Note: The following record is saved from a discussion center, and all the replying functions are not working here. Here I briefly state of my way of studying tenses.
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: My way of studying tenses (1 of 7), Read 678 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Wednesday, December 23, 1998 08:17 AM
About tense: My way of studying tenses
I was learning fast, at least I thought so. After I had spent two weeks studying tenses, I thought I understood all the tenses already. I passed all the tests in the grammar books. Unfortunately, I wanted to test my understanding, this time on readings. I found that I didn't really know about tenses at all.
After a few months visiting libraries and reading many grammars, however, I thought I was one of the best in knowing them. Again, readings told me that I was wrong. Where were the habitual actions? Which one was the permanency?
After one year or so, I found that I did not know tenses at all. Really. There were so many evidences grammars avoided. I then made up my mind in understanding them, in a candid way. This was when I declared war against English tenses. In fact, I felt a little cheating: People used tenses, and I just had to find a way to explain the way how they used them. It could not be that difficult.
I tried and tested numerous new ways and new theories. Every theory would cost me weeks or even months to set up, polish, test, and then give up. After two or three years in studying tenses, I knew I lost the battle, in desperation and agony. And I knew at this time I was the only one in the world who didn't know about tenses. I got very anxious. The most basic part of grammar became the most difficult for me.
But I had at least simplified the question: Once I could separate the Past from the Perfect, the Perfect fits to the Present. And if I was able to differentiate the Present from the Perfect, the Perfect fits to the Past. In short, putting aside the future tense, we have two timings: past and present, but we have three tenses: Past, Perfect, and Present. How could I fit three tenses into two timings? (I had already calculated the theory of 'Aspect'.)
Grammars didn't help much. Grammar books would not compare the three tenses at the same time, which of course they should have. They avoided more questions than I had expected. There was no internet at the time. And most of my letters to academic area went straight to limbo instead.
I even found out that if I had to use the Present Perfect tense to say something, I used the Simple Past instead, and no one would detect or say anything. It was fun and it was also very sad for a student who had spent so many years on tenses. I was totally at a loss about them. I was the one who wholly understood why grammars had to avoid many problems about tenses. I started to conclude that tenses were beyond explanation -- for example, if we tried to include some elusive time adjuncts. They even made up time adjunct for their own to explain tenses [see A question about tenses (1): Another elusive time adjunct]. Personally, I would not blame them now. I truly knew the difficulty.
I am a Chinese and therefore from the very beginning I had tried very hard to avoid from the interference of my mother language. Not until five or six years later I knew I was wrong. Chinese language carries no tense in sentence structures, but we communicate as good, I think, as other people. What then is the use of tenses? Do tenses convey better meanings? It even dumbfounded me when I first asked these questions to myself -- after studying for so long. But this soon started a breakthrough in my study. Then I compared the two languages intensively.
As for one isolated sentence, English expresses no better than Chinese language does. But in a paragraph, things are different. We shall explain tenses by paragraph or we lose all the essences of tenses. Believe it or not, I had been always misled by grammars!! Didn't I say I would not follow the explanation grammars commonly used? But in fact I just followed them all the time!! All the time I had tried to explain tenses in one isolated sentence, just as ordinary grammar books do! I had to start again to collect new data -- paragraphs. However, it was obviously an onerous job. The subject of tenses had taken me so much time. I was always haunted by the question whether I should go on or give up.
Maybe it was the seventh year. I finally understood the relation between the Simple Present, the Present Perfect, and the Simple Past. But it turned out to be as simple as can be:
(A) The basic meaning of the Present is to say that the content of the sentence (or simply, 'action') is not finished now, as in "I live here." But when we add a Frame [see below], we have to use Perfect: "I have lived here since 1950." Here we are talking about the same thing of the same time, with different details.
Unfinished action is what we called 'present action'.
(B) The basic meaning of the Perfect is to say that the content of the sentence is finished now, as in "I have done my homework." But when there is a Frame in the sentence, we use the past: "I did my homework yesterday." Again, we are talking about the same thing of the same time here, with different details.
Finished action is what we called 'past action'.
Rule (B) is well-known to people. But why it was so hard for me to think up rule (A)? I could not explain.
To explain the Perfect, I had always wanted to find a definition or theory to encompass both "I have lived here since 1950" and "I have done my homework". I might accept that a tense would have different meanings. But I would never dream of the grotesque fact that the same tense might have different and contrary meanings in itself!
These are my whole view to the three tenses, which fit perfectly into two timings. Frame stands for definite past time adjuncts in which there is a definite past date stated: year, month, week, day, hour, or minute. They are such as: in the past few/four/ten years, since 1920, in 1920, for the past few months, two weeks ago, during last few days, yesterday, etc. They are so many in number. Also, time clauses led by 'when/as/while/etc.' which specify a definite past date, can be taken as Frame.
And I explain tenses by combinations:
Combination 1: {Frame + Past} + Past
Combination 2: {Frame + Past} + Perfect
Combination 3: {Frame + Past} + Present
Combination 4: {Frame + Perfect} + Perfect
Combination 5: {Frame + Perfect} + Present
Combination X: {Frame + Past} + Perfect + Past + Present
During these years, I have collected many examples and examined many readings. I separate the present background as in newspaper and computer manual, from the past background as in Gone With The Wind, in which we use mainly the Past to describe. Two backgrounds have different tense systems. The Past Perfect tense is also explained only by paragraph.
I do not avoid any time adjunct. Both in the past few/four/ten years and in the past will not be found and explained in any grammar book. They can be, however, sorted into different groups of time adjuncts.
The most interesting group of time adjuncts are Always, Often, Never, Now, Today, This morning, etc., which contain no sense of pastness. I called them Indefinite Time Adjunct, which can be combined with any tenses: the Past, the Perfect, the Present and the Future. And their meanings change according to tenses.
Compare:
(1) I told him yesterday.
=== The tense changes to fit the meaning of the time adjunct.
(2) I have always wanted to tell you, but she would not let me.
=== The meaning of the time adjunct changes to fit the tense.
However, there are still many problems waiting to be solved. And that is why I want to discuss with you readers here out of respect.
As for me, I had renounced the old tense explanation a long time ago. I gave up the grammars (in relation of tenses) which avoid commonly-used time adjuncts. If I agreed to hide away many time adjuncts and problems, I did not need decades to study and polish the new explanation.
In fact, we should not worry too much about tenses. Tenses are very easy to use. They are just difficult to explain. We express ourselves mainly in sentences.
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: My way of studying tenses (2 of 7), Read 661 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Thursday, December 24, 1998 09:36 AM A comparison between Chinese and English languages
After I had sent the main message here, I noticed there is a question around here: "Is there any convincing evidence that English communicates time relations any more accurately than Chinese, a language reputed to be non-inflected. It would be interesting to read comments from some of our Chinese-speaking readers about precision obtainable with word modifiers rather than inflections."
I think I can answer this question: Yes, there is.
In my message I have said that I once compared English with Chinese language intensively. Therefore I know.
But the point is quite interesting, however. Do we (users of English) know we are using tenses to tell the time relations in a paragraph? We always use one isolated sentence to explain tense. How can we see the relation? In relation of what? Grammars think that a tense is used to express habit, permanency, general truth, past-in-the-past, a past fact, current relevancy, etc. Shall we claim that we are using tense to tell the time relations?
Sorry I am getting far off the subject. I would like to give a comparison example of the two languages here.
In English, we may see clearly the temporal relations between these actions:
Ex: "He was very tired. He had finished reading a book. He took a cup of milk and went to sleep."
To native English speakers, it is obvious that he was tired because he had read a book. He ate something and slept. The Pluperfect (Past Perfect tense) is used to retrospect an action which happens and finishes before the previous Past sentence. Do we disagree?
But in translation, many Chinese readings will just say something to this effect: "He was very tired. He read through a book, and then, after taking a cup of milk, went to sleep."
As we shall see, we Chinese readers may have a good chance to understand wrongly that when he was tried, he relaxed himself by finishing a book!! And then he went to sleep.
It is true that we Chinese may put in some time indicators such as 'already' to say clear the sequence of actions. But since the Pluperfect is a very well-used tense (in 'past background'), we would not repeat the same indicator every time we should. However, in lawful stipulations, the indicator will never be spared.
If one argues that logically, a Chinese will not misunderstand this situation, I have to explain that when we read a story translation in magazine for pastime, we will not work our brain to an intensive degree. In short, comparatively, Chinese language has a shortage of indicators in expressing the temporal arrangement of happenings.
By the way, as we see here, the Pluperfect (Past Perfect) should be explained also in paragraph (more than one sentence). I can prove that even in "John said Mary had bought a hat", the Pluperfect simply denotes that 'had bought' happens and finishes before 'said'. [See "Repost": A question about tenses(2): Tense in reported speech]. The tense denotes this relation and no more. Furthermore, I want to defense even here that, in the 'present background', we may say "John said that Mary has bought a hat." Two backgrounds, two tense systems, and two kinds of time relations.
Ironically, as I have made clear myself, I am sure that English grammars don't care about the time relations within a paragraph. Even I strive to prove here that tenses are mainly used to tell the time relationship between sentences, many of us still prefer to discuss tenses in many an isolated sentence. Therefore I want to rearrange the order. Before we want to compare the two languages for the time relations, we should ask a question about English: In what way do we see that we use tenses to tell the time relations between sentences?
Shunzzzz
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: My way of studying tenses (3 of 7), Read 593 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Wednesday, December 30, 1998 10:06 AM Past action vs present action
The subject is about time. We may here explore the timing of the past and the present actions. Eventually, we may examine some 'elusive time adjuncts' closely.
If we talk about time, what is the temporal characteristic of a finished action -- what we call past action? It is a certain past time. A past action is ended before now, in a certain past time. It has no temporal connection to the present moment. Any action connected to the present shall be regarded as a present action.
Since the Present Perfect expresses a past action, it contains a notion of 'ended before now'. Therefore, the tense is logically not compatible with 'up to now'. The corroborative result is that we cannot find them stayed together in a sentence. The combination "I have done my homework up to now" doesn't make sense. This contradicts those grammars which advocate the Perfect tense is 'often' combined with some time adjuncts including 'up to now' [See A question about tenses (5): Another elusive time adjunct.]
Again, if we talk about time, what is the characteristic of an unfinished action -- what we call present action? It is HOW LONG the action is doing now. Actually, most of the actions at present are not started right at the present moment, for example: "I live in Hong Kong". We call them present actions because they are not finished at present. They are always started in the past. Therefore, we shall not say that a present action has nothing to do with the past.
With the measurement of the timepiece such as today's, we can divide one second into more than a million parts. Even when we are speaking out a sentence, some parts of it can be measured as past, some other parts are in the speaking, and there will be some other parts coming from brain to mouth. Taking this as a hint, we may know that ALL present actions will have something to do with the past. They are always started in a certain past time. It follows that a present action is quite compatible with a past time adjunct -- if we talk about the time of the action.
In a present action like "I have lived in Hong Kong since 1968", there is a past time adjunct, even a definite one. The validity of the compatibility of these present-past elements is without any doubt. And if we accept "since 1968" is a definite past time adjunct, we may accept that its telltale synonym "in the past thirty years" (calculated in the present year of 1998) is also used to describe a present action: "I have lived here in the past thirty years".
Consequently, a grammar is proven wrong in saying that "IT [the Present Perfect] MUST NOT BE ACCOMPANIED BY ANY ADVERB OR ADVERBIAL EXPRESSION WHICH DENOTES PAST TIME. We cannot say 'I have seen him last Wednesday'." (See A question about tenses: The "basic fact"). Actually, both the Simple Past and the Present Perfect can be accompanied by different past time adjuncts.
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: My way of studying tenses (4 of 7), Read 592 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Duncan Baker Date:
Wednesday, December 30, 1998 03:02 PM >"I have lived here in the past thirty years".
This, to me, implies at times within the past thirty years. Were it continual, I would insist on: "I have lived here for the past thirty years."
Duncan Baker
Forum Administrator
Lydbury English Centre
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: My way of studying tenses (5 of 7), Read 586 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Thursday, December 31, 1998 06:35 AM In A question about tenses (8): The "basic fact", we had the following examples collected from readings:
Ex: There have been great improvements in school teaching in the past ten years.
Ex: As a result, the number of multiple births in the U.S. has more than quadrupled in the past quarter-century.
Ex: At least in the past few years exitways from central Paris have been greatly improved.
Ex: This function has greatly increased in importance over the past hundred years.
Ex: During the past decade regional bodies and groups have prepared many valuable plans.
Ex: For much of the past year the service has engaged in a running -- and losing -- battle with spammers. (Time Magazine, Vol. 150 No.23, page 4 [December 8, 1977])
Ex: In the past two months, AOL has filed two lawsuits.....The mysterious modifier 'past' in this situation seems able to indicate the duration of How Long backwards from now. Were it uncontinual, we may disuse the adjective, for example: "I lived there for thirty years."
Clearly, "in the past few/four/ten years" stands for a group of frequently seen adjuncts including other prepositions. Here I have a difficulty to choose between 'in' and 'for'. But it seems to me that both are correct and 'in' is even much more frequent. In fact, it is by far the most frequent of all. Furthermore, we have explained that 'in the past thirty years' is synonymous to 'since 1968' (calculated in the present year of 1998). This may also explain why 'in' is the most frequent and most acceptable.
It may be a question of choice between prepositions, but I am sure that every one of these adjuncts is compatible with a present, continual action only.
I once talked with a reader (in another website) who claimed that I was not right in calling these adjuncts "definite past time" because all these activities are clearly, he was sure, not finished in a certain past. They all are continual. The discussion ended as I explained that "We are both right." The fact is, continual actions are quite compatible with definite past time adjuncts, which is the main theme of my message here.
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: My way of studying tenses (6 of 7), Read 596 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Duncan Baker Date:
Thursday, December 31, 1998 01:29 PM Shun, are you going to publish? You are producing some very intersting material.
For - usually a stative condition. I have lived here for the last 20 years.
In - Dynamic or changing condition. I have visited Paris at least 4 times in the last 6 months.
Duncan Baker
Forum Administrator
Lydbury English Centre
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: My way of studying tenses (7 of 7), Read 601 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 01, 1999 02:58 PM Dear Duncan,
Thank you for your explanation and suggestion.
As I have explained, I really need some guidance to tell me what to do.
I agree to publish for any kind. This is my dream. But I don't think any publisher would be interested in these little materials.
Shun