the public forest of

Notes 183

Llao- Llao to the company that acquired the hotel of that name ...’ (from Diario la Prensa, 04/29/1992)

(ii) Ha finalizado en la cancha del Córdoba Golf Club el 62 Campeonato Abierto del Centro de la República ...‘The 62nd Championship Open of the Central Republic has finished at the course at Cordoba Golf Club ...’ (from Diario la Prensa, 04/19/1992)

32. This observation is based on Elsness’s (1997) comparison of uses of the sim-ple past and the present perfect in the Brown University Corpus of American English and the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English. Also, for British English, the values for factors 2–4 represent claims made by Burgos (2004). I have omitted narrative sequencing as a factor since I do not have any direct evidence concerning the use of the present perfect in these cases. My feeling, however, is that, like American English, use of the present perfect with sequenced events is prohibited in British English.

33. For a more extensive overview of the periphrastic past in different varieties of English, see Elsness (1997), Green (1998), Van Herk (2008), and Terry (2010).

4 The Perfect in Peruvian Spanish

1. For this description, see Chapter 5. 2. By ‘Peninsular’, I am again referring the set of dialects described in Chapter 3

that display increased perfectivity. I exclude those that do not exhibit this distribution (e.g. Galician Spanish).

3. In this section I will be including data from the Lima Habla Culta corpus (Caravedo 1989). Though I am not claiming that these two varieties are equivalent with respect to the distribution of the perfect, the data seem to suggest that the two are similar, being subject to most of the same con-straints. Thus, as I have incorporated data from both Madrid and Valencia for the samples from Peninsular Spanish, so too will I utilize examples and distributional observations from both Lima and Cusco.

4. Again, the frequencies for the sample of Peninsular Spanish are adapted from Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos (2008), based on the corpus developed by Marcos Marín (1992). The Cusco sample represents data collected in my fieldwork in 2005.

5. It should be noted that the data presented in Table 4.1 from Cusco come from significantly smaller corpora than the Lima data (Caravedo 1989).

6. The data from Mexican Spanish come from Lope Blanch (1971, 1976). The Argentine data represent the corpus used in Rodríguez Louro (2009).

7. A comparison of the overall frequencies of simple and periphrastic past forms in the data from the Lima and La Paz Habla Culta corpora reveals a considerable difference in the patterns of preference. As noted in Table 4.1, the rate of usage of the periphrastic past in the Lima corpus is 27.1 percent (N � 972). For the La Paz corpus, this number jumps to 50.4 percent (N � 1097), a number compara-ble to that of the Madrid samples. Thus, despite the fact that these two samples suggest a deviation from what some consider to be the Latin American norm of preference for the simple past (see e.g. Alonso and Henríquez Ureña 1951: 155), extension of the perfect, even in ostensibly similar varieties, turns out not to be a parallel phenomenon. This is indeed the general argument made in this work.

184 Notes

8. In Chapter 5 I will discuss some explanations for these ‘innovative’ uses as they relate to bilingual speakers.

9. Example extracted from an interview conducted in Alcalá de Henares, Spain, in 2009.

10. An alternate, and I believe reasonable, analysis might propose that these cases of past perfects contrast with the present perfect in that they indicate ‘that the information given is not first-hand’ (Escobar 1997: 865; see also Soto 1978, Escobar 1993, Klee and Ocampo 1995). Indeed, for many of these events, the speaker would not have had fi rst- hand knowledge – e.g. the plan-ning of the party.

11. Howe and Schwenter also note that since the perfect does not give rise read-ily to sequencing effects it is often used with durative situations. To observe this effect, note that in example (27) all of the perfect- marked events are statives (with the exception of me he olvidado ‘I have forgotten’, which in any case is outside of the narrative sequence) – e.g. hemos estado ‘we have been’. According to some analyses, perfects and statives share the feature of incompatibility with narrative sequencing (see Dry 1983, Hinrichs 1986, Katz 2003).

12. Hernández argues that the perfect in Salvadoran Spanish ‘occurs primarily outside the boundaries of the complicating action, as internal and external evaluation’ (2006: 302). Here, Hernández adopts the proponents of narrative structure as proposed by Labov (1972), among which include (a) the com-plicating action, (b) evaluation, (c) abstract, and (d) coda. The complicating action involves the retelling of events in the chronological order in which they occurred. This function, according to Hernández, is accomplished by the simple past. Components (b)–(d) represent what Hernández considers the evaluative content of the narrative and can be encoded by the perfect. I find this proposal offers some intriguing insight into the division of labor between the simple and periphrastic past, one that does not assume that a perfect must develop into a perfective in order to express epistemic meaning.

13. Tito Puente, accomplished Latin jazz percussionist, died in 2000.14. In French the passé composé, which is already a full-fledged past perfective,

does not express a Lifetime Presupposition. The following example is felici-tous despite the fact that Einstein is no longer alive.

(i) Einstein a visité Princeton.‘Einstein visited Princeton.’

15. Translation: ‘If Diego continues to be in London, it is better to refer to the situation using está “is”. If the action has ended and the speaker is recalling it, it is better to use ha estado “has been”.’

16. The current discussion of evidential enclitic will focus specifically on the system represented in Cusco Quechua. See Faller (2002a, b, 2004) and Feke (2004) for extensive discussions of the behavior and meaning of eviden-tial clitics in this variety. For a general survey of clitics across varieties of Quechua, see Adelaar (1997).

17. The labels for the Quechua glosses are adapted from those in Lefebvre and Muysken (1988) and Faller (2002b): 3 � 3rd person, CIS � cislocative, CONJ �

Notes 185

conjectural, PST1 � past tense marker -sqa, PST2 � past tense marker -rqa, PROG � progressive, REP � reportative, TOP � topic.

18. Faller makes an important distinction between the domains of operation of the indirect evidential enclitic -si and that of the past tense morpheme -sqa. Specifically, she argues that the evidential enclitics operate on the embedded proposition, indicating a specific relationship between it and the speaker. The past morpheme -sqa, however, has proposition- internal scope and oper-ates only on the event. Therefore, -sqa is not an evidential, at least not in the same manner explained by Escobar and Sánchez, and gives rise to evidential interpretations only indirectly.

5 Perfective Perfects in Two Dialects of Spanish

1. This research was conducted in accordance with Ohio State University research protocol 2005B0106.

2. References in parentheses indicate the number for each sentence in the judgment task. See Appendix A for the complete questionnaire. See also Appendix B for the protocol used in the sociolinguistic interviews.

3. The results of the questionnaire were such that almost no differences were observed between usage rates in the Madrid and Valencia samples, except in the case of ‘today’ narratives. Nonetheless, I will list the results from both Peninsular sites for each of the relevant comparisons.

4. The adverbials were not underscored in the actual questionnaire. 5. Recall from Chapter 3 that evidence was presented to counter this claim

made by Brugger (2001). I have repeated the relevant example here as (i):

(i) ayer he comprado un aire acondicionado y me da calor en vez de frio‘yesterday I bought an air conditioner and I’m getting hot instead of cold’

(COREC, BCON014B)

6. There were two other test sentences included in the judgment task that included the adverb ya. In these two cases, participants were asked to choose between the perfect and the present tense. Observe (i) and (ii):

(i) Juan ya (ha vivido/vive) en Madrid durante tres años. (� 14)‘Juan (has lived/lives) already in Madrid for three years.’

(ii) Ya (he estado/estoy) en Barcelona desde las ocho de la mañana. (� 15)‘I (have been/am) already in Barcelona since 8 o’clock in the morning.’

These sentences were excluded from the data presented in Table 5.6 to main-tain consistency with the comparison between the simple and periphrastic past forms. While the statistical analysis demonstrated a significant effect across dialects, the level of significance was quite low – p < .05, X2 � 9.921. The Cusqueño informants generally disfavored the perfect in these contexts, while the Peninsular participants were split evenly between the two forms.

In addition, the split exhibited with the Peninsular speakers came as the result of the almost categorical selection of the perfect for sentence (i) and the present tense for (ii). Though I will not develop a detailed explanation for these data, I suspect that the preference for the present tense in (ii) may indicate something about the temporal (i.e. stage-level) nature of the predicate ‘to

186 Notes

be in Barcelona’, versus the relative permanence of ‘to live in Madrid’. That is, in choosing between Juan ha vivido and Juan vive, speakers opt for the perfect to indicate the specific duration of Juan’s living in Madrid (i.e. the Experiential use), since the present tense would focus more on his current state of residence. According to the current analysis, if the perfect were indeed becoming perfective, this would be a possible approach to teasing apart the distinction between uses of the perfect and the present tense in indicating the continuation of an event or state.

7. None of the informants from either of the Peninsular groups chose both the simple and periphrastic past forms for sentences (14b) and (14c).

8. Included in the ‘Other’ category are forms that were produced by the Cusqueño informants that were neither the simple nor periphrastic past forms. These cases included an instance of the present tense and three instances of the synthetic future tense.

9. See Pancheva and von Stechow (2004) for a discussion of the semantic overlap of the present perfect and the simple past in English.

10. The same concerns might be raised in describing the perfect in Salvadoran Spanish as well (see Hernández 2004).

11. For the purposes of this analysis, I will assume, following Levinson (1983), that pragmatic presuppositions of the type described by Keenan (1971) are actually conventional implicatures. Levinson defines conventional implicatures as ‘ non- truth conditional inferences that are not derived from superordinate pragmatic principles like the maxims, but are simply attached by convention to particular lexical items or expressions’ (1983: 127). Conjunctions, such as and and but, or forms of formal and informal address, as in Spanish tú and usted ‘you’, are commonly presented as typical cases of forms displaying conventional implicatures since the difference between the two is not truth- conditional but rather arises from some additional factor. Though the debate over the exact status of conventional implicatures with respect to utterance meaning continues, I will assume that these implica-tures represent a group of inferences that are indeed distinct from presuppo-sitions (see Potts 2005 for a recent survey and analysis of theories concerning conventional implicature). Throughout the course of my analysis, I will refer to presuppositions, following Roberts (2005), as contextual requirements conventionally associated with a particular linguistic form that bear directly on the truth- conditional content of an utterance.

12. Brugger defines relevance with the Spanish present perfect as follows: ‘[t]he Spanish PrP [perfect] has Current Relevance if the Event Time is prior to today [i.e. the ‘today’ interval]. If the Event Time is within today the PrP may or may not have Current Relevance’ (2001: 248). As a corollary to this description, Brugger maintains that relevance arises only in the situations in which reference time (Reichenbach’s point of reference) is co- indexed with the speech time. Thus, for Brugger, relevance is a function of the rela-tionship between reference time, which may or may not be contained in the ‘today’ interval depending on the type of adverbial modification, and speech time.

13. As argued in Howe (2007), this implication described by Brugger as associ-ated with pre-‘today’ uses of the perfect in Peninsular Spanish is hardly conventional. That is, it need not be the case that (18b) occur in a context

Notes 187

in which the window is still open. Further complicating Brugger’s claim is that these ‘yesterday’ (or hesternal) uses of the perfect in Peninsular Spanish are limited, and speakers tend to prefer the simple past with overt adverbials of this type (see Table 5.4).

14. Glasbey (2005) offers a similar explanation of the present tense’s contribu-tion to the perfect. Instead of an ‘XN’ interval, however, she describes the present tense as determining the ‘Topic Interval’. This interval can be under-stood intuitively as referring to the time to which the discourse is oriented.

15. Todas las sangres (1964) is a novel by Peruvian author José María Arguedas.16. Schaden refers, somewhat pejoratively, to the typological/ usage- based litera-

ture on this topic as the ‘Bybee–Dahl school’ (2009: 12).17. In their analysis, Mosegaard Hansen and Waltereit (2005) claim that the

three- stage model of semantic change represented in the work of Levinson (1995, 2000) and Traugott and Dasher (2002) – i.e. PCI > GCI > coded meaning – is actually a rare exception in language change rather than the norm. Other patterns, such as GCI > PCI > coded meaning or simply PCI > coded meaning, are also attested.

18. It is important to note here that I am not using the term ‘Resultative’ in the same fashion as is discussed, for example, by Dowty (1979) and Williams (2008) – e.g. Al pounded the cutlet flat (Williams 2008: 5). Instead, the Resultative construction that gives rise to the periphrastic past in Spanish and English is more appropriately characterized, at least syntactically, as a small clause construction.

19. See Copple’s (2009: 90) analysis of the development of the Spanish peri-phrastic past for a quantitative approach to Detges’ proposal regarding the distinction between these two types of Resultative constructions based on the identity of the agent of the participle.

20. Of course, it is possible that what we are observing in the evolution from perfect to perfective is not grammaticalization per se but rather a type of default setting, in which case the interplay between background and fore-ground meaning elements could be altered.

21. It is a commonly held view in semantic theories that tenses presupposed a temporal location (see Partee 1973, 1984, Abusch 1997, Sauerland 2002). Thus, the proffered content with a past tense is the existence of a reference time and the presupposed content is the past location of that reference time.

6 Conclusions

1. In the semantic literature, the labor and machinery that have been devoted to addressing this question are considerable, and what emerges from the cacophony of analyses are two basic theoretical camps. The first group repre-sents the claim that these distinct readings (among others) are derivable via pragmatic interpretations of a basic perfect meaning (among the members of this group are Reichenbach 1947, Comrie 1976, Inoue 1979, McCoard 1978, Richards 1982, Heny 1982, Dowty 1982, Partee 1984, Binnick 1991, Hornstein 1990, Kamp and Ryle 1993, Klein 1994, Portner 2003). The com-peting theories maintain that these types of perfects are indeed semantically distinct (see McCawley 1971, 1981b, Mittwoch 1988, Michaelis 1994, and to

188 Notes

some degree Kiparsky 2002). With the exception of Kiparsky (2002), there are relatively few analyses that attempt to argue for separate semantic status for the Perfects of Result and Recent Past.

2. The reader will have no doubt noticed that a discussion of the so- called Historical Present, i.e. use of the present tense for sequencing past events, has been omitted from this monograph. Although the present tense forms in both English and Spanish are amenable to temporal sequencing in narratives, this function can be attributed mainly to the Aktionsarten of the predicates themselves rather than the semantic properties of the present tense (Dowty 1986). For more detailed analyses of the Historical Present, the reader is referred to Walker (2001) for English and Lubbers- Quesada (2004) for Spanish.

3. In Howe (2007) I provide a preliminary compositional analysis of the peri-phrastic past in Spanish, focusing on the contribution of the present tense.

189

Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1–50.

Abusch, Dorit and Mats Rooth. 1990. Temporal adverbs and the English perfect. In Juli Carter, Rose- Marie Déchaine, Bill Philip and Tim Sherer (eds), Proceedings of the 20th North East Linguistics Society, 1–15. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.

Acosta, Diego de. 2011. Rethinking the genesis of the Romance periphrastic perfect. Diachronia 28: 143–85.

Adelaar, Willem F.H. 1997. Los marcadores de validación y evidencialidad en quechua: ¿automatismo o elemento expresivo? Amerindia 22: 3–13.

Alarcos Llorach, Emilio. 1978 [1947]. Perfecto simple y compuesto. In Emilio Alarcos Llorach (ed.), Estudios de gramática funcional del español, 13–49. Madrid: Gredos.

Alonso, Amado and Pedro Henríquez Ureña. 1941. Gramática castellana. Buenos Aires: Losada.

Alonso, Amado and Pedro Henríquez Ureña. 1951. Gramática castellana. Segundo curso. Buenos Aires: Losada.

Amaral, Patrícia and Chad Howe. 2010. Detours along the perfect path. In Sonia Colina, Antxon Olarrea and Ana Maria Carvalho (eds), Romance linguistics 2009, 387–404. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Armstrong, Meghan E. 2008. Pragmatic restrictions on affirmative response choice in Brazilian Portuguese. In Joyce Bruhn de Garavito and Elena Valenzuela (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 288–99. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Arnauld, Antoine and Claude Lancelot. 1754. Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Prault fils l’aîné.

Bartens, Angela and Ilpo Kempas. 2007. Sobre el valor aspectual del pretérito perfecto en el español peninsular: Resultados de una prueba de reconocimiento realizada entre informantes universitarios. Revista de Investigación Linguística 10: 151–71.

Bello, Andrés and Ramón Trujillo. 1981. Gramática de la lengua castellana: destinada al uso de los americanos. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Instituto Universitario de Linguística Andrés Bello: Cabildo Insular de Tenerife. Andrés Bello; edición crítica de Ramón Trujillo.

Berman, Ruth Aronson and Dan Isaac Slobin. 1994. Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Binnick, Robert. 1991. Time and the verb: a guide to tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bosque, Ignacio and Violeta Demonte (eds). 1999. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Real Academia Española/Espasa Calpe.

Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brugger, Gerhard. 2001. Temporal modification, the 24-hour rule and the location of reference time. In Javier Gutiérrez Rexach and Luis Silva Villar (eds), Current studies in Spanish syntax and semantics, 243–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography

190 Bibliography

Bull, William E. 1968. Time, tense and the verb. A study in theoretical and applied linguistics with particular attention to Spanish. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burgo, Clara. 2010. A case of grammaticalization in the use of the perfect for the preterite in Bilbao Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3(2): 301–28.

Burgos, Daniel. 2004. Anteriority marking in British English, Standard German and Argentinean Spanish: an empirical examination with special emphasis on temporal adverbials. Munich: Lincom.

Büring, Daniel. 1997. The great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2): 175–94.

Bustamante López, Isabel. 1991. El presente perfecto o pretérito compuesto en el español quiteño. Lexis 15: 195–231.

Butt, John and Carmen Benjamin. 1994. A new reference grammar of Modern Spanish, 2nd edn. Chicago: NTC Publishing Group.

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, Joan L. and Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1): 51–103.

Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of gram-mar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Calvez, Daniel J. 1993. French reference grammar: a complete handbook of the French language. Lincolnwood, Ill.: National Textbook Company.

Campos, Maria Henriqueta C. 1986. L’opposition du portugais Pretérito Perfeito Simples–Pretérito Perfeito Composto: un cas singulier dans l’ensemble des langues romanes. Morphosyntaxe des Langues Romanes. Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique es Philologie Romanes ( Aix- en-Provence).

Caravedo, Rocío. 1989. El español de Lima: Materiales para el estudio del habla culta. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Carey, Kathleen. 1995. Subjectification and the development of the English perfect. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Linguistic perspectives, 83–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carrasco Gutiérrez, Ángeles. 2001. Los dos significados de anterioridad del preté-rito imperfecto. In Alexandre Veiga and María Rosa Pérez (eds), Lengua española y estructuras gramaticales, 59–73. Santiago de Compostela: Verba.

Cartagena, Nelson. 1999. Los tiempos compuestos. In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 2935–75. Madrid: ESPASA.

Carter, Diana M. 2003. Variación en el uso del presente perfecto en España. MA thesis, University of Western Ontario.

Cerrón Palomino, Rodolfo. 2003. Castellano Andino: Aspectos sociolingüísticos, pedagógicos y gramaticales. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Chamorro, Pilar. 2010. Tener � past participle in Galician Spanish: Another perfect with pluractional meaning. Paper presented at the 2010 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Indiana University.

Cipria, Alicia and Craige Roberts. 2000. Spanish imperfecto and pretérito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 297–347.

Bibliography 191

Company Company, Concepción. 2002. Gramaticalización y dialectología com-parada. Una isoglosa sintático-semántica del español. DICENDA: Cuadernos de filología hispánica 20: 39–71.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Copple, Mary. 2009. A diachronic study of the Spanish perfect(ive): Tracking the

constraints on a grammaticalizing construction. University of New Mexico dissertation.

Cusihuamán, Antonio. 2001. Gramática Quechua: Cuzco- Callao. Cusco: Centro de Estudios Andios Bartolomé de las Casas.

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Dahl, Östen and Eva Hedin. 2000. Current relevance and event reference. In

Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 386–401. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 385 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://www.americancorpus.org

De Granda, Germán. 2002. La modalidad verbal epistémica en el español andino de Argentina. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.

DeMello, George. 1994. Pretérito compuesto para indicar acción con límite en el pasado: Ayer he visto a Juan. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 4: 611–33.

Detges, Ulrich. 2000. Time and truth: the grammaticalization of resultatives and perfects within a theory of subjectification. Studies in Language 24: 354–77.

Detges, Ulrich. 2004. How cognitive is grammaticalization? The history of the Catalan perfet perifràstic. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde and Harry Perridon (eds), Up and down the cline: the nature of grammaticalization, 211–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Detges, Ulrich. 2006. Aspect and pragmatics: the passé composé in Old French and the Old Spanish perfecto compuesto. In Kerstin Eksell and Thora Vinther (eds), Change in verbal systems. Issues on explanation, 47–72. Frankfurt on Main: Peter Lang.

Donni de Mirande, Nélida. 1980. Aspectos del español hablado en argentina. Lea II: 299–346.

Donni de Mirande, Nélida. 1992. El sistema verbal en el español de la Argentina: Rasgos de unidad y de diferenciación dialectal. Revista de filología española 72: 655–70.

Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Dowty, David. 1982. Tense, time adverbs, and compositional semantic theory.

Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 23–55.Dowty, David. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of

discourse: Semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 37–61.Dowty, David. 1987. Aspect and aktionsart. Ohio State University manuscript.Drinka, Bridget. 1995. The sigmatic aorist in Indo- European: Evidence for the space- time

hypothesis (Monograph Series 13). Washington, DC: Journal of Indo- European Studies.

Drinka, Bridget. 2003. Areal factors in the development of the European peri-phrastic perfect. Word 54: 1–38.

Dry, Helen. 1983. The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics 12: 19–53.

Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: an enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

192 Bibliography

Eckardt, Regine, Klaus von Heusinger and Christoph Schwarze. 2003. Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view. Trends in Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Elsness, Johan. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Engel, Dulcie M. 1990. Tense and text. A study of French past tenses. London and New York: Routledge.

Escobar, Anna María. 1993. Epistemic modality in Spanish in contact with Quechua in Peru. In Evan Smith and Flore Zéphir (eds), Proceedings of the Mid- America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan- Caddoan Languages, 137–51. University of Missouri.

Escobar, Anna María. 1997. Contrastive and innovative uses of the present perfect and the preterite in Spanish in contact with Quechua. Hispania 80: 859–70.

Faller, Martina. 2002a. Remarks on evidential hierarchies. In David B. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark and Stefan Kaufmann (eds), The con-struction of meaning, 89–111. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Faller, Martina. 2002b. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford University dissertation.

Faller, Martina. 2004. The deictic core of ‘ non- experienced past’ in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics 21: 45–85.

Feke, Marilyn S. 2004. Quechua to Spanish cross- linguistics influence among Cuzco Quechua–Spanish bilinguals: the case of epistemology. University of Pittsburgh dissertation.

Fenn, Peter. 1987. A semantic and pragmatic examination of the English perfect. Tübingen: Narr.

Fintel, Kai von. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. University of Massachusetts dissertation.

Fleischman, Suzanne. 1983. From pragmatics to grammar: Diachronic reflections on complex pasts and futures in Romance. Lingua 60: 183–214.

Fortescue, Michael. 1980. Affix ordering in west Greenlandic derivational pro-cesses. International Journal of American Linguistics 25: 259–78.

Friedman, V. A. 2003. Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Studies in evidentiality, 189–218. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

García Fernández, Luís. 2000a. El perfecto continuativo. Verba 27: 343–58.García Fernández, Luis. 2000b. La gramática de los complementos temporales.

Madrid: Visor.Giacolone Ramat, Anna. 2008. Areal convergence in grammaticalization processes.

In María José Ló pez- Couso and Elena Seoane (eds), Rethinking grammaticaliza-tion: New perspectives, 129–67. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.

Glasbey, Sheila. 2005. A temporal topic interval analysis of the English perfect. LAGB Satellite Workshop on Perfectivity and Telicity. Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

Green, John N. 1988. Spanish. In Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance Languages, 79–130. New York: Oxford University Press.

Green, Lisa J. 1998. Remote past and states in African- American English. American Speech 73: 115–38.

Bibliography 193

Hardman de Bautista, Martha J. 1982. The mutual influence of Spanish and the Andean languages. Word 33: 143–57.

Harre, Catherine. 1991. Tener � past participle: a case study in linguistic description. London: Routledge.

Harris, Martin. 1982. The ‘past simple’ and ‘present perfect’ in Romance. In Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), Studies in the Romance verb, 42–70. London: Croom Helm.

Harris, Martin and Nigel Vincent. 1988. The Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Havu, Jukka. 1986. Perfecto simple y perfecto compuesto: ¿Oposición o libre vari-ación? In Actes du 9e Congrès des romistes candinaves, Société néophilologique.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heny, Frank. 1982. Tense, aspect and time adverbials, Part II. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 109–54.

Hernández, José Esteban. 2004. Present perfect variation and grammaticalization in Salvadoran Spanish. University of New Mexico dissertation.

Hernández, José Esteban. 2006. Present perfect in Salvadoran narratives: the perfective expansion into narrative discourse. In Nuria Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 297–307. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Hinrichs, Erhard. 1986. Temporal anaphora in discourses in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 63–82.

Hintz, Daniel J. 2011. Crossing aspectual frontiers: Emergence, evolution, and inter-woven semantic domains in South Conchucos Quechua discourse. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Hintz, Diane. 2007. Past tense forms and their functions in South Conchucos Quechua. University of California Santa Barbara dissertation.

Hopper, Paul J. 1982. Aspect between discourse and grammar: an introductory essay for the volume. In Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense–aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As time goes by: Tense and universal grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Howe, Chad. 2007. A semantic/pragmatic analysis of present perfects in Peninsular Spanish. In Jon Cihlar, Amy Franklin, Dave Kaiser, and Irene Kimbara (eds), Papers from the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 144–61.

Howe, Chad. 2009. Revisiting perfect pathways: Trends in the grammaticaliza-tion of periphrastic pasts. In Patience Epps and Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), New challenges in typology: Transcending the borders and refining the distinctions, 151–74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Howe, Chad. 2011. Structural autonomy in grammaticalization: Leveling and retention with Spanish hacer � TIME. Probus: International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 23: 247–82.

Howe, Chad and Diana L. Ranson. 2010. The evolution of clausal temporal modifiers in Spanish and French. Romance Philology 2: 197–207.

194 Bibliography

Howe, Chad and Celeste Rodríguez Louro. 2010. Finding the periphery: Continuative meaning and the Spanish perfect. Paper presented at the 2010 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Indiana University.

Howe, Chad and Scott A. Schwenter. 2003. Present perfect for preterite across Spanish dialects. In Tara Sánchez and Uri Horesh (eds), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV-31, vol. 92, 61–76. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Howe, Chad and Scott A. Schwenter. 2008. Variable constraints on past reference in dialects of Spanish. In Maurice Westmoreland and Juan A. Thomas (eds), Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 100–8. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Roumyana Izvorski. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 189–239. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Inoue, Kyoko. 1979. An analysis of the English present perfect. Linguistics 18: 561–89.Instituto de Filología y Literaturas Hispánicas Amado Alonso. 1987. El habla

culta de la ciudad de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras.

Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Aaron Lawson (ed.), SALT VII, 222–39. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jara Yupanqui, Margarita. 2006. The use of the preterite and the present perfect in the Spanish of Lima. University of Pittsburgh dissertation.

Jara Yupanqui, Margarita. 2011. Funciones discursivas y gramaticalización del pre-térito perfecto compuesto en el español de Lima. Spanish in Context 8: 95–118.

Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Jonge, Bob de. 1995. El valor del presente perfecto y su desarrollo histórico en el español americano. In III Congreso de el Español de América.

Jonge, Bob de. 1999. El tiempo de todos los tiempos: el uso del presente perfecto en el español bonaerense. In Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de la Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de la América Latina, 297–304.

Kamp, Hans and Uwe Ryle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Katz, Graham. 2003. On the stativity of the English perfect. In Artemis Alexiadou,

Monika Rathert and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Perfect explorations, 205–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Keenan, Edward. 1971. Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Charles Fillmore and Terence Langendoen (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics, 45–54. New York: Holt.

Kempas, Ilpo. 2006. Estudio sobre el uso del pretérito perfecto prehodiernal en el español peninsular y en comparación con la variedad del español argentino hablada en Santiago del Estero. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.

King, Larry D. 1992. The semantic structure of Spanish: Meaning and grammatical form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Event structure and the perfect. In David Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark and Stefan Kaufmann (eds), The construction of meaning, 113–35. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Klee, Carol. 1996. The Spanish of the Peruvian Andes: the influence of Quechua on Spanish language structure. In Ana Roca and John B. Jensen (eds), Spanish in contact, 73–91. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Bibliography 195

Klee, Carol and Alicia Ocampo. 1995. The expression of past reference in Spanish narratives of Spanish–Quechua bilingual speakers. In Carmen Silva-Corvalán (ed.), Spanish in four continents: Studies in language contact and bilingualism, 52–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect ‘puzzle’. Language 68: 525–52.Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London and New York: Routledge.Koch, Peter. 1999. Frame and contiguity. On the cognitive bases of metonymy and

certain types of word formation. In Günther Radden and Klaus- Uwe Panther (eds), Metonymy in language and thought, 233–53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kubarth, Hugo. 1992a. El uso del pretérito simple y compuesto en el español hablado de Buenos Aires. In Scripta Philologica II, 553–66. Mexico: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Kubarth, Hugo. 1992b. Perfecto compuesto y perfecto simple en el habla de Buenos Aires. In Ramón Lorenzo (ed.), Actas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Lingüística e Filoloxía Románicas, Santiago de Compostela.

Kuteva, Tania A. 1995. The auxiliation constraint and reference. In Richard Geiger (ed.), Reference in multidisciplinary perspective: Philosophical object, cogni-tive subject, and intersubjective process, 374–86. Hildesheim: Olms.

Kuteva, Tania A. 2001. Auxiliation: an enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Labelle, Marie. 2003. Events, states and the French imparfait. In Ana T. Perez- Leroux and Yves Roberge (eds), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, 165–80. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In John Baugh and Joel Sherzer (eds), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics, 17–92. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Laca, Brenda. 2010. Perfect semantics: How universal are Ibero- American pres-ent perfects? In Claudia Borgonovo, Manuel Español-Echevarría and Philippe Prévost (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 1–16. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories–nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In F. R. Palmer (ed.),

Grammar and meaning, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conver-

sational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. The perfect- aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Östen

Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 365–83. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lipski, John. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman.Lope Blanch, Juan M. (ed.). 1971. El habla de la ciudad de México: Materiales para

su estudio. México: UNAM.Lope Blanch, Juan M. 1972. Estudios sobre el español de México. México: UNAM.Lope Blanch, Juan M. (ed.). 1976. El habla popular de México: Materiales para su

estudio. México: UNAM.

196 Bibliography

López Morales, Huberto. 1996. Rasgos generales. In Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica. El español de América, 19–27. Barcelona: Ariel.

Lubbers- Quesada, Margaret. 2004. Viewpoint aspect, situation type and tense/aspect marking in Spanish written narratives. In Michael Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, culture and mind, 329–44. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Charles Fillmore and Terence Langendoen (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics, 97–113. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

McCawley, James D. 1981a. Everything that linguistics have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

McCawley, James D. 1981b. Notes on the English present perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 81–90.

Mackenzie, Ian. 1995. The supposed imperfectivity of the Latin American present perfect. Hispanic Linguistics 6: 29–60.

McCoard, Robert. 1978. The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: North- Holland Publishing Co.

Marcos Marín, Francisco (ed.). 1992. COREC: Corpus de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea: Corpus Oral Peninsula. Available online at: www.lllf.uam.es/ fmarcos/informes/corpus/corpusix.html

Marrone, Nila G. 1992. El habla de la ciudad de La Paz. Materiales para su estudio. La Paz: Signo.

Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.Michaelis, Laura A. 1994. The ambiguity of the English present perfect. Journal

of Linguistics 30: 111–57.Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual grammar and past time reference. London and

New York: Routledge.Mittwoch, Anita. 1988. Aspects of English aspect: On the interaction of perfect,

progressive, and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203–54.Mittwoch, Anita. 2008. Tenses for the living and the dead: Lifetime inferences

reconsidered. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 167–90. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Moreno de Alba, José G. 1978. Valores de las formas verbales en el español de México. México: UNAM.

Moreno de Alba, José G. 1998. La oposición pertérito indefinido/pretérito per-fecto compuesto en documentos novo hispanos de los siglos XVI–XIX. In C. García Turza (ed.), Actas del IV Congreso Internacional del Historia de la Lengua Española, vol. 1, 619–29. Logroño: Universidad de la Rioja.

Moreno de Alba, José G. 2003. Estudios sobre los tiempos verbales. México: UNAM.Moreno Torres, Ignacio. 2001. La expresión del pasado en el sistema verbal del

español: semántica y pragmática. In Javier Gutiérrez Rexach (ed.), Meaning and the components of grammar/El significado y los componentes de la gramática, 239–63. Munich: Lincom.

Mosegaard Hansen, Maj- Britt and Richard Waltereit. 2005. GCI theory and lan-guage change. Paper presented at the 9th International Pragmatics Conference. Riva del Garda, Italy.

Musan, Renata. 2001. The present perfect in German: Outline of its semantic composition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 355–401.

Musan, Renata. 2002. The German perfect: Its semantic composition and its interactions with temporal adverbials. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Bibliography 197

Nishiyama, Atsuko and Jean- Pierre Koenig. 2010. What is a perfect state? Language 86: 611–46.

Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ocampo, Francisco. 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticaliza-

tion: the evolution of claro from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Nuria Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 308–19. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Otálora Otálora, Gaspar. 1970. El perfecto simple y compuesto en el actual espa-ñol peninusular. Español Actual 16: 24–28.

Pancheva, Roumyana and Arnim von Stechow. 2004. On the present perfect puzzle. In Kier Moulton and Matthew Wolf (eds), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 469–84. Amherst, MA: GSLA.

Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study of subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–19.

Partee, Barbara. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 243–86.

Penny, Ralph. 2000. Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peres, João. 1996. Sobre a semântica das construções perfectivas do português. Congresso Internacional sobre o Português V 2: 33–58.

Pérez Saldanya, Manuel. 1998. Del llatí al català. Morfosintaxi verbal històrica. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia.

Portner, Paul. 2003. The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 459–510.

Portner, Paul. 2011. Perfect and progressive. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: an international handbook of natu-ral language meaning, vol. 2, 1217–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Posner, Rebecca. 1996. The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pratt, Ian and Nissam Francez. 2001. Temporal generalized quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 187–222.

Real Academia Espanola: Banco de datos (CREA). Corpus de referencia del espanol actual. Available online at http://www.rae.es

Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Reyes, Graciela. 1990. Valores estilísticos del imperfecto. Revista de Filología

Española LXX(1 and 2): 45–70.Richards, Barry. 1982. Tense, aspect and time adverbials, Part I. Linguistics and

Philosophy 5: 59–107.Ritz, Marie- Eve A. 2010. The perfect crime? Illicit uses of the present perfect in

Australian police media releases. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3400–17.Ritz, Marie- Eve A. and Dulcie M. Engel. 2008. ‘Vivid narrative use’ and the

meaning of the present perfect in spoken Australian English. Linguistics 46: 131–61.

198 Bibliography

Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae H. Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds), Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, The Ohio State University Press.

Roberts, Craige. 2005. Constraints and benchmarks for anaphora. Class notes. Roca- Pons, José. 1958. Estudios sobre perífrasis verbales del español. Madrid: CSIC.Rodríguez, Joshua P. 2004. Interpreting the Spanish Imperfecto: Issues of aspect,

modality, tense, and sequence of tense. The Ohio State University dissertation.Rodríguez Louro, Celeste. 2009. Perfect evolution and change: a sociolinguis-

tic study of preterit and present perfect usage in contemporary and earlier Argentina. University of Melbourne dissertation.

Rojas Sosa, Deyanira. 2008. The use of past tenses in the Spanish of Lima: Variation in a situation of contact. In Joyce Bruhn de Garavito and Elena Valenzuela (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 265–75. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Said, Sally E. S. 1976. Variation in usage of the present perfect tense in the spoken Spanish of Mexico City. University of Texas at Austin dissertation.

Salguero, Miguel. 1976. Así vivimos los ticos. Costa Rica: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana, EDUCA.

Sánchez, Liliana. 2003. Quechua–Spanish bilingualism: Interference and convergence in functional categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sánchez, Liliana. 2004. Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua–Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(2): 147–62.

Sauerland, Uli. 2002. The present tense is vacuous. Snippets 6: 12–13.Schaden, Gerhard. 2009. Present perfects compete. Linguistics and Philosophy 32:

115–41.Schmitt, Cristina. 2001. Cross- linguistic variation and the present perfect: the

case of Portuguese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 403–53. Schumacher- de Peña, Gertrud. 1980. El pasado en español de Puno/Perú. In

Hans-Dieter Bork, Artur Greive and Dieter Woll (eds), Romanica Europaea et Americana, 553–8. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann.

Schwenter, Scott A. 1994a. The grammaticalization of an anterior in progress: Evidence from a Peninsular dialect. Studies in Language 18: 71–111.

Schwenter, Scott A. 1994b. Hot news and the grammaticalization of the perfect. Linguistics 32: 995–1028.

Schwenter, Scott A. and Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2008. Defaults and indeterminacy in temporal grammaticalization: The ‘perfect’ road to perfective. Language Variation and Change 20: 1–39.

Serrano, María José. 1994. Del pretérito indefinido al pretérito perfecto: un caso de cambio y gramaticalización en el español de Canarias y Madrid. Lingüística Española Actual 16: 37–57.

Serrano, María José. 1995. Sobre el uso del pretérito perfecto y pretérito indefinido en el español de Canarias: pragmática y variación. Boletín de Filología 35: 533–66.

Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.Soto Ruiz, Clodoaldo. 1978. La interferencia quechua–español: una doble perspec-

tiva. In Lingüística y Educación, 619–26. Lima: Universidad Mayor de San Marcos.Squartini, Mario. 1998. Verbal periphrasis in Romance: Aspect, actionality, and gram-

maticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography 199

Squartini, Mario and Pier Marco Bertinetto. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 403–39. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Stechow, Armin von. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. In SALT V, 362–86. Cornell: CLC Publications.

Stechow, Armin von. 2002. German seit ‘since’ and the ambiguity of the German perfect. In Barbara Stiebels and Ingrid Kaufmann (eds), More than words: a Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, 393–432. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Stewart, Miranda. 1999. The Spanish language today. London and New York: Routledge.Stockwell, Robert, J. Donald Bowen and John W. Martin (eds). 1965. The grammati-

cal structure of English and Spanish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Stratford, Dale. 1991. Tense in Altiplano Spanish. In Carol Klee and Luis Ramos

García (eds), Sociolinguistics of the Spanish- speaking world: Iberia, Latin America, United States, 163–81. Arizona: Bilingual/Bilingüe.

Swart, Henriëtte de. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–85.

Terry, J. Michael. 2010. Variation in the interpretation and use of the African American English preverbal done construction. American English 85: 3–32.

Thieroff, Rolf. 2000. On the areal distribution of tense–aspect categories in Europe. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 265–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification and grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Herk, Gerard. 2008. Letter perfect: the present perfect in early African American correspondence. English World- Wide 29: 45–69.

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press.Vincent, Nigel. 1987. The interaction of periphrasis and inflection: Some

Romance examples. In Martin Harris and Paolo Ramat (eds), Historical develop-ment of auxiliaries: Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs, vol. 35, 237–56. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vincent, Nigel. 1988. Latin. In Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance languages, 26–78. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vlach, Frank. 1993. Temporal adverbials, tenses, and the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 231–83.

Walker, James A. 2001. Using the past to explain the present: Tense and temporal ref-erence in early African American English. Language Variation and Change 13: 1–35.

Westmoreland, Maurice. 1988. The distribution and the use of the present perfect and the past perfect forms in American Spanish. Hispania 71: 379–84.

Williams, Alexander. 2008. Patients in Igbo and Mandarin. In Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde- Zybatow and Martin Schäfer (eds), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 3–30. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wright, Robyn. 2008. Estudio comparativo del tiempo pasado en tres dialectos hispanohablantes. University of Arizona MA thesis.

Zamora Vicente, Alonso. 1974. Dialectología Española. Madrid: Gredos.

200

Subject Index

24-hour rule, 84, 124, 180

adverbialsdefinite past, 6, 30–1, 59–64, 65,

83–4, 87, 88, 90–6, 119–20, 124–7, 136, 140, 156–7, 159–60, 162, 180

frequency adverbials, 64–5, 94–5hace + TIME, 34–5, 39, 79–80, 175‘pre-today’ adverbials, 63–4, 66, 70,

121–2, 126–9, 135 since- adverbials, 33‘today’ adverbials, 61–3, 66, 120–1,

124–6, 135ya, 32, 121, 129–31, 135

Aktionsart, 26, 73, 188Andean Spanish, see Spanish,

varieties ofantepresente (Spanish), 2, 18anterior/anteriority, 1, 3, 17–19, 35,

39, 116, 137, 148, 155, 171–2aorist, 7, 9–10aorist(ic) drift, 8, 34, 70–1, 109, 136,

137, 151, 154–6, 164areal, 39, 57, 85, 90Argentine Spanish, see Spanish,

varieties ofAymara, 88, 119

Bulgarian, 25, 29, 158, 174

Calabrian, 9Canary Islands Spanish, see Spanish,

varieties ofCatalan, 9, 40, 42, 57–8, 179clause type

causal, 71relative, 71yes–no, 71, 121, 127, 135

Continuative, see perfect types

dialects, see Spanishdisjoint reading (adverbs), 60

Durative, see perfect types, Continuative

English, 3, 5, 14, 16–17, 35, 38–9, 42–6, 50, 60, 61, 67, 72, 80–5, 138, 142, 143, 157, 160–1, 164, 165, 177, 179, 180

epistemic meaning, 17, 110–11, 137, 147, 152, 184

event time, 19–22, 172, 186evidential/evidentiality, 6, 110–11,

113–17, 147–9, 151–3, 156, 162, 185

Experiential, see perfect typesExtended Now, 138–9, 146, 147, 150,

187

French, 2, 4–5, 8–9, 11, 18, 29, 30, 32, 34–5, 37–9, 40, 41–6, 57–8, 61, 66, 70–1, 75–7, 90, 140–1, 144, 146, 151, 155, 158, 170, 174, 175, 176, 179, 180, 184

Frog Story, 36–7

Galician Spanish, see Spanish, varieties of

Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCIs), 141–2, 144

German, 5, 16, 30, 33–4, 37–9, 45, 57–8, 61, 90, 157, 162, 163, 165, 175, 179

Greek, 29, 158grammaticalization, 6, 14, 25, 37, 48,

51–3, 57, 70–1, 75–7, 81–2, 84–5, 90, 95, 109–10, 119, 140, 135–7, 147–56, 159, 162–4, 175, 187

‘have’ perfects, 1, 39hesternal, 63–4, 124, 126, 187historical present, 134, 188hodiernal, 53, 62–3, 70, 82, 84, 124,

127, 136, 149, 151, 164Hot News, see perfect types

Subject Index 201

imparfait (French), 170imperfective/imperfectivity, 50, 75,

170, 171, 178–9, 180–1, 182imperfecto (Spanish), 36, 50, 96, 170,

175–6, 178–9, 180–1implicatures, 141, 186inclusive reading (adverbs), 60Inuit, 148–9, 153Italian, 5, 9, 30, 32, 42, 57–8, 179

language contact, 110, 116–17, 148, 153, 156

Latin, 7–11, 142, 143, 170, 176, 178Latin American Spanish, see Spanish,

varieties ofLifetime Presupposition, 105, 184

metonymy, 143Mexican Spanish, see Spanish,

varieties of

narratives (sequenced), 16, 22, 35–8, 53, 59, 65, 82, 88, 94–101, 109, 117, 121–2, 131–5, 140, 149, 151, 156, 159, 180–1, 184

negation, 75, 79, 102–3, 121–2, 174, 182

participial agreement, 42, 159Particularized Conversational

Implicatures (PCIs), 141passé composé (French), 2, 4, 8, 11,

18, 28, 34, 37, 40, 42–6, 66, 70, 75–7, 110, 135, 140, 146, 151, 155, 158, 174, 175, 176, 180, 184

passé simple (French), 11, 40, 141, 179Peninsular Spanish, see Spanish,

varieties ofperfect types, 1, 23–9

Continuative (of persistent situation/universal), 23, 29, 49, 59, 64–5, 72–80, 85, 88, 95, 101–6, 109, 121–2, 146, 152, 158, 159, 161, 164, 172, 173, 178–9, 187

Experiential (of experience/existential), 23, 73, 77–80, 104, 121–1, 158, 172, 173, 180, 182–3, 186

Hot News (of recent past), 23, 49, 59, 80–5, 88, 101, 106–8, 109, 117, 159, 161, 173, 182, 186, 187–8

Resultative (of result), 3, 23, 80, 142–5, 148, 156, 171, 187

perfective/perfectivity, 4–7, 171Peruvian Spanish, see Spanish,

varieties ofpoint of reference, 19, 186Portuguese, 9, 18, 24, 28, 32, 34–5,

38–9, 40, 42–6, 77, 142, 158, 162, 172, 173, 177–8, 181, 182

present perfect puzzle, 30, 140Present Possibility Constraint, 105presente perfecto (Spanish), 17presuppositions, 136, 138–9, 141,

142, 144–7, 149–55, 186pretèrit perfet simple (Catalan), 40, 176pretérito anterior (Spanish), 41pretérito indefinido (Spanish), 170pretérito perfecto compuesto (Spanish),

1, 18, 170pretérito perfecto simple (Spanish), 170pretérito perfeito composto (Portuguese),

9, 18, 24, 39, 42, 77, 172, 173pretérito perfeito simples

(Portuguese), 39

Quechua, 6, 14, 88, 91, 102–3, 110–17, 119, 149, 151, 184–5

reference time, 19–22, 172, 186relevance, present and current, 3, 11,

17–19, 25, 49, 62, 101, 111, 134, 136–41, 146–7, 149–53, 156, 162, 173, 175, 186

spatial, 111–12, 120temporal, 111–12, 120

Resultative, see perfect typesRomance languages, see Calabrian,

Catalan, French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Sicilian, Spanish

Romanian, 33

Salvadoran Spanish, see Spanish, varieties of

Scandinavian, 58, 60

202 Subject Index

semantic change, 2, 7, 39, 48, 75, 136, 140, 141–55, 164–5, 178

see also grammaticalizationSicilian, 9Spanish, varieties of

Andean, 53–4, 89–90, 110, 118, see also PeruvianArgentine, 53–7, 76, 82–3, 155, 163,

179, 182–3Canary Islands, 57, 58, 180Galician, 52, 58, 68, 183Mexican, 9, 50–1, 52–9, 64–5, 71,

76–83, 88–90, 117, 155, 163, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183

Peninsular, 1–2, 6, 9, 30, 50–1, 52–9, 76–83, 88–90, 101, 109, 117–18, 119–37, 147–56, 160–4,

178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186

Peruvian, 2, 6, 55, 87–118, 119–37, 144, 147–56, 160–4, 172, 179, 187

Salvadoran, 6, 79, 55–6, 89, 109, 118, 179, 184, 186

speech time, 19–22, 144, 152–3, 172, 173, 186

‘stranded’ auxiliary, 43–4subinterval property, 74, 181subjectification, 154–5

Turkish, 24

utterance time, see speech time

XN, see Extended Now

203

Author Index

Abusch, Dorit, 173, 187Acosta, Diego de, 170–1Adelaar, Willem F.H., 184Alarcos Llorach, Emilio, 2Alonso, Amado, 2, 183Amaral, Patrícia, 9, 182Arnauld, Antoine, 180

Bartens, Angela, 182Bello, Andrés, 2Benjamin, Carmen, 41, 48, 61, 134,

175–6, 177Berman, Ruth Aronson, 36–7, 85, 176Bertinetto, Pier Marco, 4, 8–9, 32, 34,

37, 45, 57, 71, 110, 135–7, 164, 176, 182

Binnick, Robert, 172, 187Bosque, Ignacio, 2Bowen, J. Donald, 3Brinton, Laurel J., 28Brugger, Gerhard, 6, 20, 21, 61, 70,

124, 126–7, 138, 180, 185, 186Bull, William E., 2, 30Burgo, Clara, 6, 178Burgos, Daniel, 20, 28, 53, 72–3, 82,

84, 172, 173, 179, 181, 182, 183Büring, Daniel, 137Bustamante López, Isabel, 179Butt, John, 41, 48, 61, 134, 175–6,

177Bybee, Joan L., 1, 2, 17–19, 25, 35, 67,

116, 137, 146–9, 153–4, 171–2

Calvez, Daniel J., 77Campos, Maria Henriqueta C., 77Caravedo, Rocío, 88, 179, 183Carey, Kathleen, 142Carrasco Gutiérrez, Ángeles, 2Cartagena, Nelson, 52Carter, Diana M., 6, 61, 63, 124Cerrón Palomino, Rodolfo, 6, 88Chamorro, Pilar, 52, 68Cipria, Alicia, 48, 73, 74

Company Company, Concepción, 76, 179, 182

Comrie, Bernard, 1, 2, 23–30, 45, 72, 83, 101, 109, 155, 158–9, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 187

Copple, Mary, 187Cusihuamán, Antonio, 115

Dahl, Östen, 8, 25, 35, 39, 45, 54, 57, 62, 66, 71, 90, 109, 151, 171, 187

Dasher, Richard B., 141, 187De Granda, Germán, 6DeMello, George, 90, 118, 179Demonte, Violeta, 2Detges, Ulrich, 142–4, 171, 176, 187Donni de Mirande, Nélida, 53Dowty, David, 1, 31–3, 74, 139, 172,

173, 181, 182, 187, 188Drinka, Bridget, 39Dry, Helen, 184

Eckardt, Regine, 165Elsness, Johan, 180, 183Engel, Dulcie M., 77, 180Escobar, Ana María, 6, 14, 87, 88, 91,

110–17, 119, 147, 148, 151, 179, 184, 185

Faller, Martina, 115, 116, 149, 184–5Feke, Marilyn S., 179, 184Fenn, Peter, 28Fintel, Kai von, 137Fleischman, Suzanne, 2, 4, 8, 34, 37,

61, 111, 135, 146, 164Fortescue, Michael, 148Francez, Nissam, 175Friedman, Victor A., 24

García Fernández, Luis, 19, 21, 61, 74–5, 182

Giacalone Ramat, Anna, 1, 39, 147, 176

Giorgi, Alessandra, 24, 28, 77, 176

204 Author Index

Glasbey, Sheila, 187Green, John N., 178Green, Lisa J., 183

Hardman de Bautista, Martha J., 179Harre, Catherine, 176–7, 178Harris, Martin, 2, 4, 7, 8–10, 34, 37,

51, 61, 76, 77, 135, 136, 137, 143, 146, 154–5, 164, 176

Havu, Jukka, 2Heine, Bernd, 116, 153Henríquez Ureña, Pedro, 2, 183Heny, Frank, 173, 187Hernández, José Esteban, 6, 36, 49, 56,

89, 93, 109, 118, 152–3, 184, 186Hinrichs, Erhard, 184Hintz, Daniel J., 115Hintz, Diane, 115Hopper, Paul J., 7–8, 11, 35, 39, 51,

75, 159Hornstein, Norbert, 187Howe, Chad, 6–7, 9, 24, 35, 53, 54,

75–6, 88, 90, 98, 110, 111, 119, 136, 137, 156, 175, 182, 184, 186, 188

Iatridou, Sabine, 29, 33, 72, 173, 175Inoue, Kyoko, 3–4, 137, 173, 187

Jara Yupanqui, Margarita, 6, 110, 119, 178, 179

Jespersen, Otto, 19Jonge, Bob de, 179

Kamp, Hans, 187Katz, Graham, 105, 179, 181, 184Keenan, Edward, 186Kempas, Ilpo, 6, 54, 61, 63, 70,

178, 182King, Larry D., 2Kiparsky, Paul, 28, 72, 105, 187Klee, Carol, 6, 88, 110, 114–16, 119,

148, 153, 179, 184Klein, Wolfgang, 30, 31, 139, 140,

172, 173, 187Koch, Peter, 143Koenig, Jean- Pierre, 172Kubarth, Hugo, 53, 179Kuteva, Tania, 116, 153

Labelle, Marie, 170Labov, William, 14, 36, 184Laca, Brenda, 30Lancelot, Claude, 180Lefebvre, Claire, 184–5Levinson, Stephen C., 141, 186, 187Lindstedt, Jouko, 54Lipski, John, 110Lope Blanch, Juan M., 15, 53, 76, 80,

178, 179, 183López Morales, Humberto, 15, 85, 179 Lubbers- Quesada, Margaret, 188

McCawley, James D., 28, 80, 105, 138, 172, 187

McCoard, Robert, 1, 28, 30, 32, 172, 173, 187

Mackenzie, Ian, 15, 179Marcos Marín, Francisco, 179, 180,

183Marrone, Nila G., 90Martin, John W., 3Mayer, Mercer, 36Michaelis, Laura A., 28, 172, 187Mittwoch, Anita, 72, 74, 105, 106,

173, 175, 187Moreno de Alba, José G., 15, 25–6, 53,

76, 171, 178–9Moreno Torres, Ignacio, 21Mosegaard Hansen, Maj- Britt, 141,

187Musan, Renate, 105, 162Muysken, Pieter, 184–5

Nishiyama, Atsuko, 172Norde, Muriel, 175

Ocampo, Alicia, 6, 88, 110, 114–16, 119, 148, 153, 179, 184

Ocampo, Francisco, 51Otálora Otálora, Gaspar, 179

Pancheva, Roumyana, 31, 67, 140, 165, 186

Parsons, Terence, 172Partee, Barbara, 187Penny, Ralph, 53, 85, 178, 179Peres, João, 24Perez Saldanya, Manuel, 176

Author Index 205

Pianesi, Fabio, 24, 28, 77, 176Portner, Paul, 3–4, 25–6, 30, 31, 60,

72, 74, 105, 112, 137–8, 140, 147, 150, 152, 170, 172, 173, 175, 187

Posner, Rebecca, 44Potts, Christopher, 186Pratt, Ian, 175

Ranson, Diana L., 175Reichenbach, Hans, 1, 19–22, 172,

186, 187Reyes, Graciela, 175Richards, Barry, 173, 187Ritz, Marie- Eve A., 180Roberts, Craige, 4, 48, 73, 74, 137,

173, 186Rodríguez, Joshua P., 170, 175Rodríguez Louro, Celeste, 54–6, 67,

75–6, 178, 179, 181, 183Rojas Sosa, Deyanira, 179Rooth, Mats, 173Ryle, Uwe, 187

Said, Sally E.S., 25Sánchez, Liliana, 6, 14, 88, 110,

114–17, 119, 148–9, 185Sauerland, Uli, 187Schaden, Gerhard, 140–1, 165, 173,

187Schmitt, Cristina, 24, 28, 77, 162, 172Schumacher de Peña, Gertrud, 179Schwenter, Scott A., 2, 6–7, 14, 25,

28, 49, 51–5, 58–9, 62–7, 71, 73, 78, 81–2, 88, 90, 95, 98, 101, 109,

110–11, 120–1, 124, 126–31, 135, 136, 146, 147, 149, 156, 162, 164, 178, 181, 182, 184

Serrano, María José, 2, 6, 15, 30, 52, 62, 63, 70, 124, 126, 135, 162, 180

Slobin, Dan Isaac, 36–7, 85, 176Smith, Carlota, 64, 182Soto Ruiz, Clodoaldo, 184Squartini, Mario, 4, 8–9, 32, 34, 37, 45,

57, 71, 110, 135–7, 164, 176, 182Stechow, Arnim von, 31, 67, 140, 162,

165, 172, 175, 186Stewart, Miranda, 61Stockwell, Robert, 3Stratford, Dale, 118, 179Swart, Henriëtte de, 172

Terry, J. Michael, 183Thieroff, Rolf, 171Traugott, Elizabeth C., 7–8, 11, 39, 51,

75, 83, 141, 142, 155, 159, 187Trujillo, Ramón, 2

Van Herk, Gerard, 183Vendler, Zeno, 172Vincent, Nigel, 176, 177, 178Vlach, Frank, 33, 173

Walker, James A., 188Waltereit, Richard, 141, 187Westmoreland, Maurice, 179Williams, Alexander, 187Wright, Robyn, 178

Zamora Vicente, Alonso, 2, 85