'Already' and 'Yet': A Suppletive Set of Aspect-Markers?

Author(s): Elizabeth Closs Traugott and John Waterhouse

Source: Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Oct., 1969), pp. 287-304
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175041
Accessed: 13-05-2017 09:30 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Linguistics

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
JL5 (I969) I93-320 Printed in Great Britain

'Already' and 'yet': a suppletive set of aspect-markers?

ELIZABETH CLOSS TRAUGOTT & JOHN WATERHOUSE
Department of English, University of California, Berkele
English for Foreign Students, University of California,
(Received 2I June I968)

The present study' arose out of an investigation of whether already and yet as
in He has left already, *He has left yet, ?He hasn't left already, He hasn't left yet
formed a suppletion set that matches some -+ any, sometimes -+ ever, etc. as in
They want some love, *They want any love, ?They don't want some love, They
don't want any love (for discussion of some, sometimes, too, etc. cf. Klima, i964;
Fillmore, I967; UCLA, I967: Negation). Various observations about the
restriction of already and yet to certain tenses and aspects, and about their
failure to match with many adverbs of time, led to an investigation of whether
already and yet were really adverbs of time, as is usually assumed. The con-
clusions we reached are that already and yet indeed form a suppletion set (with
certain limitations not shared by other suppletives), but that they cannot use-
fully be treated as time adverbs. Rather, they seem to have close connexions
with perfect aspect. The arguments presented here in support of this hypothesis
are by no means exhaustive but will hopefully provide a suggestive contribution
toward the study of both adverbs and aspects.

The suppletion problem. Consider the following sentences:

(i) a. He has gone already.

b. *He has gone yet.
(2) a. ?He hasn't gone already.
b. He hasn't gone yet.

For already and yet to form a suppletion set matching some -+ any, etc. both
(ia) and (2b) should be acceptable, but not (ib) and (2a). (ia, ib, 2b) present
no problems, but (2a) needs consideration, for it seems acceptable in two special
sentence-medial contexts. First, there is the possibility of (2a) occurring as a
negative response partially echoing such a question as Has he gone already? or
as a denial echo of He has gone already. In such contexts, already is usually
emphatically stressed; since the whole utterance should probably be regarded
as an instance of a special sub-set of rules accounting for performance mirroring,
it will not concern us here. Secondly, (2a) is allowable as the answer to some

[i] We are deeply indebted to Julian Boyd for his valuable comments on an earlier draft of
this paper. Thanks are also due to the members of a graduate course on the structure of
English, Fall I967, who contributed many examples and suggestions, particularly to
Philip Kavan and Anthony W. Vigo, Jr.

287

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

such question as Has the best man gone to pick up the groom? No, he hasn't gone
already. Here again emphatic stress is usual, but this time there is no direct
performance-mirroring; there is also an element of surprise, and some continua-
tion of the answer is implied, e.g. But he will soon. While (Ia) means approxi-
mately It is already the case that he has gone (at some unspecified time in the
past), and (2b) is the sentence-negative form of (Ia), (za) has little or no con-
ceptual relationship to (ia); rather, it implies I'm surprised that you thought that
he might have gone so soon/by now (i.e. by this specific time in the present).
Already as used in (2a) therefore seems to be a different kind of already from
that in (ia) and will not be discussed further in this paper except where interest-
ing ambiguities with the already of (ia) occur; it will be referred to as already2.2
If we omit the special usages of (2a) we then have a putative suppletion set.
But consider further:

(3) a. Hasn't he gone already?

b. Hasn't he gone yet?
(4) a. Has he gone already?
b. Has he gone yet?

where both the (a) and the (b) forms are acceptable. (3a) is conceptually neither
negative nor interrogative, but means something like Surely he has gone already!
and so we would not expect suppletion in this sentence. By contrast, (3b) is
both interrogative and negative, and therefore suppletion is regular. (4a, b)
present more interesting problems. It has been suggested for similar sets of
sentences such as Does he know some artists? vs. Does he know any artists? that
there is a [+specific] some which does not supplete, and a [-specific] some
which does (cf. the discussion of the ambiguous Some of my friends speak Fren

[2] It may actually turn out that the already of (i a) and already2 are related. At the mo
they are considered separate formatives since, unlike already, already2 (i) is ava
with will = future; (ii) is available with [+ specific] time adverbs; (iii) does not sup
to yet in interrogatives; and (iv) suppletes in negatives to the negative-incorporat
not yet rather than yet in contexts where NEG is a constituent of the same S as alread
Basically, already2 means so soon, as early as now/then, right nowlthen; surprise is of
but not always, implied, cf. He is already choosing men for executive positions, e
answer to Tell him to start interviewing. Possibly there is also a third already, cf. Alr
a lot of people had left, Already 50% of the votes had been cast, where already seem
modify the quantifier system in some way (note its association with as many as, an
implication that more people left later, more votes were cast). This already also sup
with negative-incorporated not yet: Not yet 5o0% of the votes had been cast.
It is also necessary to differentiate the yet which suppletes with already as in (zb) f
the negative-incorporated yet's mentioned above and several other yet's, e.g. yet =
as in It's early yet (suppleting with any more; cf. Langendoen, I966: 2I3); yet = sti
nevertheless as in Yet he went; yet = some time in the future as in He's bound to turn
one of these days yet; yet = even associated with comparatives as in A yet more dif
problem; and the yet's in All is not clear as yet, To introduce yet another problem. No
these will be discussed in the course of this paper.

288

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 'ALREADY AND 'YET

in Fillmore, i967: 98, and UCLA, I967: Negation). Such a solution is not
entirely satisfactory for the quantifiers; it is not at all so for already since the
latter is intuitively [-specific] in both the (a) and the (b) sentences, and, as
will be demonstrated below, is quite unlike [+specific] formatives in that it
does not co-occur with [+specific] time adverbs like yesterday. The difference
between (4a) and (4b) can be quite simply accounted for, without recourse to
two different already's or to the assumption that suppletion is optional in
interrogatives. (4a) is a question about the whole sentence He has gone already,
while (4b) assumes that he is going and only asks about the 'alreadiness', cf.
also the difference between Can he swim already? and Can he swim yet? The
different structures might be presented abstractly as: (4a) [Q It is the case [He
has gone already]], as against (4b): [Q It is already the case [He has gone]].
Lakoff (I965: Section F) has suggested this kind of treatment for the ambiguity
of such sentences as Do you beat your wife often?, Do you beat your wife in the
yard? etc., so such an analysis involves no new addition to the grammar as a
whole. The analysis of (4a) and (4b) suggested here requires the assumption
that already suppletes with yet only if Q is part of the same ranking S as already;
again, this follows quite naturally from a rule that must be provided anyway to
account for the failure of suppletion in S's embedded to interrogatives, cf. Do
you know that he has gone already?, *Do you know that he has gone yet? (if it =
[Q You know [He has gone already]]).3
There are certain restrictions on already -+ yet suppletion beyond those
mentioned in the previous paragraph. Interrogative suppletion, for example,
occurs in so-called 'yes-no' questions where wh- is attached to the deep structure
sentence element either-or (cf. Katz and Postal, I964: 79-I20) as in (4a, b), but

[3] It appears that non-suppletive some vs. some -+ any can similarly be accounted for on
grounds of sentence-cycling and that a [+specific] distinction is not necessary. One of
the reasons for associating [+ specific] with Some of my friends don't speak French is that
the sentence can be paraphrased by Certain of my friends don't speak French; but it is
not at all obvious that certain in this construction really is [+specific]. Consider, for
example, the set of all my friends of whom a subset is some of my friends. Of the set as a
whole one can say: Within the set of all my friends there is a subset who NEG speak
French (Some of my friends don't speak French); or one can say: Within the set of all my
friends there is no subset of people who can speak French, = NEG All my friends speak
French (None of my friends speak French). Lakoff (I966b) has suggested a similar analysis
involving symbolic logic to account for Someone can't lift 500 pounds vs. No one can lift
500 pounds. While interrogatives such as Does he know some artists? vs. Does he know any
artists? cannot be accounted for by precisely the same logical relationships, the same
principle of cycling can be applied, cf. Q There are artists of whom he knozws a subset vs.
Q He knows a subset of all artists. It is interesting that it is exactly such an underlying
structure as Q There are artists of whom he knows a subset which implies certain (by
semantic implication rule?) since There are artists is not a statement about all artists but
about a subset of all. If sentences of the type Does he know some artists? involve subsets of
subsets, we can readily account for the frequent association of this some with afew and
of the whole sentence with responses like Yes, those who are expressionists; Yes, some of
those who are expressionists.

G 289

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

not in affirmative 'content' questions where wh- is attached to an NP dominated

by the same S as already:

(5) a. Who has left already?4

b. *Who has left yet?
(6) a. Why has he left already?
b. *Why has he left yet?

This suggests that wh-incorporation to NP must precede suppletion and also

block it. On the other hand, if a sentence is marked for NEG as well as Q, NEG
triggers suppletion, whether or not Q gives rise to wh-attachment of NP; hence:

(7) a. *Who has seen her yet?

b. Who hasn't seen her yet?
(8) a. *What do you know yet?
b. What don't you know yet?

In these respects, the same suppletion rules apply for already -+ yet as for
some -+ any. In the area of negation, however, the restrictions on suppletion
are to some extent different for the two sets of formatives. For one, some - any
has a third member no; so do something, sometimes, too, etc. But already yet
is a two-way set. More significantly, while already -+ yet matches some > any
in simple sentences, it does not in complex ones. Klima (I964) has discussed at
length the fact that the scope of negation extends beyond its domain to embedded
sentences as in:

(9) a. *They don't expect him to want some advice.

b. They don't expect him to want any advice.
(io) a. *They didn't know that he had some friends (with unstressed some).
b. They didn't know that he had any friends.

But the scope of negation does not extend to already in embedded sentences:

(ii) a. They didn't know that he had left already.

There is a sentence:

(ii) b. They didn't know that he had left yet.

but this is the surface expression of [NEG They knew it already [He had left]]

[4] For reasons which are not quite clear, who in this sentence and in similar ones of this
type can only mean 'which one of you'; there are several other restrictions on wh-words
with already, cf. What is he making already? can only be interpreted as an echo question.

290

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 'ALREADY AND 'YET

with 'already -* yet extraposition'.5 (i ia) is the only possible realization of

[NEG They knew it [He had left already]]. Absence of already in sentences like:

(I2) a. *They don't expect her to go already (acceptable with already2 'so
soon').

is naturally explicable on the grounds that underlying (12a) is [They don't

expect it [She will go]]; already does not occur with will = future = prediction
(Boyd & Thorne, I969):

(I3) *They will leave already ( = [I predict it [They leave already]]).

There is a sentence:

(12) b. They don't expect her to go yet.

but this is also not a counter-example since the only possible interpretations
involve either extraposition of already -+ yet from the matrix ([NEG They expect
it already [She will go]]) or else the negative-incorporated not yet version of
already2, cf. the reading They expect her to go, but not yet.
As we would expect if and only if NEG fails to trigger suppletion of already
across sentence boundaries, the ambiguity of:

(I4) They didn't think he had come.

is disambiguated by already and yet:

(I5) a. They didn't think that he had come already (=[NEG They thought
it [He had come already]]).
b. They didn't think that he had come yet (-[They thought it [NEG
He had come already]], with not-transportation, cf. Klima, 1964:
292-293; Lakoff, I965: Section IV).

While many more examples could be given of the importance of sentence

hierarchization for an understanding of already and yet, only two further sets

[5] In complex sentences, already -+ yet belonging to the matrix often occurs at the end of
the whole surface structure sentence (i.e. following the embedded S). This may result in
ambiguity if both the matrix and the embedded S's have a deep structure that will not
block already -e yet, cf. In some ways I approve of his marrying already (= a. I have
already come to approve in some ways of his marrying, b. In some ways I approve of his
having married already). It is interesting to note that end-positioning after the embedded
S is not possible if this S is anything other than an object complement, cf. the subject
nominalization: The fact that the Peace and Freedom Party has succeeded in getting on the
ballot pleases me already where already can only be associated with the matrix; or,
He has shirked his responsibility by retiring already which cannot mean He has already
shirked his responsibility by retiring, but only allows interpretation of already as a con-
stituent of the sentence underlying the 'manner adverbial' (for treatment of manner
adverbials as derived from sentences, cf. Katz & Postal, I964: 140-14I; Lakoff, I965:
Section F).

29I

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

of sentences will be discussed in this connexion. One involves Q, the other NEG.
In such a sentence as:

(i6) a. Can he swim already?

can itself is ambiguous; but so is the relationship of already to the various

constituents of the sentence. The interpretations of (i6a) include:

(i6) b. Q It is true he is already allowed to swim.

c. Q It is true he is already capable of swimming.

Both of these readings would be natural if he has been ill and is recuperating
and the questioner is asking whether it is already all right for him to swim.
But (i6a) can also mean:

(i6) d. Q It is true it has already come to pass that he is allowed to swim.

e. Q It is true it has already come to pass that he is capable of swimming.

where the speaker is questioning whether ability or permission is already

available and is not necessarily concerned at all with propriety. What is impor-
tant is that, by contrast with (i6a):

(i6) f. Can he swim yet?

is ambiguous only in so far as can is concerned; in other respects it is un-

ambiguously:

(i6) g. Q It is already true that he is allowed to swim/capable of swimming.

Again, take a sentence like:

(17) a. He doesn't love her already.

which can mean:

(I 7) b. NEG It is true that he loves her already (denial of the proposition He

loves her already).
(I7) c. It is already true that NEG he loves her (possible if he married her a
week ago and has already fallen out of love with her).

On the other hand,

(I7) d. He doesn't love her yet.

is unambiguously:

(I7) e. NEG It is already true that he loves her (denial that the proposition
He loves her is yet true; this sentence carries the implication that the
speaker (or hearer) expects that the proposition will in fact soon be
true).

292

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 'ALREADY AND 'YET

Exactly why the scope of negative suppletion of som

the domain of NEG while that of already - yet does
The reasons are probably historical. Some any -+ n
Old English, but already -+ yet appear not to have do
English. The older form is indisputably yet (giet in Old English); this had
several meanings, including 'already' (in affirmative as well as negative sen-
tences), 'still' and 'nevertheless'. The phrase al redi occurs frequently in Middle
English as 'all prepared', though a few passages suggest it may also have had
the meaning of already, cf. Chaucer's Clerk's Tale 299: He is al redy here.
Possibly it was in just such constructions that the original adjectival phrase
'split' into two, giving rise to the Modern English all ready on the one hand
and to already on the other. If all ready involves a feature 'before this time' (or
better, of perfectiveness) and a feature of intention, it is not too difficult to
postulate that in some contexts the latter feature was lost, leaving 'before this
time'; then the phrase al redi would be free to match up with the yet that also
meant 'before this time' and to relieve it, at least in the affirmative, of some of
its heavy load of ambiguities. Since all ready would be unlikely to occur fre-
quently in the interrogative or the negative (cf. Is he all ready? He isn't all ready,
both of which are rather bizarre) it is quite natural that already should have
been associated with affirmative sentences, while the synonymous yet was
retained for negatives and interrogatives. It is not surprising, then, that already -+
yet does not match some -* any exactly. What is remarkable is that the similari-
ties, as far as behaviour in suppletion sets is concerned, are as close as they are.

Adverb of time or aspectual element? So far, the traditional view that already -+
yet constitute an adverb of time (cf. especially Crystal, I966: I3) has been
tacitly adopted. As a time adverb, it would be a member of the category domin-
ated immediately by S, not by VP, i.e. it would be a sentence adverbial. The
criterion Lakoff & Ross (I966) and Lakoff (I968) suggest for sentence consti-
tuency is: can the adverbial in question be matched by a parallel adverbial in a
conjoined do so, do it sentence? If not, the adverbial is a constituent of VP.
For example, because

(i8) a. *John loaded a sack onto the truck and I did so onto the trailer

with parallel adverbials is not possible, while

(i8) b. John loaded a sack onto the truck and I did so too

is possible, onto the truck and onto the trailer should be considered part of the
VP. On the other hand, as the following sentence with yesterday and tomorrow
paralleling each other is acceptable:

(I9) a. John loaded a sack onto the truck yesterday and I will do so tomorrow,

293

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

as well as

(i9) b. John loaded a sack onto the truck and I did so too,

the adverb of time is not a constituent of VP. Similarly we have

(2o) a. John has climbed Mt Tamalpais already, but his sister won't do so
for some time

beside

(2o) b. John has climbed Mt Tamalpais already and his sister has done so
too.

With such facts in mind, one might wish to argue that

(4) a. Has he gone already?

has some such underlying structure as

S(Q + NP(It+ S(he has gone already)) + VP (is the case))

while:

(4) b. Has he gone yet?

has the structure:

S(Q + NP (It + S (he has gone)) + VP (is the case) + already)

and that this pair matches exactly the underlying structures necessary to account
for:
(2i) a. Does he beat his wife often? ( _ Is it: He beats his wife often)
b. Does he beat his wife often? ( = Is it often: He beats his wife)

The only difference would then be that already suppletes if it is a constituent of

the same S as Q, while often does not supplete.
Such an equation is, however, inadequate. Lakoff (I965: Section F) points
out that in a sentence like (2ib) the beating is assumed and that the question
concerns only the frequency with which this beating occurs. If we compare:

(22) a. Does he beat his wife already?

b. Does he beat his wife yet?

we will find that while (22b) certainly asks about the time rather than the
beating, the beating is not ASSUMED; rather the speaker EXPECTS that it will occur.
The implications of (2ib) and (22b) are therefore quite different. And the
difference cannot be accounted for on the basis of the fact that in (2I) we have
a frequency adverb while in (22) we have a time adverb since in the following
set we have a frequency adverb, but again the beating is not assumed. In this

294

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 'ALREADY ) AND YET '

case it is not even expected, though the (b) sentence again asks about the fre-
quency, not about the beating:

(23) a. Does he sometimes beat his wife?

b. Does he ever beat his wife?

One way of accounting for these differences emerges when we note that It-
expansion is possible for (2ib) but not for (22b) (or 23b)):

(2I) C. Is it often that he beats his wife?

(22) C. *Is it already/yet that he beats his wife?

It seems hardly a coincidence that (2ib) can be further expanded to:

(2I) d. Is it true that it is often the case that he beats his wife?

but not to:

(2I) e. *Is it often true that he beats his wife (possible, but not the meaning
of (2ib))

while we find as a paraphrase of (22b) not

(22) d. *Is it true that it is already the case that he beats his wife?

but

(22) e. Is it yet true that he beats his wife?

A natural consequence of the absence of (2ie) and the presence of (22e) is that
the following answers are possible

(2i) f. *It is often so

g. Yes, he often does so
(22) f. It is already so or That is already the case
g. Yes, he does so already

with is so as the Pro-form of the matrix VP (is true), and does so as the Pro-form
of the constituent sentence VP (beats his wife).
We may conclude for the moment, then, that already (and also sometimes) are
to be marked in some way for availability in truth-value sentences, but non-
availability in It-expansions of the type illustrated by (22c). Often, on the other
hand, is to be marked for non-availability in truth-value questions of the type
illustrated by (22e), and for availability in It-expansion (cf. also It happened long
ago # It was long ago true that it happened, but = It was long ago that it happened).
Many time and frequency adverbs match often as far as truth-value specification
is concerned, but very few match already and sometimes: one that does is still
(cf. He is still here = It is still true that he is here, but # It is still that he is here),
an adverb which, as was pointed out above, has an interesting historical overlap

295

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

with yet. The extreme limitation of this set suggests that it may have a different
function from the other frequency and time adverbs (however they are finally
to be interpreted, e.g. Lakoff (I965: Section F) reanalyses often and other
frequency adverbs as [+ V, + ADJ]). An investigation into this possibility leads
to several interesting observations. At first these observations seem very dis-
parate, but it will be demonstrated below that the disparity is in fact only
apparent, and that all the different phenomena in question can be explained as
sharing the aspectual element PERFECT, and so can be integrated into a system
already required for the grammar on independent grounds.
Among various restrictions that apply to already, one is its failure to occur in
generic sentences of the type illustrated below (note that the following sentences
concern unstressed already; an emphatic already2 is available, but it immediately
converts these sentences into non-generic ones).

(24) *Oil already floats on water.

(25) *Milk already quenches thirst.
(26) *All vowels already involve free passage of air.
(27) a. *Metal is already hard.

Similar sentences involving specific activity or specific actors do, however, allow
already:

(28) John already floats.

Furthermore, already implies some change of state; e.g. (28) means not that
John is floating but that he can float and there was a time when he couldn't.
It is significant in this connexion that already can occur only in those copula
sentences that allow become or some similar inchoative. In this respect still
behaves like already,6 but sometimes does not. For example, we find

(29) a. This metal is already/still hard

b. This metal has become hard/hardened

but not:

(27) b. *Metal is already/still hard (already2 is possible)

c. *Metal has become hard/hardened (except marginally when metal

[6] This does not mean that still and already behave identically within such inchoative
copulas. On the contrary, it turns out that most of the copula adjectives available for
already are characterized semantically by the [+Polarity] feature that Bierwisch (I967)
sets up for such adjectives as tall which establish uni-directional 'normative' orientation
and (in some contexts at least) do not allow such quantitative modifications as *half as
small, but only half as tall (these adjectives are largely equivalent to Greenberg's
'unmarked' adjectives (Greenberg, I966: 90) ), cf. He is already tall, *He is already
small, *TIe has become small (small-looking is acceptable). On the other hand, still for
the most part does not occur with adjectives marked for [+ Polarity], but is possible with
those marked for [- Polarity], cf. *He is still tall, He is still small.

296

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 'ALREADY AND 'YET

means some metal; but this is not a generic st

Cf. also:

(30) a. He is already clever at leaving unnoticed

b. He is becoming clever at leaving unnoticed
c. *He is already clever to leave unnoticed
d. *He is becoming clever to leave unnoticed
(3 i) a. The accident was already forgotten
b. *The accident was already fatal
(32) a. He is already beaten
b. *He is already unbeaten
(33) a. He is already tall
b. He has become tall
c. *He is already small
d. *He has become small.

Several of the paraphrase sets suggested above have involved have-en or have
implied completed initiation of action. Such paraphrase relations are not
restricted to copula sentences, cf. the closely related pairs:

(34) a. He is already here

b. He has already arrived;
(35) a. He is already feeling ill
b. He has already started to feel ill;
(36) a. He already chooses his own clothes
b. He has already started to choose his own clothes.

What we have loosely called completed initiation of action or state may be

associated in part with It has happened that, It has come about that, X has started
to, etc. For the purposes of this paper, these will be subsumed under a deep
structure aspectual element called PERFECT. It has been suggested (Rosenbaum
& Lochak, I966: 8) that this might be a feature of the VP; as the preceding
discussion has shown, PERFECT actually has S as its domain, not just the VP and
so might preferably be considered a feature of the whole sentence. Or, according
to another analysis fairly well represented by the notional It has happened that,
PERFECT may be regarded not as a feature but as a main verb (for similar sugges-
tions see McCawley, I967; Ross, I967; and rather differently, Bach, I967).7
In this case, the traditional 'main verb' in perfect constructions belongs to an
embedded S; so He has gone would have some such underlying structure as:

S(NP(It + S(he go) + VP [V + AUX + PERFECT])

[7] While McCawley and Ross conceive of have as [ + V, + AUX], Bach treats have as a main
verb apparently not marked for [+ AUX]; for Bach, perfect can be paraphrased as 'NP has
the property that S' (p. 474), an analysis not adopted here since it does not account for
the (completed) instantiation of action etc. that is so important to inchoatives, etc.

297

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

In this sentence, [V+AUX+PERFECT] (hereafter called PERFECT) is realized as

have-en; but not all have-en's have this origin, nor is PERFECT always realized as
have-en, as is indicated by the interpretation of (28) as It has come about that
J7ohn can float, John has learned to float. For this reason, the abstract PERFECT iS
preferred to have as the underlying aspectual element; it is not mapped onto a
lexical item in the lexicon, but rather realized in various ways in the morpho-
phonemic component.
If we postulate that already is closely associated in some way with PERFECT,
then it need no longer be marked in the rather ad hoc fashion suggested above
to account for optional occurrence in truth-value sentences: the putative 'deep'
structure for (22e) ([Q It is already true that S]) has itself a deeper structure
[Q It has already come to be true that S]. It would appear then that if already
can occur in such a sentence, this is a function of the availability of PERFECT,
not of the individual formative itself.
More importantly, already is largely redundant in sentences with have-en as
the overt realization of PERFECT:

(37) a. He has left

b. He has already left or He has left already
(38) a. She has decided to take that job
b. She has already decided to take that job
(39) a. I have seen Les Enfants du Paradis quite often
b. I have already seen Les Enfants du Paradis quite often.

The (a) and (b) sentences are little, if at all, different in meaning; if already has
any function in these sentences, it is to emphasize the perfectiveness. It is only
when PERFECT is realized in some surface form other than have-en that already
is totally non-redundant (but has the meaning of PERFECT). There is a funda-
mental difference, for example, between

(34) a. He is already here,

quoted above, and

(34) c. He is here.

The former implies that he was not here before but has arrived, while the latter
implies nothing whatsoever about his previous whereabouts or arrival, cf. also
the differences between:

(40) a. Our dog can swim already (He has got to the stage of being able to
swim; he is old enough)
b. Our dog can swim (It is characteristic of our dog that he can swim);
(41) a. The apples are already red (They are already ripe, have already
reached the stage of being red)

298

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 'ALREADY AND 'YET

b. The apples are red (That is their colour; characteristically they are
red when they are ripe).

Furthermore, already does not occur with verbs or adjectives that block
PERFECT such as:

(42) a. *He already means what he says

b. He means what he says
c. *He has meant what he says.

As would be expected if, but only if, already is associated with PERFECT (and not
surface have-en, or some deep element like PAST), it does not occur in sentences
where have-en is obligatorily introduced by transformation into a sentence
which cannot have deep structure PERFECT, such as those with [+specific] time
adverbs like yesterday, at three o'clock, interrogative when (cf. Hofmann, I966),
etc.:

(43) a. He appears to have finished his work at three o'clock ( = It appears

that he finished his work at three o'clock)
b. *He has finished his work at three o'clock
c. *He appears to have already finished his work by three o'clock
(44) a. He is rumoured to have arrived yesterday (= It is rumoured that
he arrived yesterday)
b. *He has arrived yesterday
c. *He is rumoured to have already arrived yesterday.

In fact, already never occurs with [+ specific] 'time adverbs' any more than does
PERFECT (at least with PRESENT):

(45) a. *He has gone yesterday

b. *He went already yesterday (possible for some dialects if already-
already2 and modifies yesterday)
(46) a. *He has seen me at three o'clock
b. *He already saw me at three o'clock
c. *He is already seeing me at three o'clock (possible with already2)
(47) a. *When has he left?
b. When did he leave? *Already.

The occurrence of already in sentences like:

(48) The door was already shut

might at first appear to present a counter-example to the hypothesis that already

is associated with PERFECT. If we take such standard ambiguous sentences as:

(49) a. The shop was closed

(50) a. The children were fed

299

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

we will find that the same sentences with already are unamb

(49) b. The shop was already closed

(5o) b. The children were already fed.
Already can occur in passives only if some (surface) compound auxiliary is
present, cf. the unambiguously passive:

(49) c. The shop had already been closed

d. The shop was already being closed (= Someone had started the
action of closing the shop)
(50) c. The children had already been fed
d. The children were already being fed.

In other words, statives not only block be-ing but also the surface have-en. The
question is whether this means that they are non-PERFECT in their underlying
structure. The meaning of stative The door was shut is that the door had got to
the state of being shut. The action is completed, and the state is the important
thing. In passives of the type The door was shut, however, it is specified only
that the action has occurred, not that it had ceased (cf. the unambiguous The
door was shut again and again). This would suggest that statives should perhaps
be generated with a deep PERFECT.8 Independent motivation for this analysis is
provided by such sentences as:

(5I) The doors were shut at nine

(52) The windows were broken yesterday
(53) When were the windows broken?

If (5i) is stative, at nine unambiguously means 'at some (unspecific) time

including nine'; but if (5I) is passive, at nine means 'specifically at nine (not,
e.g., eight)'. Similarly, if (52) is stative, the speaker implies the windows were
in the state of brokenness during the whole or at least part of yesterday; the
passive reading, however, gives us the meaning 'someone caused the windows
to break at some specific moment yesterday'. When (if non-emphatic) can only
be [+specific]; (53) cannot be stative. All these facts are totally predictable only
if statives are assumed to have an underlying PERFECT; otherwise an ad hoc rule
very like that required to block the co-occurrence of PERFECT and [+ specific]
'time adverbs' must be added to the grammar. This would be both wasteful
and non-explanatory. It would therefore appear that statives are in no way
counter-examples to our general hypothesis, but rather provide further support
for it.
So far all examples in support of our hypothesis have been given in the

[8] The essentially perfective meaning of statives is noted by, e.g., Jespersen (I939, V
4: 98); Svartvik (I966: 86); Bach (I967: 474).

300

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALREADY' AND 'YET

affirmative statement form. Interrogatives and negative statements might give

us pause since

(54) Has he come yet?

(55) He has not come yet
seem to imply an expectation that he will come, and hence might seem unlikely
to be associated with PERFECT. However, if (54) and (55) are considered to have,
for one interpretation, some underlying structure such as [Q It has already
come about that he has come] = [Q It is perfected [He come]] and NEG It has
already come about that he has come] = [NEG It is perfected [He come]], the
difficulty disappears. It is just the Q and NEG with PERFECT that involve expecta-
tion (i.e. 'imperfection'), cf.:

(56) a. Has he come? ( = [Q It has already come about that he has arrived]
or, notionally, Is it perfected, he come?),

which implies that his arrival is expected by somebody (whether speaker or

hearer), as opposed to

(56) b. Did he come?

(57) b. He did not come,
which are neutral as far as expectation is concerned. The distinction is clearer
still in:

(58) a. He hasn't finished it (answer to a question such as Has he finished

the table?)
b. He didn't finish it (statement of fact, or denial of an accusation such
as I wanted to finish it, but your son did so instead).

It appears particularly significant for the various arguments about hierarchiza-

tion presented at the beginning of this paper that the semantic 'supposition'
rules (in the sense used by Fillmore, I966) involving expectation associated
with Q... PERFECT and NEG ... PERFECT operate only if the two elements are
part of the same ranking S. Another interpretation of (56a) and (57a) is possible,
not involving expectation, but only enquiring about or denying a fact; with such
an interpretation, the sentences in question have the following underlying
structures respectively: [Q It is the case that he has come], [NEG It is the case
that he has come]. It is with these observations in mind that we can account
for the really very different meanings of:

(59) a. Is he blind already? ( = [Q It is the case that he has become blind

already]; no expectation; shock if already2).
(59) b. Is he blind yet? ( = [Q It has already come about that he is blind];
expectation that he will become blind involved here).
(4) a. Has he gone already?
b. Has he gone yet?

30I

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

while still claiming that already -* yet form a supplet

the same underlying structure).

Whatever implication rule will account for the semantic interpretation in-
volved in sentences with [Q ... PERFECT ... *]S or [NEG ... PERFECT ... *]S will
therefore also account for the expectation involved with [Q . . . already. .]s,
[NEG ... already ... ]s. This added dimension of semantic similarity seems to
give particularly substantial support to the hypothesis that has been the focal
point of this paper.

Conclusion. In conclusion, we suggest that already should be specified as the

realization of a feature or set of features associated with PERFECT. Until more is
known about PERFECT, it is not clear whether already is freely available in all
sentences with deep structure PERFECT, nor exactly what features are required
to generate have-en in the one instance and already in the other. Details of
formalization must await a study of the whole aspectual system. During the
course of such a study it may well turn out that still (which behaves in so many
ways like already and is historically related to yet, but under certain circum-
stances occurs in just those sentences where already cannot, e.g. He is already
old, *He is already young, He is still young) is associated with deep PROGRESSIVE
aspect in much the same way as already is with PERFECT.9 The problem of the
interplay between modalities and aspects should prove particularly interesting.
For example, it appears that PERFECT iS obligatory with some modalities (e.g.
intention that involves decision, if indeed the two should be separated, as in
I shall go = I intend to go = I have decided to go, cf. also I am not dining there
any more which, according to one reading, involves the perfective I have decided
not to dine there any more); with others it is not possible (e.g. 'imperiting,' as in
Go! = I imperit you to go # I have imperited you to go; the latter has the meaning
of a statement, not a command). Possibly all expectation and even prediction
may turn out to involve [NEG . .. PERFECT .. .]S, i.e. imperfection. It has already
been demonstrated (Boyd & Thorne, I969) that 'futurity' as in He will go is not
a matter of time but of modal prediction: [I predict [He come]]; perhaps it is
also aspectual, cf. the abstract representation His going is imperfected ( = [NEG
It is imperfected [He go]]. In any case, it is clear that tense, a verbal feature,

[9] Stative adjectives like young, old, etc. are always considered non-progressive (cf.
Lakoff, I966a). While it is true that the surface-formative be-ing is not normally per-
missible with statives (except as the realization of X is behaving as if he were . . ) this
does not necessarily mean that deep PROGRESSIVE is not permissible; if progressive in-
volves (among other things) 'continuation, or non-cessation of (initiated) action/state',
then this is precisely what underlies He is still young ( = He is continuing to be in the state
of being young). On the other hand, He is still young can also be interpreted without
recourse to PROGRESSIVE: cf. the reading He is not yet old (= NEG He has already come to
be not young). The analysis of still as not yet not, if proved viable in general for still
meaning 'continuing to be' would explain the relationship of still and yet in a natural
way.

302

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 'ALREADY AND 'YET

must be separated more distinctly from both modals and aspects, which are
sentential elements, than has been usual in most studies of the verbal system
(cf. for example, Jespersen, 19II-49, Vol. 4; Twaddell, I960; Diver, I963, I964;
Palmer, I965; Allen, I966; Crystal, I966; Bach, i967).10 The full implications
of this distinction have only very recently begun to be considered (cf. especially
Chomsky, I965; McCawley, I967; Ross, I967; Boyd & Thorne, I969; and on
entirely different grounds, Joos, I964), and it is only in Boyd & Thorne (I969)
that any real attempt has been made to find the underlying structures of which,
e.g., may, must, shall, will, have, and be are the usual, but not necessary, realiza-
tions. The nature of the constraints on sentences with already and yet may
perhaps suggest a few directions which further studies of these underlying
structures might usefully take.

REFERENCES

Allen, R. L. (I966). The Verb System of Present-Day American English. The Hague:
Mouton.
Bach, E. (I967). Have and be in English syntax. Lg 43. 462-485.
Bierwisch, M. (I967). Some semantic universals of German adjectivals. FL 3. I-36.
Boyd, J. C. & Thorne, J. P. (I969). The semantics of modal verbs. YL 5. 57-74.
Chomsky, N. (I965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Crystal, D. (I966). Specification and English tenses. YL 2. 1-34.
Diver, W. (I963). The chronological system of the English verb. Word 19. 14I-I8I.
Diver, W. (I964). The modal system of the English verb. Word 20. 322-352.
Fillmore, C. J. (I966). Deictic categories in the semantics of 'come'. FL 2. 219-227.
Fillmore, C. J. (I967). On the syntax of preverbs. Glossa I. 9I-I25.
Greenberg, J. (I966). Language universals. In T. Sebeok, ed. Current Trends in Linguistics
3; Theoretical Foundations. 6i-I2. The Hague: Mouton.
Hofmann, T. R. (I966). Past tense replacement and the modal system. Mathematical
Linauistics and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-I7, Section VII. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Computation Laboratory.
Jespersen, 0. (I9II-49). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Joos, M. (I964). The English Verb: Form and Meanings. Madison, Wisc.: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Katz, J. J., & Postal, P. M. (I964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Klima, E. S. (I964). Negation in English. In J. J. Fodor & J. J. Katz, eds. The Structu
of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lakoff, G. (I965). On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Mathematical Linguistics
Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-i6. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Computat
Laboratory.
Lakoff, G. (I966a). Stative adjectives and verbs in English. Mathematical Linguistics and
Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-17, Section I. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Computation Laboratory.
Lakoff, G. (I966b). A note on negation. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Transla-
tion, Report No. NSF-i7, Section III. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Computation
Laboratory.
Lakoff, G. (I968). Instrumental adverbs and the concept of deep structure. FL 4. 4-29.

[i0] In all these studies, PERFECT is either called a tense, or else is separated from tense
but included in part of the chronological time system, along with tense.

303

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

Lakoff, G. & Ross, J. R. (I966). Criterion for verb phrase constituency. Mathematical
Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-i7, Section II. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Computation Laboratory.
Langendoen, D. T. (I966). The syntax of the English expletive 'It'. MSLL I9. 207-2 I6.
McCawley, J. D. (I967). Why auxiliaries are verbs. Unpublished paper.
Palmer, F. R. (i965). A Linguistic Study of the English Verb. London: Longmans.
Rosenbaum, P. S. & Lochak, Dorita. (I966). The IBM CORE grammar of English. In
D. Lieberman, Specification and Utilization of a Transformational Grammar, Scientific
Report I. Yorktown Heights, N.Y.: IBM Corporation, Thomas J. Watson Research
Center.
Ross, J. R. (I967). Auxiliaries as main verbs. Unpublished paper.
Svartvik, J. (I966). On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague: Mouton.
Twadell, W. F. (I960). The English Verb Auxiliaries. Providence: Brown University
Press.
UCLA. (I967). University of California Air Force English Syntax Conference (Sept. 1967),
Working Papers.

304

This content downloaded from 183.78.46.14 on Sat, 13 May 2017 09:30:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms