THE PERFECT COMPUS

- Ioana Stoicescu
The perfect compus is an eventive past tense in the current stage of Romanian, but has also
stative readings, which needs to be overtly signaled.
The perfect compus has preterite-like properties that distinguish it from the English present
perfect:
a) Compatibility with localizing temporal adverbials;
b) Occurrence in narratives.
Also, it behaves like the French pass compose, being compatible with definite time adverbials
that place the event time prior to speech time: la ora 6 at 6 oclock, n anul 2007 in the year
2007. In English, such adverbials phrases only occur with the past simple:
1) (a) Maria a ajuns acas ieri/acum o saptmn/anul trecut.
(b) *Mary has got home yesterday/a week ago/ last year.
(c) Mary got yesterday/a week ago/last year.
The p.c. is also frequently used in narratives (to present events in a sequence), while the English
pres. perf. Cannot appear in such contexts:
2) (a) A ieit din cas. A alunecat pe trotuar si a czut.
He went out of the house. He slipped on the pavement and fell down.
(b) * He has come out. He has slipped on the pavement and he has fallen.
The perfect compus elicits continuative readings, generally triggered by de-adverbials.
3) Apartamentul este cel nchiriat de tatl meu i a locuit aici de vreo 4 ani ncoace.
The flat is the one rented by my father and he has lived here for 4 years now.
The most important question to make is whether the perfect compus is a perfect or a preterite.
The main standpoints in the literature are the following:
i.
The perfect compus is ambiguous or underspecified (Criniceanu 2005)
ii.
The perfect compus is a perfect (Vian 2006)
iii.
The perfect compus is a past tense (GA 2005, Criniceanu 1995)
The p.c. is similar to perfects in, for instance, French, Italian, Spanish, and some Germanic
languages (German, Dutch, and Icelandic) (4), and differs from English, Norwegian, Danish and
Swedish perfects, which are not felicitous with definite past adverbs (5). This is known as the
present perfect puzzle (Klein 1992).
4) Ho mangiato alle quatro. (Italian)
Jean est parti a 16h. (French)
Juan ha salido a las 4. (Spanish)
Ion a plecat la 4PM. (Romanian)
Ich bin um vier abgefahren.(German)
Jon is om vier aur weggegaan.(Dutch)
Jon hefur faridh klukkan fiogur.(Icelandic)
5) John has left at 4. (English)
John har dratt cokken fire. (Norwegian)
Jon er gaaet klokken fire. (Danish)
Johan har slutat klockan fyra. (Swedish)
A. Solutions for the present perfect puzzle
Morphosyntactic and semantic cross-linguistic differences.
1

Portner (2003): a) the indefinite past theory (Reichenbach (1947)

b) the extended now theory (McCoard 1978, Dowty 1979, Portner 2003)
c) the result state theory (Portner 2003).
a) The indefinite past theory = perfect tenses presuppose the anteriority of the time of the
event to a reference time (ET_RT), which explains the difference between the past tense
simple and the present perfect tenses in English. The past time adverbials are not
acceptable with the pres.pf in English and Mainland Scandinavian perfects , but are fine
with German and Romance perfects because of morpho-syntactic differences regarding
the present tense Giorgi & Pianesi (1997). Due to the presence of tense features in the
derivation, in English, ST coincides with RT (ST=RT) for the present and present pf. In
Romance and German, these features are not present and ST is included or equals to
RT(ST RT). Thus the aux. in Romance perfects is not present but tenseless=>cooccurrence with past time adverbials.
b) The extended now theory the perfect introduces an interval of time that goes back to the
time of the event but ends at speech time (Giorgi & Pianesi 1997). This does not explain
why there is a difference between Romance perfects and English present perfect
regarding the acceptability with the past time adverbials.
c) The result state theory the perfect introduces into discourse a resultative or perfect state
produced by an event. Kamp &Reyle (1993) introduces the analysis of the perfect in
their system of referential semantics, Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), which
assumes two types of eventualities, i.e. states/events. In this system, the temporal
interpretation is made through the interaction between the eventuality (event e or state s),
a location time t (RT, in Reichenbachs terms) and the speech time n (ST). Te perfect operator
in English selects any aktionsart and its output is always a state. Kamp & Reyle ( 1993)
maintain that, when the predicate is eventive, the event producing the result state is the
one described by the predicate. The semantic representation or DRS ( discourse representation
structure) for an eventive present perfect sentence is given in (6):
6) Mary has left.
ntsxex
t=n
t s
Mary (x)
e >< s
e : x leave
If the predicate is stative, the question is which is the event that triggers the resultative
state. Stative predicates in the present perfect may have existential (7) or continuative (8)
readings.
7) Mary has lived in Bucharest.
8) Mary has lived in Bucharest for 5 years.
B. Previous analysis of the Romanian perfect compus

aux a avea tense and agr. features; expresses the rel. between ST and RT;
participle [+perfective] feature; expresses the rel. between RT and ET.
The aux. is associated with the present tense, while the part. places ET before RT =>
perfective interpretation.
9) Agr/TP
2
Agrs/T
2
Agrs/T
AspP
am
2
Asp
2
Asp
VP
mncat
Criniceanu (2005): the perfect compus underspecified. The perfect compus is analyzed as
intantiating the predicate after.For the perfect value of the perfect compus, the predicate after is
realized in Aspect. It is assumed that the T node is in this case inactive, and its external argument
of the Asp node (As-T = Ut-t). This explains the present relevance reading of sentence (10). The
node Aspect orders As-T after Ev-T => the event is anterior to ST (Ev-T<As-T).
10) A venit. He has come.
Ev-T
Ut-T=As-T
perfect compus=perfect -----[----]--------[------]------TP
2
Ut-Ti
T
2
T
Asp
2
As-Ti
Asp
2
Asp
VP
after
2
Ev-T
VP
When the predicate after is realized in Tense => the preterite reading of the perfect compus
emerges. The T node orders Ut-T after As-T ( As-T<Ut-T). the Aspect node is inactive, and its ext
arg As-T is coindexed with Ev-T, the ext arg of the VP node (As-T=Ev-T).
11) Ion a plecat in 2007.
Ev-T=As-T
Ut-T
perfect compus= past tense -----[-----]----------[-----]------TP
2
Ut-T
T
2
T
Asp
after

2
As-Ti

Asp

2
As-T

2
PP

Asp

VP
2
Ev-Ti

VP

n 2007

Vian (2006):
the perfect compus=perfect semantically richer than the English present perfect;
the semantic core of the perfect compus is of a perfect which introduces states into the
discourse;
a perfect clause devoid of time adverbials has a resultative dimension (contra Criniceanu
2005).
The resultative reading f the examples below are due to the telicity of the predicates.
12) a. Am venit. I have come.
b. S-a dus s mnnce. He has gone to eat.
c. Maria a scris o scrisoare. Mary has written a letter.
d. S-a jucat. He played.
e. El a vrut mai mult de la via. He wanted more from life.
the result state introduced by the perfect compus may be measured by de/din since/for
adverbials
13) Am pictat portretul de ieri. I have painted the portrait since yesterday.
b. A plecat din Bucureti din 2005. He has left Bucharest since 2005.
The perfect compus is felicitous with definite temporal adverbials, and appears in
narratives. This argues for the eventive semantics, not a stative one. Vian states that the
eventive past reading of the perfect compus are obtained through the mechanism of
coercion. The narrative mode operator forces the introduction of a coercion operator from
states to events Cse - which coerces the stative predicate back into an event through the
deletion of the resultant state (Vian 2006).
14) [Narrative[Cse[PRES[PERF[quantized event]]]]]
C. The perfect compus as a preterite
Ioana Stoicescu argues that the perfect compus is an eventive past tense in the current stage of
Romanian, but that it still has perfect-like stative readings, which need to be overtly signalled.
The eventive reading obtains in examples such as (15a), while the stative reading is illustrated in
(15b).
15) a. A venit aici acum 2 ani. He came here 2 years ago.
b. A venit aici de 2 ani. He has been here since two years ago.
Past tenses and the perfect compus as a preterite have the possibility to specify a past temporal
reference. This is the crucial distinction between the perfect compus and present perfect.
In agreement with Criniceanu (1995), Steanu (1980), Stoicescu argues that the perfect compus
has become an eventive preterite with a marked narrative value, though it still retains some
4

vestigial aspectual readings. In spoken Romanian, the perfect compus is the most characteristic
past tense, and this is why the discussion begins with its eventive interpretation.
The default interpretation of the perfect compus is that it denotes an event which came to an end.
All aspectual classes have this reading. Following Kamp & Reyle (1993), the default
interpretation of the perfect compus is that it includes events into a past location time. The events
are either non-derived, expressed by telic predicates, or derived, through coercion, from
homogeneous predicates.
C.1 The past interpretation of the perfect compus
The perfect compus has a default eventive value due to the fact that even homogeneous
predicates have terminative readings with this tense. The sentences in (16) assert that the state
held at a past time and that the state does not hold at utterance time. This entailment s obtained
through the coercion of the state into an event through an end (s) coercion operator.
16) a. Am urt-o pe Maria n tineree (dar acum nu o mai ursc). I hated Mary in my youth (but now I dont
hate her any more).
b. Am jucat multe jocuri cnd eram copil (dar acum nu m mai joc). I played many games when I was a
child (but I dont play any more).

The def past location time:

overt => framework adverbials:
a) deictic adverbials: ieri, alaltieri, acum o or, sptmna trecut;
b) context-dependent calendar names: luni, n iunie, pe 3 martie;
c) adverbs that denote closed periods of time: de la 3 la 5.
null adverbials.
The eventivity of the perfect compus also explains its extensive narrative use, its contribution to
event ordering and narrative progress. In sentence (17) predicates are placed in a temporal
sequence => e1 < e2 < e3.
17) Copilul s-a suprat pe mama lui. A izbucnit n plans i a fugit.
The child got angry with his mother. He bursed into tears and ran away.
Occurrence in when- temporal adverbials clauses => perfect compus does not have a default
present time orientation, unlike the English present perfect, which is disallowed in such contexts
(18a). the events described with the perfect compus in (18b) are firlmy placed in the past axis.
This also explains the infelicity of (19b).
18) a. *When John has arrived home, he turned on the TV.
b. Cnd Ion a ajuns acas, a dat drumul la televizor.
19) a. Once he has realized his mistake, he will repent.
b. *Odat ce i-a realizat greeala, va regreta.
Criniceanu (2002): the perfect compus = eventive tense and is used with situation aspect types
=> accomplishments (20) and achievements (21). The accomplishment clauses can be
paraphrased as in (20ii) using the verb a termina finish.
20) a.i. A scris scrisoarea *i o mai scris i acum.
ii. Aterminat de scris scrisoarea.
b.i. A but un pahar cu ap * i l mai bea i acum.
5

ii. A terminat de but paharu cu ap.

21) a.i. A ajuns acas * i mai ajunge i acum.
ii. Actigat un premiu *i l ctig i acum.
The perfect compus is, however, equally used with homogeneous predicates that do not
presuppose an inherent endpoint (see (22) for states and (23) for activities). These predicates
become bounded events through aspectual coercion. Coercion is a mechanism of reinterpretation
which settles aspectual conflicts. The perfect compus requires to be combined with eventive
predicates. When telic predicates co-occur with the perfect compus, they have to be coerced into
eventives. According to Kamp & Reyle (1993), de Swart (1998), atelic eventualities in the
English perfect compus receive a boundary via coercion, i.e. the intervention of a terminative
event which ends them. In Romanian, coercion is needed as well. An event e is inserted in order
to end the underlying state s. The eventualities can be included in a past location time (24-25).
This new event is compatible with the perfect compus.the output of the perfect compus is always
an event.
22) a. Maria l-a iubit pe Ion n tineree i acum nu l mai iubete.
b. Ea a vrut o schimbare, dar acum nu mai vrea asta.
23) a. Maria a lucrat la aceast firm, dar acum nu mai lucreaz acolo.
b. Noi am cutat o slujb, dar acum nu mai cutm.
24) Maria s-a simit ru ieri.
Mary felt ill yesterday.
25) Maria l-a iubit pe Ion anul trecut.
Maria loved Ion last year.
Another class of homogeneous eventualities are derived states, habituals. Use of frequency
adverbials (26)=> habitual reading => elicit two readings: a) the derived stete was terminated
before speech time, but b) it continued up to speech time.
26) A czut de multe ori anul trecut (dar nu mai cade acum). event;adv=>series of similar
events.
27) A czut de multe ori de un timp ncoace. the interval denoted by the adverbial includes
ST and the derived state extends towards ST, overlapping with the interval introduced by
the adverbial.
Permanent states are infelicitous with the perfect compus because it is impossible to represent a
permanent property as not holding at the present time(28a). Importantly, in Romanian, this
restriction holds for past generics as well (28b). the English past tense, which is aspectually
transparent, and does not impose the ending of the underlying state, allows past generics (28c).
=> the perfect compus has the aspectual feature named perfectivity, while the English past tense
does not.
28) a. ?? Maria a avut ochi verzi. Maria had green eyes.
b. ?? Dinozaurii au fost uriai. Dynosaurs were huge.
c. Dynosaurs were huge.
The configuration that entails the past reading of the perfect compus is illustrated in (30).
According to Guron Hoestra (1988), Avram (1999), Guron (2008), the temporal interpretation
6

of a sentence arises due to the joint contribution of the Complementizer, Tense and Aspect heads.
In the case of telic predicates like (29) (inherenly eventive), no coercion is needed, and a relation
of inclusion obtains between the event expresses by the VP and the past interval t (luni
Monday) (e t). The sentence is eventive and past.
29) Ieri a plecat la mare. - 'Yesterday he left to the seaside.
30) CP
2
Spec Op
C
2
C
TP
2
Adv
T
Ieri
2
T
AspP(event)
[+past]
2
Asp
2
Asp
VP (event)
[+perf]
2
V
2
V
PP
plecat
la mare
In the case of atelic perfect compus predicates (31), the eventive reading is obtained via coercion.
A coercion operator from states to events (Cse) is adjoined to the VP (32) and shifts the stative
predicate into an eventive one.The DRS shows that this coercion operator is a terminative
operator it ends the homogenous eventuality (e = end (s)). At the level of the AspP, the
perfective feature is checked and a relation of inclusion obtains between the coerced eventive
and the past location time specified by the adverb situated in SpecT(32).
31) Ieri a vrut cartea. Yesterday has wanted the book.
32) TP
3
Adv
T
ieri
3
T
AspP (event)
[+past]
2
a
Asp
2
Asp
VP(event)
[+perf.]
2
Cse
VP (state)
2
V
2
V
DP
7

vrut

cartea

The configuration of the perfect compus with derived statives (habituals) (33) is represented in
(34). In the presence of the adverbial de multe ori which is adjoined to the verb phrase, the
underlying event is coerced into a state. However, this state has to be coerced back into an event
in order for it to be included in the past location time expressed by the adverbial anul trecut.
Hence a terminative coercion operator from states to events C se (end(s)) is adjoined to the VP.
The participle raises to Asp to check the perfective feature.
33) TP
2
DP
T
anul trecut
2
T
AspP (event)
[+past]
2
a
Asp
2
Asp
VP (event)
[+perf.]
2
Cse
VP (state)
2
PP
VP (event)
de multe ori 2
V
czut
34) Anul trecut a czut de multe ori. She fell many times last year.
C.1 The residual perfect reading of the perfect compus
When the perfect compus behaves as a perfect, like the English present perfect, it introduces a
resultative state that starts when the eventuality described by the VP ends, and extends up to ST.
This value of the perfect compus is a vestige of its history. The Romanian perfect compus
developed from the resultative Latin construction on (35).
35) Multa bona bene parta habemus. (Plautus) We have many well-procured things.
In the current stage of Romanian, the aspectual use of the perfect compus is more contrained,
because it has to be overtly signaled by appropriate adverbials. Otherwise, the past reading
obtains. Potential triggerers for the perfect interpretation of the perfect compus are adverbials:
vreodat, de luni, de mult vreme, de atunci, de ieri ncoace, de la Crciun, toat viaa, n
ultima vreme, de la o vreme, de-o vreme ncoace.
36) a. Ai zburat vreodat cu avionul? Have you ever flown in a balloon?
b. De mult vreme mi-am dorit o cas a mea. I have wanted a house of my own for a
long time.
According to Criniceanu (2005) de/din temporal adverbials are conflated adverbials forms
whose temporal interpretation is from x up to and including ST. the preposition de/din are
indicators of a spatial or temporal Source.
37) A venit de la 11. He has come since 11.

In the absence of such adverbials, the eventive past reading obtains. In (38) and (39), however,
the de-adverbials forces a stative, up-to-the-present reading. In both cases, the sentences entail
that a state overlaps with the interval denoted by the de-adverbials, which reaches ST.
38) a. Ion a scris scrisoarea. Ion wrote the letter.
b. Ion a scris scrisoarea de 3 zile. Ion has written the letter for 3 days.
39) a. S-a simit bine. He felt good.
b. S-a simit bine de ieri ncoace. He has felt good since yesterday.
The continuative reading is obtained through a different mechanism for telic and atelic
predicates. In English, the auxiliary have is placed under Aspect and it recategorizes the event in
its scope into a state.
40) Asp (state)
2
Asp
VP (event)
have
The perfect compus resembles the English present perfect in the way the stative reading is
elicited, and the analysis of the latter becomes relevant for Romanian. Telic predicates in the
perfect compus culminate and the de-adverbials measures the interval occupied by the resultative
state (Criniceanu 2000) (41).
41) Ion a scris scrisoarea de 3 zile. Ion has written the letter for three days.
For stative VPs such as (42), through coercion, an initial event triggers the state. An inchoative
coercion operator from states to events Cse (e = beg (s)) provides this event. The event thus
obtained coincides with the begging of a resultative state. The resultative state overlaps with ST.
Again, the de-adverbial measures the extent of the interval occupied by the resultative state.
42) Ion s-a simit mai bine de 3 zile. Ion has felt better for three days.
The analysis of the English present perfect can be applied to the stative reading of the perfect
compus. The comfiguration that triggers the stative reading of the perfect compus with a telic
verb is illustrated in (43).
43) Am venit de ieri. I have come since yesterday.
. TP
2
T
2
T
AspP
[-past]
2
PP
AspP (state)
2
de ieri
Asp
2
Asp
VP (event)
[+perf]
avea
venit
The core of the perfect compus is that it is perfective and requires eventive complements. When
the auxiliary is merged under Tense, the perfect compus is interpreted as a perfective past, and it
takes the AspP as its complement. When it is merged under Aspect, the perfect compus is
interpreted as a perfective aspect, similar to the English present perfect, and it takes VP as its
complement.
9

Default preterite interpretation of the perfect compus:

i.
The terminative entailment of homogeneous predicates;
ii.
Its co-occurrence with past framework adverbials;
iii.
Its felicity in out of the blue contexts;
iv. Its felicity in narratives;
v. Its occurrence in when-temporal adverbials.
D. Conclusions
According to Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2007) and MacDonald (2008), the syntactic
configuration of the clause contains two aspectual projection , which are responsible for the
aspectual properties of the sentence. AspgP is related to grammatical/viewpoint aspect, while the
AspsP is related to the situation aspect. Situation aspect is calculated within the lexical verb
phrase and constitutes the input for the grammatical aspect operators.
44) TP
2
T
2
T
AspgP
2
Aspg
2
Aspg
VP
2
V
2
V
AspsP
2
Asps
2
Asps
VP
The situation aspect distinction is that between telic and atelic predicates. In the absence
of the progressive, the distinction between states and activities can be made only through agency
tests, which do not focus on the aspectual structure of the predicate. The distinction between
accomplishments and achievements and achievements is mainly visible through the different
entailments of the in x time temporal adverbials and different compatibility with the verbs finish
and stop.
Tenses in Romanian are aspectually sensitive in the sense that they impose input
conditions on the predicates they select. The present and imperfect tenses atelic, homogeneous
predicates, perfect compus telic, eventive predicates.
The perfect compus has evolved into the main past tense of spoken Romanian. While
have in English introduces a state, the Romanian avea lost its property, becoming a past tense
marker.
The perfect compus preserves from its aspectual origin the perfectivity feature, the fact
that it induces a bounded interval. This feature is present on the Aspect node and accounts for the
difference between the perfect compus and the imperfective past.
10

11