Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs Abdelkader Fassi Fehri Languages use grammaticalized inflections (GIs), auxiliaries (Auxs), and temporal adverbials (PPs or NPs, etc.; = Advs) to express various kinds of temporal reference (TR). It is largely acknowledged in the literature that GIs are ambiguous or underspecified with respect to TR, and that their forms, even when identical, may lead to different interpretations within the same language, or across languages (even from the same family). Advs can be equally ambiguous in producing various temporal meanings. Common categories assumed to contribute to (as well as organize) linguistic TR include Tenses (Ts), Aspects (Asps), and Aktionsarts (Akts). They project as functional categories in scopal hierarchical syntactic structures. The latter are assumed to reflect morphosyntactic and lexical properties of these components, and organize their contribution to TR meanings. The descriptive program of crosslinguistic and language specific temporalities appears then to be to identify which ingredients of TR grammar and meaning are contributed by which GI, Aux, or Adv, or their combinations. The aim of this article is essentially to describe some salient properties of the Arabic Perfect (= Perf) within this perspective, by taking into account some crosslinguistic variation.1 The study of the Arabic Perf is not only of interest for its own sake, but it is of central importance to understanding how the various ingredients of the Arabic temporal/aspectual system are organized, compared to other language systems. First, Perf interacts significantly with Past and Perfective (= Pfv), exhibiting various TR ambiguities, which need to be properly identified, in parallel to the examination of the distribution and interpretation of collocational Advs. Second, various kinds of Perf documented in the literature will be investigated here, to see whether they are instantiated in Arabic, and how they exhibit similar or different properties. My approach to general semantic and morphological questions is based on the assumption that there are natural (or canonical) mappings between temporal/aspectual forms and their semantic interpretations. Forms are productively ambiguous, but they are associated with abstract syntactic and selective properties, which then provide room for language specific differentiations. The latter are captured properly only if the semantics involved is made precise, to allow accurate comparative work2. My grammatical description of TR relations, expressions, and distributions will typically make use of a hierarchical architecture in which Perf is generated higher than Asp (which is basically ± Pfv) as

70

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

some ‘relative’ T or T2. The latter is lower than the ‘deictic’ or ‘absolute’ T, or T1 (denoting Past, Present, or Future). The core temporal architecture that I adopt is then as follows: (1) T 1 (± Past) T 2 (± Perf) Asp (± Pfv) VP (± Tel)

1. The Arabic T/A-system The Arabic system of T/A expressions exhibit a number of typical properties that are worth describing within a comparative perspective. Four of these properties are briefly investigated in this section. 1.1. Polyfunctionality of T/A-forms The T/A system is dominated by the polyfunctionality of its T/A forms. First, there is no morphological distinction between an inflected root verb and an embedded ‘participle’: both are finite, and they carry the same temporal and agreement features. In other words, the form of expression of T1 (and Agr1) and T2 (and Agr2) is identical, and the morphology is not discriminatory as far as the T1/T2 distinction is concerned3. This uniformity is exemplified in the two following pairs of constructions. The first pair contrasts the two basic simple tenses available in the system: Past and Present (or non-Past), which express semantic PAST and PRESENT, respectively: (2)

katab-a r-risaalat-a. wrote-3 the-letter-acc ‘He wrote the letter.’

(3)

y-aktub-u r-risaalat-a. 3-write-indic the-letter-acc ‘He is writing the letter.’

The second pair contains the same forms embedded under auxiliaries, and functioning as Perfect and Imperfect ‘participles’:

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

(4)

kaan-a katab-a r-risaalat-a. was-3 wrote-3 the-letter-acc ‘He had written the letter.’

(5)

kaan-a y-aktub-u r-risaalat-a. was-3 3-write-indic the-letter-acc ‘He was writing the letter.’

71

In other words, the ‘tense’ forms can also function as ‘aspect’ forms. Second, the duality between Past/Present and Perfect/Imperfect is further complicated by the fact that these forms may express a Perfective/Imperfective opposition. For example, Past in (2) is interpreted as PFV, and Present in (3) or (5) as IPFV. To be neutral and for ease of comprehension, I will designate the two forms as Past/Pres and Perf/Imperf interchangeably and depending on contexts. I will also refer to their varied semantics by capital letters, when necessary. Clearly, the terminological dispute about morphological forms is meaningless in the absence of precise and clear-cut semantic associations. 1.2. The PresPerf-split: synthesis and analysis A second characteristic feature of the Arabic T/A system is the synthetic/analytic split of its PresPerf forms. The synthetic form (which is homophonous with that of the Past) is limited to PRES interpretations, which will be detailed in this article. It is exemplified in (6), which can also have a Past interpretation: (6)

jaraa. ran ‘He has run.’

Analytic forms, however, in which the Pres auxiliary kaana ‘be’ is overtly realized, do not have PRES interpretation. They normally express a futurate Perf (= FUTPERF), as in (7), and they collocate with future time adverbs: (7)

!-akuunu !anhay-tu r-risaalat-a "#a dan. I-am finished-I the-letter-acc tomorrow-acc ‘I will have finished the letter tomorrow.’

They can also express ‘iterative’ readings, as in (8):

72 (8)

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

bi-haad"a a y-akuunu with-this is

l-fariiq-u qad sajjala xams-a the-team-nom already scored five

marraat-in. times ‘With this, the team has already scored five times.’ This situation is partly comparable to that of Portuguese, where the PresPerf is expressed by a simple form (which is also ambiguous with the Past), as in (9), but the analytic form expresses only a habitual Perfect, as in (10):4 (9)

Comi. ate ‘I have eaten.’

(10) Agora jà tem comido. now I have eaten ‘Now I have taken the habit to eat.’ It is unlike the situation in Germanic or Romance, where the PresPerf, in addition to the Past and further meanings, is expressed by an analytic Perf. In German, for example, the PresPerf co-occurs with Past, Pres, and Fut adverbs (cf. Musan (2001)): (11) Hans Hans

ist is

gestern yesterday

um at

(12) Hans Hans

ist is

jetzt weggegangen. now left

(13) Hans Hans

ist is

morgen tomorrow

um at

zehn weggegangen. ten left

zehn weggegangen. ten left

As we will see, this split is not without consequences for dividing lines of interpretations and/or ambiguities, as well as crosslinguistic characterizations. 1.3. The Past-split: simple Past-Pfv and complex Past-Impfv A third important feature of the T/A system is that it exhibits also an as-

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

73

pectual split with respect to the form of expression of aspectual values for Past. Simple Past is associated with Perfective, whereas Past Imperfective must be expressed by two separate finite forms: the auxiliary in the Past, and the thematic verb in the form of the Pres. The two contrasting forms exhibiting the split are given in (14) and (15), respectively: (14) !anhaa r-risaalat-a. finished the-letter-acc ‘He finished the letter.’ (15) kaana y-unhii r-risaalat-a. was 3-finish the-letter-acc ‘He was finishing the letter.’ The letter is finished in (14), but not in (15). This split is partly comparable to that of English simple Past and Past Progressive. It contrasts with the double synthetic nature of this opposition found in e.g. French (‘passé simple’ vs. ‘imparfait’) or Italian (‘passato remoto’ vs. ‘imperfetto’). There are various ways to assess the perfective nature of the simple Past. One argument comes from the behavior of the Past in SOT contexts. In complement clauses, the simultaneity with the past is solely acceptable if the Present/Imperfect form is used (i.e. no SOT effect is possible, just like the situation in Japanese or Hebrew):5 (16) qaal-a l-ii !inna-hu y-aktub-u r-risaalat-a. said-3 to-me that-him 3-write the-letter-acc ‘He said to me that he was writing the letter.’ The use of the Past/Perfect does not yield that interpretation: (17) qaal-a l-ii !inna-hu katab-a r-risaalat-a. said-3 to-me that-him wrote-3 the-letter-acc ‘He said to me that he wrote the letter.’ In (17), there is no overlapping of the writing and the saying, unlike the situation in (16). The writing is rather anterior to the saying (with a shifted Past reading). This situation is in contrast with SOT behavior in complement clauses in English, where the embedded verb can be interpreted as anaphoric (or simultaneous, with the meaning ‘Mary is ill’):6 (18) John said Mary was ill.

74

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

Giorgi & Pianesi (1995) compare languages which possess Imperfect (like Italian) with languages that do not (e.g. German or English). They observe that Italian Imperfect is a dependent anaphoric tense, which denotes Present-under-Past tense, the Past being provided normally by the matrix verb. Moreover, the (simple) Past cannot be used in this language as dependent. In embedded contexts, only Imperfect can be used, with an SOT-effect.7 In contrast, languages like German use Past (ambiguously) as dependent or non-dependent, the latter being neutral with respect to perfectivity. It can be read either way, as simultaneous (Imperfective) or non-simultaneous (Perfective): (19) Hans sagte, dass Marie einen Apfel aß. a. Hans said that Mary was eating an apple. b. Hans said that Mary ate an apple. In (a), the simultaneous reading is available, and Past is interpreted as Imperfective. In (b), Past is Perfective, and the simultaneous interpretation is excluded. Thus (simple) Past is necessarily Perfective in Italian, but not so in German. The conclusion then is that if a language has an Imperfect Past, as opposed to a simple Past, the latter cannot be used as dependent in embedded contexts. On the other hand, the Imperfect is dependent and used to denote simultaneity. In languages in which the Past is unspecified, it can be used as dependent/simultaneous. Arabic is close to Italian in this respect. Past is Perfective and non-dependent, contrary to Imperfect, as illustrated above. A second argument comes from the availability of continuous readings. Consider e.g. (6), expressing a Past activity (repeated here as (20) for convenience), and its Past Imperfective counterpart, given in (21): (20) jaraa. ran ‘He ran.’ (21) kaana r-rajul-u y-ajrii. was the-man-nom 3-run ‘The man was running.’ In (20), the event is completed or terminated. It cannot be further extended. This is in contrast with (21), which is non-terminated and can be extended. Hence the sequence in (22) can be used after (21), but it leads to ungrammaticality after (20):

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

(22) [...]

75

wa maa zaala y-ajrii. and still 3-run ‘and he is still running.’

In fact, the combination of (20) and (22) can be acceptable, but only if two events are involved, one terminated to make the first clause true, and one non-terminated and ongoing at UT, to make the second sequence possible.8 1.4. The Past/Perf-ambiguity A fourth significant property of the system consists in a genuine Past/Perfect ambiguity of the Past/Perf form. As observed above, there is only one temporal (suffixing morphology) in Arabic which can express both PAST meaning and PRESPERF meaning. Thus (2) or (6) above are ambiguous between what I represent in a very sketchy way as (23) and (24), using a simplified Reichenbachian representation of time: (23) ET, RT < UT (24) ET < RT, UT In the first representation, the Perf form is expressing PAST tense, and in the second PERFECT ‘aspect’. The representation in (23) raises no significant problem. That in (24) is more disputable. I will ignore the potential objections for the moment, and focus only on the fact that PAST specifies a reference time (RT) which is prior to the utterance time (UT), while PERFECT does not. To the extent that an anteriority component is involved in the PERF interpretation, that anteriority should involve other argument times than UT. This subsection provides grounds for assessing that the Past/PresPerf ambiguity represented here is genuine, rather than thinking of it as an ambiguity arising within the PresPerf semantic configuration itself, the interpretation differences being associated with the various temporal adverb specifications. My task is then basically to provide arguments establishing that in various constructions that contain the Perf form RT cannot be (⊆) UT, but what is involved is rather RT < UT, which is basically what PAST expresses. But before going on providing such arguments, I will sketch, for concreteness, a reasonable view of what Tenses and Aspects are, although I will not address the details of the new developments of Tense and Aspect theories, the points to be made being neutral with respect to any viable version of them.9

76

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

1.4.1.Aspects and tenses As stated above, Reichenbachian (1947) terminology will be used. The time denoted by a semantic tense is called reference time (= RT). Aktionsarten are located in time by means of a relation that connects RT to an event time or event state (= ET), instantiating the Aktionsart. This relation can be called an ASPECT relation, after Klein (1994). RT may INCLUDE (⊇) ET in the ‘Perfective’, RT may be INCLUDED (⊆) in ET in the ‘Imperfective’, or RT may follow ET, being POST (>) in the ‘Perfect’.10 Asp relations, viewed as ‘temporalizers’, can be defined, after AvS (2002b), as follows:11 (25) ASPECTS a. ||PERFECTIVE|| = λPλt∃e.t ⊇ τ (e) & P (e), P of type b. ||IMPERFECTIVE|| = λPλt∃e.t ⊆ τ (e) & P (e) c. ||PERFECT|| = λPλt∃e.t > τ (e) & P (e) Elaborated definitions for TENSES are also provided by AvS (ibid), in line with Partee’s (1973) reference tense theory, and Heim’s (1994) proposal that tenses be viewed as restrictors of temporal variables:12 (26) TENSES are symbols of type i which bear time variables as indices. Let c be the context of the utterance, with tc the speech time, g is a variable assignment, then a. ||NOW||g,c is the speech time conceived as a point. b. ||PASTj||g,c is defined only if g(j) precedes the speech time tc. If defined, ||PASTj||g,c = g(j). c. ||FUTR j||g,c is defined only if g(j) follows the speech time tc. If defined, ||FUTRj||g,c = g(j). These definitions (or simplified versions of them) will be adopted here, except for Perf, which needs further elaboration in order to account for its various meanings, but also its (usually) higher position in the tree architecture, compared to Pfv/Ipfv (which I take to be the core Asp opposition), in conformity with (1). As an illustration of the PAST/PERFECT contrast, consider (27). The latter can be interpreted as PAST, or PRESPERF, hence giving rise to the two LF forms (28) and (29), respectively: (27) sakan-a barliin-a. lived-3 Berlin-acc

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

77

a. ‘He lived in Berlin’ b. ‘He has lived in Berlin.’ (28)

TP

[PAST ASPP [ PFV VP[He live in Berlin]]]

(29)

TP

[NOW PERFP[be ASPP[ VP[He live in Berlin]]]]

The representation (29) reflects the overall architecture of the system, in which PerfP (or T2) is higher than AspP (which contains ± PFV). I have introduced ‘be’ as a head of PerfP, although it is not realized. It could be that this introduction is not necessary, and the ‘participle’ licenses both PERF and PRES.13 If we follow AvS (ibid, fn. 16, p. 10), then PERF here is an existential quantifier that introduces a time/event prior to RT. Its interpretation is as in (30):14 (30) ∃t t < NOW & He lives in Berlin at t. Note that the construction (27) can also have an extended-now (XN) interpretation, in fact a natural one. Consider the following variants of (27): (27’) a. b.

sakan-a barliin-a mund"u 1990. lived-3 Berlin-acc since 1990 ‘He has lived in Berlin since 1990.’ sakan-a barliin-a xams-a marraat-in mund"u 1990. lived-3 Berlin-acc five-acc times-gen since 1990 ‘He has lived in Berlin five times since 1990.’

Like English since, mund"u can introduce a time span through α, its complement, i.e. a position in time given by a date or some other temporal description. Mund"u α modifies the XN introduced by Perf, and it indicates that α is the left boundary (LB) of XN. The construction (27b) is best analyzed as an XN-Perf, in this case an Existential Perf (E-Perf). The quantificational adverb xams-a marraat-in has to be confined within XN. The meaning of the E-Perfect can be represented as follows: (31) ∃t XN (t, NOW) & LB (1990, t) & ∃5t’⊆ t He live in Berlin at t'. NOW is the meaning of the semantic PRES, the speech time conceived as a moment. XN (t’,t) means that t is a final subinterval of t’. LB (1990,t’) means that 1990 is LB of t’. The construction (27a) can be interpreted as a Universal Perf (UPerf). The U-reading can be formulated as follows:15

78

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

(32) ∃t XN (t, NOW) & LB (1990, t) & ∀t’⊆ t He live in Berlin at t'. 1.4.2.Positional ‘deictic’ adverbs To disambiguate PAST and PRESPERF meanings, positional deictic adverbs can be used. The contrast is provided in (33) and (34), where past and present adverbials are used. Note that the temporal morphology is not compatible with future adverbs: (33) katab-a r-risaalat-a !amsi wrote-3 the-letter-acc yesterday ‘He wrote the letter yesterday.’

(*"#a d-an). (*tomorrow)

(34) katab-a r-risaalat-a l-aan-a (*"ad-an). wrote-3 the-letter-acc now (* tomorrow) ‘He has written the letter now (* tomorrow).’ The positional adverb diagnostic suggests that the adverb is taken to modify RT. It has been used for English successfully, at least since Jespersen (1924). But this test appears to be disputable, once the behavior of PresPerf in other languages is taken into account. Consider the following pair of German examples (=(13a) and (14) of Löbner’s (2002)): (35) Karla ist gestern hier eingezogen. Karla is yesterday here move-in ‘Karla (has) moved in here yesterday.’ (36) Jetzt, now,

wo where

brauchen need

wir we

Karla Karla

gestern yesterday

hier eingezogen ist, here move-in is,

einen a

Schlüssel key

fürs Klo. for-the toilet

‘Now that Karla has moved in here yesterday, we need a key for the toilet.’ The first construction is ambiguous between a Past reading and a PresPerfect reading. But the Perfect can have only a PRESPERF reading in (36), although it combines with a past adverbial. This suggests that the adverb is modifying the aspect phrase or some lower phrase, the VP (denoting ET). Thus the compatibility of Perf with past and non-past time adverbials cannot count as an argument in favor of the ambiguity of the

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

79

Perf, at least in the German type languages (see Klein (1999) and Musan (2001), among others, for arguments). If a similar reasoning were to extend to Arabic, then we have to look for other diagnostics to establish the existence of a genuine PAST interpretation. 1.4.3.Perf and modal ‘qad’ The particle qad (meaning ‘already’, i.e. precedence, or ‘just’, immediate precedence) is typically acknowledged in traditional literature to be collocating with Perf readings. For example, qad can occur immediately before the ‘participle’ of a complex Perfect tense, as in (37): (37) kaan-a qad katab-a r-risaalat-a. was already wrote-3 the-letter-acc ‘He had already written the letter.’ It can also occur in front of a simple tensed verb, interpreted as PresPerf. Thus in (38), qad can have one of the two precedence readings: (38) qad was%ala. already/just arrived a. He has already arrived. b. He has just arrived. But in (38), qad can be further ambiguous in a way that it cannot be in (37). It can mean ‘indeed’, or ‘in fact’, to stress the factual certainty of the event, and the sentence is translated as ‘He indeed came’ or ‘He did come’. In the latter case, it serves as a modal. Modals are projected higher than Tense (or T1). Unsurprisingly then, when qad serves as a modal, it takes T1 projections as its complement, namely Past projections, co-occurring with past time adverbials, as illustrated in (39): (39) qad was%al-a !amsi. indeed arrived-3 yesterday ‘He did arrive yesterday.’ Likewise, it takes also Present projections, as in (40), but the interpretation is that of ‘possibility’ or ‘probability’, rather than certainty: (40) qad y-as%il-u l-!aan-a. may 3-arrive now ‘He may arrive now.’

80

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

The T1 nature of the complement of qad is further corroborated by its occurrence in front of the auxiliary of a complex tense: (41) qad kaan-a y-us%allii. indeed was 3-pray ‘He was indeed praying.’ The question now is the following: why can’t the complement of modal qad in (39) be taken as Perf (or T2), instead of Past (or T1)? In other words, what motivates restricting the selection of modal qad to T1? The answer is straightforward. Consider the following minimal pair of constructions: (42) kaan-a qad was%al-a. was-3 already arrived-3 ‘He had already arrived.’ (43) qad kaan-a was%al-a. indeed was-3 arrived-3 ‘He had indeed arrived.’ Both constructions are typically non-ambiguous. In (42), qad is only a Perfect Level specifier, and in (43) a Modal specifier. This absence of ambiguity is due to the fact that qad is unambiguously positioned, with respect to T1 (Past), or T2 (Perf). In (38), the ambiguity arises due to ambiguity placement. Note that no such ambiguity arises in (41), and (39) has at least one reading in which it is a modal structure like (41), which implies that Past, rather than PresPerf is involved there. Note in passing also that if modal (39) were to be interpreted as Pres, then two problems arise. First, we predict wrongly that the interpretation is ‘possibility’, rather than certainty. Second, qad would be selecting an empty auxiliary (or copula), which it normally does not, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (44): (44) *qad r-rajul-u musaafir-un. may the-man travelling Intended to mean: ‘The man may be traveling.’ In this case, the realization of the copula in the Pres form is obligatory (Cf. Fassi Fehri (1993, 2000) for detail). The particle Perf qad has a partly similar German counterpart. Schon, a case of RT or PerfL specification, can be used with Past or with Perfect. With the former, the interpretation is normally that the action only started, or it is imperfective, but with the latter it is ambiguous. It has a

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

81

PresPerf meaning, with the action understood as completed, or it may have an interpretation similar to that of Past imperfective. The examples (45) are from Musan (2001, p. 363), and (46) is from Löbner (2002, pp. 386-7):16 (45) a. Er he b. Er he (46) Sie she

hat has aß ate hat has

schon gegessen. already eaten (= He finished his meal). schon. already (= He was already eating).

schon gefrühstückt. already have-breakfast

a. She has already had breakfast. b. She was already having breakfast.

(Present Perfect) (Past Imperfective)

Likewise, qad interpretation differs depending on the temporal entity it collocates with. When it means ‘already’, it is a Perf detector. When it is a modal, it collocates with T1, meaning ‘indeed’ with Past, and ‘possible’ or ‘probable’ with Pres.17 Thus qad is uniformly a modal when it is higher than T, and a Perf (or Asp) specifier otherwise. Its interpretation is then a true diagnostic for helping us determining whether the Perf form is to be interpreted as PAST or PERF. 1.4.4.Simple vs. complex tenses Positional adverbs are known to be ambiguous with complex tenses (typically Perf tenses), because their structure allows for two positions that the adverb can specify.18 For example, this ambiguity is found in (47), where the letter could have been finished at four, or before four: (47) kaana qad !anhaa r-risaalat-a fii was already finished the-letter-acc at ‘He had already finished the letter at four.‘

r-raabicat-i. the-four-gen

Surprisingly, however, this ambiguity is not found with PresPerf, be it analytic, as in (48), or synthetic, as in (49): (48) !-akuunu !anhay-tu r-risaalat-a "#a dan fii I-am finished-I the-letter-acc tomorrow-acc at

82

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

r-raabicat-i. the-four-gen ‘I will have finished the letter tomorrow at four.’ (49) !anhaa r-risaalat-a (!amsi, l-!aan-a) fii r-raabicat-i. finished the-letter-acc (yesterday, now) at the-four-gen ‘He (has) finished the letter (yesterday, now) at four.’ In (48), the adverb specifies only RT, i.e. the tense carried by the auxiliary. In (49), read as PRESPERF, with a Now adverb, the same is true. The problem arises with (49), when collocating with a past adverb. If (49) is read as PRESPERF in this case, then the past adverbial has to be interpreted as specifying ET, contrary to what happens with other PresPerfs. If (49) is read as PAST, no such a problem arises, because then the temporal Adv would be modifying (uniformly) RT. Since the minimal hypothesis is to assume a uniform RT specification, I will assume that this is the case, unless evidence is provided for the contrary. But note that if the tense were PresPerf, then the (covert) auxiliary/copula denoting PRES would have to be modified by the positional fii phrase. But such a possibility is independently excluded, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the following PRES sentence: (50) r-rajul-u mariid%-un (*fii r-raabicat-i). the-man-nom sick-nom (*at four) ‘The man is sick (*at four).’ Zero-Pres then appears to be not an option with a past adverbial, which suggests in turn that the tense involved can only be PAST. If that is true, then positional temporal adverbs play a role in T/A disambiguation, contrary to the conclusion reached in subsection 1.4.2, although not directly.19 1.4.5.Durational adverbs20 Indefinite temporal nominals can function as durational adverbials. They are either complements of mund"u ‘since’, or they take (what looks like) an accusative case. Call them mund"u -d and Acc-d, d for durative. The two phrases do not distribute in the same way with tenses and aspects they occur with, nor do they specify them in the same way. Semantic PRES and PRESPERF are compatible with mund"u followed by an indefinite complement:

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

(51) y-aktubu 3-write

r-risaalat-a mund"u xams-i the-letter-acc since five

83

saacaat-in hours

(l-!aana). (now) ‘He is writing the letter since/for five hours (now).’ (52) katab-a r-risaalata mund"u xamsi saacaat-in (l-!aana). wrote-3 the-letter-acc since five hours (now) ‘He has written the letter since five hours (now).’ But PAST does not combine with such adverbs: (53) *kataba wrote-3

r-risaalat-a l-baarihat-a the-letter-acc yesterday

mund"u xamsi since five

saacaat-in. hours The advervial mund"u-d introduces an interval that reaches up to RT. But RT has to be UT, basically NOW. If the adverb has RT,UT as its RB, then its meaning is not compatible with that of Past (which is RT
saacaat-in. hours

But PRES cannot combine with Acc-d: (55) *y-aakulu r-rajul-u (l-!aan-a) xamsa 3-eat the-man-nom (now) five

saacaat-in. hours

84

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

The latter sentence is possible only with a habitual meaning (‘The man has the habit now to eat for five hours’). The same contrast holds with statives: (56) !amsi yesterday

kaan-a r-rajul-u mariid%-an xamsa was-3 the-man-nom sick-acc five

saacaat-in. hours ‘Yesterday, the man was sick for five hours.’ (57) *r-rajul-u mariid%-un xamsat-a the-man-nom sick-nom five (58) *r-rajul-u musaafir-un xamsat-a the-man-nom travelling-nom five

!ayyam-in. days !ayyam-in. days

The latter construction is possible as a futurate, not PRES. The contrast between PAST and PRESPERF is easier to detect with statives: (59) !amsi yesterday

kaan-a r-rajul-u jaalis-an, haziin-an was-3 the-man-nom sitting-acc sad-acc

xams-a saacaat-in. five hours ‘Yesterday, the man was sitting, sad for five hours.’ (60) *kaan-a r-rajul-u jaalis-an, haziin-an l-!aana xamsa was-3 the-man-nom sitting-acc sad-acc now five saacaat-in. hours These contrasts suggest that there is a genuine TENSE ambiguity of the Past/Perf form. The latter can be PAST or PRES. If Acc-D is a quantizing adverb, then PAST is compatible with it, since it is also PFV. Simple PRES cannot combine with it because it is IPFV. As for stative PRESPERF, it behaves like PRES in that it is also IPFV (and atelic).22

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

85

2. Temporal adverbs and kinds of Perfect 2.1. Positional mund"u We have seen that mund"u which takes an indefinite complement is interpreted as durational in the sense defined. Furthermore, mund"u -d is incompatible with Past. On the other hand, mund"u can take a definite complement. It then introduces not a length or duration, but rather a date or a time span, which is the left boundary of an extended-now (XN) interval. I will call it positional mund"u (following the terminological use of Musan and AvS, among others), and refers to it as mund"u-t. Unlike mund"u-d, mund"u-t appears to be compatible with all tenses. But in analyzing the various interactions of mund"u-t with tense/aspect phrases, the PresPerf appears to be specified in typical ways that make this adverbial a diagnostic test for distinguishing it from other tenses, typically PAST. These interactions also show the role played by Aktionsart and telicity. 2.1.1.Imperfective tenses Consider first the case of atelic imperfective tenses, in their Pres and Past versions, exemplified in the following pair of constructions: (61) !ajrii mund"u r-raabicat-i. I-run since four ‘I am running since/from four.’ (62) kun-tu !ajrii mund"u r-raabicat-i. was-I I-run since four ‘I was running since/from four.’ In (61), mund"u-t provides LB of RT, P is homogeneous, and RB is not expressed, nor presupposed. The same is true of (62), although LB is situated in the Past. As for telic imperfectives, the interpretive situation does not appear to be different. Consider e.g. the Present in (63): (63) !aktub-u r-risaalat-a mund"u r-raabicat-I. I-write the-letter-acc since four ‘I am writing the letter since/from four.’ Like in (61), the LB of RT is specified by mund"u-t in (63), P is homogeneous, and RB is not expressed, nor presupposed. In sum, with imperfective temporal predicates, mund"u-t specifies uniformly LB (of RT), and RB is not asserted, nor presupposed. Let us then call Ipfv-mund"u-t, and

86

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

specify its meaning as follows: (64) Ipfv-mund"u -t ||Ipfv-mund"u -t||(t) = λPλt’∃t’[XN (t’,t’) & LB (t,t’) & P (t’)], P is homogeneous.23 2.1.2.Perfective tenses Consider now perfectives. Let us start with simple Past telics, the achievement (65) or the accomplishment (66): (65) wajad-tu found-I

l-h%all-a l-baarih%a t-a the-solution-acc yesterday

mund"u since

r-raabicat-i. four ‘I found the solution yesterday since four.’ (66) katab-tu r-risaalat-a l-baarih%a t-a wrote-I the-letter-acc yesterday ‘I wrote the letter yesterday since four.’

mund"u r-raabicat-i. since four

In both (65) and (66), mund"u-t is interpreted as specifying the RB of the Asp phrase, the point at which the event E culminates (in a telic perfective situation). The solution is found by four, and the letter terminated by four. LB is not expressed, but it is presupposed, and ‘pushed’ backwards into the Past, so that the preparatory phase (including LB) takes place before four, although it has to be located within yesterday. The interpretive situation is not different (in relevant respects) for simple Past atelics, exemplified in (67): (67) !akal-tu l-baarih%a t-a mund"u r-raabicat-i. ate-I yesterday since four ‘I ate yesterday since four.’ In (67), mund"u-t modifies also the RB of the Aspect phrase, P is nonhomogeneous, and LB is not expressed, although it is presupposed. It has to be some time in the Past, included in yesterday. Even in (67), the eating has to take place at an interval which ends up at four, and the eating has been taking place before four. Complex perfectives behave in the same way as simplex ones. For

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

87

example, the complex form (68) behaves in the same way as its simplex counterpart (66) in the relevant respects, namely the fact that the interpretation involves also RB specification: (68) kun-tu was-I

qad katab-tu r-risaalat-a l-baarih%a t-a already wrote-I the-letter-acc yesterday

mund"u since

r-raabicat-i. four ‘I had already written the letter yesterday since four.’ These contrasts indicate that perfective tenses differ in their interaction with mund"u-t, compared to imperfective tenses. With the former, mund"u-t uniformly specify the RB of the AspP, its terminating point, while with the latter they specify its LB. Call the adverbial Pfv-mund"u-t, and let us specify its meaning as follows (69)

Pfv-mund"u-t ||Pfv-mund"u -t||(t) = λPλt’∃t’[XN (t’,t’) & RB (t,t’) & P (t’)], P is non-homogeneous.

2.1.3.PresPref tense Consider now the PresPerf interpretation of (66) above, and (70): (70) jaray-tu mund"u r-raabicat-i. ran-I since four ‘I have run since four.’ Both sentences can be read as either Ipfv or Pfv. In the first case, mund"u-t specifies only the LB of the event, the starting point of writing the letter (and the writing is not finished), or the beginning of the running (which is not over). Perf then behaves like other imperfectives in that temporal P must be homogeneous. To obtain the perfective interpretation, however, the specification of the RB boundary is necessary. It is specified by the nearest point in the past to Now. So the perfect aspect extends to Now, or it is an XN, but it must be bounded (and P is nonhomogeneous). But in both Perf interpretations, mund"u-t specifies the LB of the AspP. This contrasts significantly with the simple Past, in which only RB is specified. On this base, mund"u-t specification can serve as a diagnostic test for distinguishing PAST from PRESPERF.

88

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

Note that there is a case in which mund"u-t modifies the RB of a Perfect situation, namely when it modifies the post-state (introduced by Perf). Consider the following sentence: (71) juc-tu mund"u r-raabicat-i. was-hungry-I since four ‘I have become/been hungry since four.’ This sentence can have two interpretations: (a) I started being hungry since four, and I am still hungry now (XN interpretation), or (b) I am hungry since four, or I am in the post-state of being hungry since four. In the first case, mund"u-t specifies the LB of the event, and in the second case, it modifies the RB of the post-state. But this interpretation is not relevant for the contrast with the Past, since the latter is not interpreted as denoting a post-state. I return to this case in the next two subsections. 2.2. Durational mund"u As observed above, durative mund"u can co-occur with Ipfv and Perf tenses, but it cannot do so with simple Past. Consider again the following contrasts: (72) maryam-u t-antad%"i r-u zaynab-a mund"u saacatayni. Miryam 3f-wait Zaynab since two hours ‘Miryam is waiting for Zaynab for two hours.’ (73) kaan-at maryam-u tantad%"i r-u zaynab-a mund"u saacatayni was-3f Miryam 3f-wait Zaynab since two hours ‘Miryam was waiting for Zaynab for two hours.’ (74) maryam-u ntad%"a r-at zaynab-a mund"u saacatayni. Miryam waited-3f Zaynab since two hours ‘Miryam has waited for Zaynab for two hours.’ (75) *maryam-u Miryam

ntad%"ar-at waited-3f

zaynab-a Zaynab

l-baarihat-a yesterday

mund"u since

saacatayni. two hours The sentences (72) and (73) show that Pres and Past Ipfvs can occur with durational mund"u The latter then indicates that the event is positioned

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

89

two hours to the left of some point of reference, but its RB is not specified. By contrast, the adverbial cannot occur with Past, which is Pfv, and hence non-homogeneous. Consider now the following perfect sentence: (76) maryam-u katab-at r-risaalat-a mund"u saacatayni. Miryam wrote-3f the-letter-acc since two hours ‘Miryam has written the letter since two hours.’ Why is (76) good even under a Pfv reading? The interpretation can be that the adverbial is modifying a post-state, in which case the sentence would behave like any stative sentence with respect to this modification. Then what about eventive or PresPerf reading? The latter interpretation is also possible, with mund"u -d specifying the LB of the duration, and NOW its RB, i.e. RT would be the RB. That possibility is not open to Past, due to the fact that its RT is located before Now, and hence cannot at the same time abut Now. The semantics of the adverbial is then roughly as follows: (77) Durative mund"u ||mund" u -d||(d) = λPλt∃t’[XN (t’,t) & |t’| = d & P (t’)], P is homogeneous. 2.1. Perf of Res and post-state Resultative meaning of Arabic Perfect can be distinguished from that of PERF or PAST. Comrie (1976, p.56) claims that ‘In the perfect of result, a present state is reported as being the result of some past situation […] In an answer to a question Is John here yet?, a perfectly reasonable reply would be Yes, he has arrived, but not Yes, he arrived’. To that question, two potential answers in Arabic are the following: (78) nacam was%al-a. yes arrived-3 ‘Yes, he has arrived.’ (79) laa bal "#a adara. no in fact left-3 ‘No, he has in fact left.’ As Fleisch (1974) put it: “ce n’est plus seulement l’accompli, l’action conduite à son terme, mais l’action finie qui laisse quelque chose de réalisé: un résultat”. This “result” may or may not be what Parsons

90

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

(1990) calls resultant state. It can be expressed through adjectival phrases, but I will limit my investigation to verbal phrases, which are clearly in the Perf form. The latter are normally translated by Pres forms in English or French: (80) juc-tu. became-hungry-I (literally: ‘I hunger-ed’) ‘I am hungry/ J’ai faim.’ (81) s%a daq-ta. were-right-you (literally: ‘You right-ed’) ‘You are right/ Tu as raison.’ These sentences can obviously have Past or PresPerf readings, but the relevant reading we are interested in is the resultative one. One way to get the latter reading is to think of the predicate as describing a kind of achievement, where the subject reaches the state of being hungry or being right. Then the perfect phrase describes that state achieved. This could be a post-state. Resultatives can also be produced by passive perfect forms, such as (82), or by anti-causative forms, such as (83): (82) junn-a. ‘He got crazy.’ (83) n-kasara l-ka!s-u. anticaus-broke the-glass-nom ‘The glass got broken.’ For has been argued to modify a result state associated with a change of state predicate. If Acc-d is the counterpart of for, then we expect it to serve as a discriminating diagnostic for distinguishing predicates that have an accessible resultant state from those that do not. The contrast is illustrated by the following pair of examples: (84) fatah%- tu l-baab-a saacatayni. opened-I the-door-acc two hours ‘have opened the door for two hours.’ (85) sallam-tu r-risaalat-a (* saacatayni). delivered-I the-letter-acc (* two hours) Note that mund"u-d is not discriminatory in this respect:

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

91

(86) fatah%- tu l-baab-a mund"u saacatayni. opened-I the-door-acc since two hours ‘I have opened the door since two hours.’ (87) sallam-tu r-risaalat-a mund"u saacatayni. delivered-I the-letter-acc since two hours ‘I have delivered the letter since two hours.’ I postulate that Acc-d modifies a Perf of Res in the sense of Parsons (1990), while mund"u-d modifies a post-state. 3. Summary and Conclusion I am now in a position to be able to summarize: (a) what T/A verbal morphology contributes (ambiguously) to temporal meanings, (b) what contributions are made by adverb specifications, and finally (c) how the combinations of the two ingredients lead to disambiguation of T/A morphology or T/A adverbials. 3.1. T/A morphology The picture that emerges from what has been discussed so far is as follows:

IPFV PFV XNPERF PERF RES

PRES Pres (Reporter’s) Pres Past Perf Perf

PAST Past Imperf Past Past Perf Past Perf Past Perf

FUT Pres Pres Pres Perf Pres Perf Pres Perf

The following clarifications are in order. First, I have used Past/Pres, and Perf/Imperf to designate the same T/A morphology, in order to be neutral with respect to its interpretation, and also to facilitate the interpretation of the table for the Indo-European reader. The use of only one pair of them would obscure the picture. Second, designations with two separate terms (e.g. Pres Perf) refer to analytic forms; the others are simple or synthetic. Finally, I have omitted habituals, iteratives, generics, etc. from this table, which does not pretend to be exhaustive.

92

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

3.2. T/A adverbs or particles Consider first the particle qad. As observed above, it can be a Perf detector (or a Perfect level specifier; = PL), or a Tense detector, when it is a modal level (ML). The opposition addressed here is between PresPerf and Past: qad PL ML

PAST

PERF +

+

Consider now mund"u (= mun henceforth). Mun-t and mun-d will be treated separately: (a) Mun-t: As was clarified above, the main distinctive feature of mun-t is whether it specifies RB or LB of RT or of the Perfect construction (PL). An stands here for analytic or complex forms, and Sy for synthetic or simple forms: Mun-t IPFV PFV

(b)

PAST An: LB Sy: RB

PERF LB RB

XNPERF LB LB & RB

RES RB/PL

Mun-d:

Mun-d IPFV IPFV

3.3.

PRES LB RB

PRES +

PAST + *

PERF + +

POST-S + +

Conclusion

We have seen how the form of the simple Past expresses not only PAST, but also various meanings of PresPerf, including PRESPERF, XNPERF, POSTSTATE or RESPERF, but not FUTPERF. On the other hand, analytic PresPerf expresses FUTPERF (among other meanings, which I have not fully investigated here), but not PRESPERF. Temporal adverbs and particles have been shown to be just as ambiguous as T/A morphology, but they are T/A dependent, and hence can be disambiguated depending on the temporal context. I have examined the distribution and interpretation behavior of qad, which is ambiguously PL or ML, but which be-

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

93

comes unambiguous in appropriate syntactic configurations. Likewise, a durational/positional distinction has been postulated to account for the behavior of mund"u. Mund"u-t turns out to behave differently depending on whether it collocates with PFV or IPFV tenses. With the former, it specifies the RB of the time span it introduces, but with the latter it specifies its LB. Furthermore, PAST and PRESPERF collocating with this adverbial are clearly distinguishable. On the other hand, mund"u-d excludes Perfective tenses, and hence PAST, which is associated with PFV. But Imperfective PRESPERF collocates with the latter adverb, just as PRES does. Finally, Acc-d adverbs have been shown to be combinable with PAST, but not PRES or Imperfective PRESPERF, and they serve as a diagnostic for identifying change of state predicates having a resultant state. It is expected that this dual description of T/A morphology and temporal adverb specifications will prove to be more promising for capturing how languages express TR than a single dimension description. Notes 1. This study elaborates on previous work of mine (cf. Fassi Fehri (2001, 2000), as well as (1993)). It is particularly influenced by Arnim von Stechow’s (2002; =AvS) work on the semantics of the Perfect and typically the German seit. 2. This methodology is currently becoming popular among linguists. For example, AvS (2002, p.1)) adopts the view that progress can be made “… only by a careful investigation of the meanings of temporal adverbials and by stating their formal semantics in a way which is precise enough to test empirical predictions”. 3. Arabic verbo-temporal morphology contrasts two finite forms characterized by Person placement (as a suffix for Past, and prefix for non-Past or Pres), internal vocalic changes of the verb stem, and (suffixed) Mood marking in the Pres (and its absence in the Past). These forms contribute to mark Mood, T, and Asp interactions. See Fassi Fehri (1996) for detail. 4. See Giorgi & Pianesi (1997) as well as Schmitt (2001) for different analyses of the Portuguese Perf. 5. Cf. Ogihara (1995) and Abusch (1997), among others. Cf. also Higginbotham’s (2000a) analysis of SOT, based on anaphoricity. 6. The Arabic stative counterpart to (18) read as anaphoric is (i), where no copula surfaces: (i) qaal-a l-ii !inna-hu mariid-un. said-3 to-me that-him sick ‘He said to me that he is sick.’ When the past copula is used, no “present-under-past” reading is possible:

94

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

(ii) qaal-a l-ii !inna-hu kaan-a mariid-an. said-3 to-me that-him was-3 sick-acc ‘He said to me that he was sick.’ 7. Compare their examples (17) and (21), p. 349. 8. GP (2001), who analyze quite similar contrasts in Italian, reach a similar conclusion. Italian simple Past and Perfect are Perfective, and they contrast with Past Imperfect, which is Imperfective. The former tenses cannot be extended (unless the interpretation is different, as indicated). See e.g. the contrasts in their examples (22) and (23). 9. If we follow e.g. Klein (1994, 1999), then Perf is treated as Asp, on a par with Pfv, although Perf is normally higher in structure than Pfv, as in English John has been eating an apple. In other theories, it is treated as “relative tense” in the sense of Comrie (1985), or T2 (cf. e.g. Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)). In such a case, two Rs can be postulated, R1 and R2, as proposed explicitly in Cinque (1999), following an approach initiated by Sten Vikner (1985). The two Rs approach has various advantages, among which is the fact that it makes room for the representation of the future perfect of the past (as in He would have worked). That approached is implicitly adopted here, although details will not be addressed. I will only place Perf here as higher than Pfv (the genuine Asp). Cf. Cinque (1999) for crosslinguistic motivation, as well as Fassi Fehri (2000 & 2001) for justification in Arabic grammar. 10. Klein’s (1994) aspectual relations can be simplified as follows: - RT (= his TT, or Topic Time) is a subinterval of ET, or is (properly) included in it; - RT contains ET; - RT follows ET; - RT precedes ET. 11. e is an event or a state; τ(e) is the time of e, i.e. the interval from the beginning of e till the end of e; v is the type of events, i that of states. 12. Simple definitions are provided e.g. by Klein (1994): (i) PAST: (some subinterval of) RT is BEFORE UT; (ii) FUTURE: RT is AFTER UT; (iii) PRESENT: RT is SIMULTANEOUS TO, or CONTAINS UT. 13. Note that the “participle” of the thematic verb may be taken as the source for licensing PRES, PERF, and even PFV when the PresPerf is interpreted as such. This observation is based on the fact that the sole auxiliary “be” is not selective, and has presumably no “Perf content”, unlike what has been proposed for “have”. See Wunderlich (1997) for a quite illuminating discussion on the contributions of auxiliaries and participles to temporal meanings, depending on crosslinguistic lexical differences. 14. AvS claims that this is the simplest analysis, going back at least to Prior (1967). Cf. the reference there. 15. For the U/E distinction of Perfects, see McCawley (1971), McCoard (1978),

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

95

Dowty (1979), Mittwoch (1988), Vlach (1993), among others. Iatridou, Anagnostopoulo, & Izvorski (2001) provide formulations of the two readings and their paraphrases, which if applied to this example, read as follows: U-reading (i) a. There is a time span (Perftsp) whose LB is in 1990 and whose RB is UT, and throughout that tsp He lives in Berlin. b. ∃i (LB = 1990) & RB = Now & ∀t ∈ i (Ev (t))). E-reading (ii) a. There is a tsp (Perftsp) whose LB is in 1990 and whose RB is UT, and in that tsp is an ev of his living in Berlin. b. ∃i (LB = 1990) & RB = Now & ∃t ∈ i (Ev (t))). On further refinements, as well as a characterization of English “since”, see Von Fintel & Iatridou (2002). Musan attributes her examples to Wolfgang Klein (p.c.). Her analysis of the PresPerf differs obviously from Löbner’s, who argues that the tense semantics of the latter is not uniformly PRES (Perf), but can be PAST (non-Perf) as well. See Fassi Fehri (1993) for detail. The two positions are normally taken to be ET or RT, but they could be two RTs, as pointed out in fn. 9 above. I will assume the latter approach, which takes into account the “tense” dimension of Perf. Note that the ambiguity problem appears to be solved differently in languages having a general analytic Perf, such as German or French. Musan (2001), for example, who discusses similar facts in German, acknowledges an asymmetrical behavior of adverbs with PresPerf: Pres and Fut Advs target RT, whereas Past Advs target only ET. But this limitation of the Past Adv to ET is not motivated in view of the data discussed by Löbner (2002), on the one hand, and the RT level of Past Advs occurring with PAST, on the other hand. For a discussion of the behavior of such adverbs in other languages see the articles of Arosio, Rathert, Giannakidou, Veloudis and Iatridou et al. in this volume. Constructions like (i) are also interpreted as PresPerf: (i) qul-tu haad"aa mund"u zamanin tawiil-in. said-I this since time long ‘I have said this a long time ago.’ Note that PAST is compatible with mund"u taking definite complements, but these cases are analyzed differently, as positional adverbs, which introduce a time span located somewhere in the past. See subsection 2.1 below. Comparable facts in Italian have been reported to me by Fabrizio Arozio. Per adverbials are only compatible with Passato Remoto (PAST PFV), but not with Pres or Imperf. Acc-D is then like Per. The incompatibility of PAST and mund"u -d also resembles in part the behavior of Italian da: da can occur with Pres and Imperf, but not with Passato Remoto. Cf. also Giorgi & Pianesi

96

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

(2001) for relevant discussion. Note that the PresPerf behavior with Acc-d depends on Aktionsart. See below subsection 2.1.3. 23. P is homogeneous if it has the subinterval property, i.e., for any t and t’, if t’ is a subinterval of t and P is true of t, then P is true of t’ as well.

References Abusch, Dorit 1997 Sequence of Tense and Temporal de re. Linguistics & Philosophy 20: 1-50. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1999 Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, D. 1989 L’aspect verbal. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Cohen M. 1924 Le système verbal sémitique et l’expression du temps. Paris: Leroux. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985 Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowty, David 1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Eisle, J. C. 1990 Time reference, Tense, and Formal Aspect in Cairene Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 1, M. Eid (ed.), 173-212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Enç, Mürvet 1987 Anchoring Conditions for Tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633-657. Fassi Fehri, A. 1993 Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1996 Distributing features and affixes in Arabic Subject Verb Agreement Paradigms. Linguistic Research 1.2: 1-30. Rabat: IERA. 2000 How aspectual is Arabic? Paper presented at the Paris Roundtable on Tense and Aspect. To appear in J. Guéron and J. Lecarme (eds.) The Syntax of Time. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2001 Synthetic/Analytic Asymmetries in Voice and Temporal Patterns. Linguistic Research 6.2: 11-56. Rabat: IERA. Fleisch, H. 1974 Sur l’aspect dans le verbe en arabe classique. Arabica XXI: 11-19.

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

97

Giorgi, Alessadra, and Fabio Pianesi 1995 From Semantics to Morphosyntax: The case of the Imperfect. In Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, P.M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, & M. Squartini (eds.), 1, 341-363. New York: Rosenberg & Sellier. 1997 Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001 Ways of Terminating. In Semantic Interfaces, C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia and M.T. Guasti (eds), 211-277. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Guéron, Jacqueline 1995 Chaînes temporelles simples et structures auxiliaires. In Rencontres: Etudes de syntaxe et de morphologie, P. Bouchet et al. (eds.), 43-77. Paris: Univ. de Paris X Nanterre. Heim, Irene 1994 Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. Ms. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. Higginbotham, James 2000a Why Sequence of Tense Obligatory? ms. USC. 2000b On the Expression of Tense and Aspect: The Case of the Progressive. Paper presented at the Paris Roundtable on Tense and Aspect. To appear in J. Guéron and J. Lecarme (eds.) The Syntax of Time. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hornstein, Norbert 1990 As Time Goes By. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Roumyana Izvorski 2001 Observations about the Form and Meaning of the Perfect. In Ken Hale: A life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 189-238. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. (reprinted in this volume) Kayne, Richard 2000 Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klein, Wolfgang 1992 The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525-552. 1994 Time in Language. London: Routledge. 1999 Wie sich das deutsche Perfekt zusammensetzt. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 113: 52-85. Kratzer, Angelika 2000 Building Statives. Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistic Society Meeting 26. Kurylowicz, J. 1972 Studies in Semitic grammar and Metrics. London: Curzon Press. 1973 Verbal aspect in Semitic. Orientalia 42: 114-120.

98

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

Löbner, Sebastian 2002 Is the German Perfekt a perfect perfect? To appear in Studia Grammatica. Meillet, A. 1910 De l’expression du temps. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris XX.2: 137-141. McCawley, James 1971 Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in linguistic semantics, Charles Fillmore and Donald Langendoen (eds.), 96-113. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. McCoard, Robert W. 1978 The English Perfect. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Mittwoch, Anita 1988 Aspects of English aspect. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203-254. Musan, Renate 2000 The Semantics of Perfect Constructions and Temporal Adverbials in German. Habilitationsschrift. Berlin: Humboldt Universität. 2001 The Present Perfect construction in German: Outline of its semantic composition. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 355-401. 2002 Seit-Adverbials in Perfect Constructions. Ms. Berlin: Humboldt Universität. (in this volume) Ogihara, Toshiro 1995 Tense, Attitudes, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Paslawska, A. and A. von Stechow 2002 Perfect in Russian and Ukrainian. Ms. Univ. of Tübingen. (in this volume) Parsons, Terence 1990 Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Partee, Barbara 1973 Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English Journal of Philosophy 70: 601-609. 1984 Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 243286. Reckendorf, H. 1895 Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. Leiden. Reichenbach, Hans 1947 Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press. Schmitt, C. 2001 Cross-linguistic variation and the Present Perfect: The case of Portuguese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 403-453. Sibawayhi, A. (8th century) 1938 al-kitaab. Cairo: Buulaaq

Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs

99

Stowell, Tim 1993 The Syntax of Tense. Ms. UCLA Szemerényi, O. 1965 Unorthodox views of tense and aspect. Archivum Linguisticum 17: 161-171. Vikner, Sten 1985 Reichenbach revisited: one, two or three temporal relations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81-98. Vlach, Frank 1993 Temporal adverbials, tenses, and the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 231-283. von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou. Since since. Ms. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. von Stechow, Aarnim 2002 German seit “since“ and the ambiguity of the German perfect. Ms. Univ. of Tübingen. Wright, W. 1898 A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Translation from Caspari, with edition, corrections and additions. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wunderlich, Dieter 1997 Participle, Perfect, and Passive in German. Theorie des Lexikons Grammatica 99. 2001 Prelexical Syntax and the Voice Hypothesis. Studia Grammatica 52: 487-513. Zagona, K. 1990 Times as Temporal Argument Structure. Ms. Univ. of Washington.

100

Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

A Aspect imperfective 71, 72–75, 76 perfect 76 perfective 71, 72–75, 76

C Comrie, Bernard 89

D durative adverbs mund"u ('since') 77, 82, 85, 88

E existential Perfect 77

M Musan, Renate 72

P Parsons, Terence 91 Partee, Barbara 76 Perfect Extended-Now-Theory 77 futurate 71 in Arabic 71–72 in German 72 in Portugese 72 of result 90 Pianesi, Fabio 74 positional adverbs tomorrow 78–79 yesterday 78–79 post-state 88, 89, 90, 91

F frequency adverbs xams-a marraat-in ('five times') 77 futurate temporal adverbs 71

G Giorgi, Alessandra 74

H Heim, Irene 76

K Klein, Wolfgang 76

L Löbner, Sebastian 78

R Reichenbach, Hans 75, 76 resultant states 90

S sequence-of-tense (SOT) in Arabic 73 in English 73 Stechow, Arnim von 83

U universal Perfect 77