Present versus past

Almost all the examples presented thus far—of perfective versus imperfective and of actual versus previous—have been in present tense. This is used for comment on what is happening now: for directions in a play (for example, John enters from the right, and sits at the desk) and for pragmatic speech acts (I name this ship the Titanic, or I resign). It can also be used, as a stylistic device, in a narrative about what happened in the past. For example, Miriam Makeba’s (1988) life story uses present tense throughout. As a sample, it begins: I kick my mother and cause her great pain. But she forgives me my tantrum this one time only. She is all alone in the house.

Generally, descriptions of past events use past tense, which shows exactly the same aspectual parameters as the present. One simply uses -ed in place of -s, was for is and had for has. Sentence (11) becomes John washed up while Mary was doing the ironing. The time of reference is shifted to some point in the past, with respect to which the parameters operate. For example, The wall surrounded the city (in 300 BCE, before it fell into disrepair) and Your child was very stupid/rude/good(yesterday).Note that the focus in the past may be specified with a time adverb (alternatively, it may be left vague and unspecified).

What is of particular interest is the contrast between previous perfective present, has -en, and actual perfective past, -ed. Compare:

(21) I’ve watched it all

(21’) I watched it all

The -ed sentence, (21’), implies that the fight is over, whereas use of have -en, in (21), implies that it may still be going on. Now compare:

(27) John tried (and failed)

(27’) John has tried (but not yet succeeded)

In (27), the try or tries and the failure(s) are in the past. But (27’) implies that although John has tried and failed up to now, he hasn’t yet given up. The expectation is that he’ll continue trying beyond the present time.

Whereas -ed describes something in the past, which is over and done with, has -en indicates an activity which either began in the past and continues up to the present, or took place in the past but has continuing reality and relevance in the present. This is exhibited in the following minimal pair of sentences:

(28) The police arrested the criminal (but he later escaped from them)

(28’) The police have arrested the criminal

In (28) the arrest was over and done with in the past; anything may have happened since then. But (28’) states that the criminal was arrested and remains in custody up to the present. Similarly, The taxi has arrived indicates that it is still here, waiting for its passenger. In contrast, The taxi arrived could be said if it came and then went away again, having got tired of waiting.

Now consider the pragmatic contexts for:

(29) Father brought home the fish

(29’) Father has brought home the fish (and now we can have dinner)

Sentence (29) simply states what happened at some time in the past. But (29’) would be used when this fish-bringing has particular relevance in present time. Similarly, one would say John fell over just to describe an event (perhaps in a detached kind of way). But John has fallen over carries a definite implication into the present—maybe his knees are bleeding and he needs some first-aid treatment.

If one heard

(30) The boss ordered them to go

with nothing further being said, one would infer that they had gone. But if instead the report was:

(30’) The boss has ordered them to go

one would want to ask what happened. Perhaps they refused to go and are still here. That is, the order was issued in the past but it has continuing relevance in the present.

Actual perfective past, -ed, generally describes a definite event at a definite time in the past. Compare:

(31) John told me yesterday

(31’) John has told me already

Sentence (31) recognizes a definite time of telling, whereas with the previous perfective present, has -en, one can just use an adverb such as already, indicating that the activity took place at some unspecified time previous to the present. Now consider:

(32) John baked (*has baked ) this cake

(32’) John has baked (*baked) a cake

Only -ed is possible in (32), describing the baking of a definite cake, and only has -en is permitted in (32’) describing the fact that, at some time in the past, John did bake a cake. Note that example (32’) is possible with -ed if some definite time frame is indicated; for example, John baked a cake last week. That is, in examples like this, -ed requires either a definite object or a definite time.

Further consequences of the use of -ed and has -ing become evident under negation. Winston Churchill is dead; he wrote many books (including one novel) but none of them a detective story. One says:

(33) Winston Churchill didn’t write a detective story

It is not felicitous to say Winston Churchill hasn’t written a detective story; this would imply that he is still alive and still might.

Now suppose that one wanted to make a similar statement about Johnny Jones, who is still alive. One must say:

(33’) Johnny Jones hasn’t written a detective story

It would not be acceptable to say Johnny Jones didn’t write a detective story; this would necessarily imply that he is dead. It may be that Johnny Jones is illiterate, senile, unconscious, with a terminal illness and a life expectancy of only three weeks. It could be utterly inconceivable that he should write a detective story. No matter, if the poor fellow is still alive then one must use has -en in (33’) rather than -ed.

We noted that -s and is -ing are used not only for perfective and imperfective actual present, but also for established and particular future. Just as the imperfective present tense is -ing can be cast into past as was -ing, so particular future is -ing may become was -ing, this having the meaning ‘particular future in past’. Consider (34), with particular future in its second clause:

(34) We’ve just arrived in Spain, and I’m meeting him in Toledo tomorrow

When this is placed in the past, we get:

(34’) We’d just arrived in Spain, and I was meeting him in Toledo the following day

Here the previous perfective present, have -en, in the first clause, becomes previous perfective past, had -en; and the particular future, am -ing, in the second clause, because particular future in past, was -ing.

This relocation into the past only applies to particular future, not to established future. (The established future, as in I meet him tomorrow, can only become a simple (actual perfective) past, as I met him (yesterday).)