by Shun Tang Linguists shall here consider an important phenomenon: We Chinese and some other languages use
sentence, without tense, to express habit, for example. Does English have to throw two stones -- tense and
sentence -- to kill one bird, expressing habit? Obviously not. Sentences alone are capable to do the expression.
Tenses have another important role to play, but it is overlooked by many. As an English leaner frankly told me,
"what you have asked and suggested is so simple, and yet is totally out of our expectation." Truly, many of my Questions have been posted to many websites and left totally untouched.
Why do English tenses have the problems?
I try to make clear, in a very brief way, the whole situation of the Past, the Perfect, and the Present. The following
contains nothing but ordinary pieces of information we are familiar with. But if we put them together, you will
be surprised at what you have always believed in.
As can be understood, the chief obstacle is to put three tenses -- Past, Perfect, and Present, -- into two
timings: past and present. It is extremely difficult. We don't have a perfect time.
After a long pursuit, I finally noticed there are four simple rules for these three tenses:
(1) The Present tense expresses present action (unfinished action).
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(2) The Perfect tense expresses past action (finished action).
Ex: I have finished my homework.
But if we state a definite past time in the sentence, tenses have to change:
(3) The Perfect tense expresses present action (unfinished action).
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong SINCE 1966.
(4) The Past tense expresses past action (finished action).
Ex: I finished my homework YESTERDAY.
As we see from these rules, the Perfect tense can sometimes express past action, sometimes present action. This
is where the mystery is. But now there are easy rules to see it clear.
Failing to see between these rules, however, grammars unanimously try to explain that (all) the Perfect tense is
used to denote something about the present:
Ex: I have finished my homework. (I am free now.)
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong since 1966. (I am living
here.)
Grammar books usually stop here, and wish they could stop here.
But some students will think up further and find there are obviously mystic points. The question is, the Past tense
as in (4), with or without YESTERDAY, is also finished action, and can always denote something about the present:
Ex: I finished my homework. (I am free now.)
In other words, no matter how grammars explain, the Perfect is in the same meaning as the Past:
Ex: I have finished my homework. (I am free now.)
Ex: I finished my homework. (I am free now.)
The consequence is, as I have discussed with many teachers with high prestige in this area, no one can clearly
split the difference between the Perfect and the Past. Furthermore, if we know how frequently this question of
difference is asked by students -- native or foreign, we know that it is really a serious problem.
To solve the problem, grammarians make up their mind and state that the Past expresses a past action, whereas the
Perfect tells the present result of a past action:
Ex: I have finished my homework. (I am free now.)
Ex: I finished my homework. (I did it in a definite past time.)
Now the problem seems solved, but the evasive explanation finally gives birth to more problems than solutions!
At best, this is only an illusion. Using tenses, you want audience sometimes to focus on the result of the past
action, sometimes on the past action and nothing more. You want to take audience as robots.
Does the Past:
Ex: I finished my homework. (I did it in a definite
past time.)
assert not a present result also? as in:
Ex: I finished my homework. (I am free now.)
At this point, students are deeply puzzled. And yet, they cannot understand how to ask about this confusion. The
puzzle is quite beyond them. So far, the advantage is on the grammarian's side.
Or is it? In fact, the action-or-result illusion torments not only students and teachers, but also grammarians
themselves. In order to reinforce this fragile difference they claim of tenses:
Ex: I have finished my homework. (I am free now.)
Ex: I finished my homework. (I did it in a definite past time.)
grammars have no choice but suggest the action stated in the Perfect is not done in a definite past time.
The consequence is, they -- all grammar books -- have to run away from explaining the following kind of sentences:
Ex: They have studied about this subject IN THE PAST
TEN YEARS.
where the Perfect is staying together with a past time adjunct.
"IN THE PAST FEW/FOUR/TEN YEARS" is a very frequently used time adjunct. We simply cannot avoid this
adverbial expression ourselves. However, you can bet anything on it that your grammar book does not talk about
it, in relation of tense. This is an uncivilized avoidance. This is not an argument. And this is an evidence: We
either have it, or we don't have it. It is not accidental
that your grammar books do not talk about this time adverbial, in relation of tenses.
Now the questions pour in. In order to make this hypothesis of result look true:
Ex: I have finished my homework. (I am free now.)
nearly all definitions about the Present tense are donated to the Perfect. The only thing left to the Present tense
is for it to express habitual action and permanence:
Ex: We go to the park every week.
What a shame! What a distortion! We use the Present tense to express anything at present! The tense really
has nothing to do with habitual action or permanence. Then they grammarians even have to avoid explaining
the function of 'sentence', which actually expresses these things. For example as in the sentence "We go to the park every week",
no matter what tense we use, it is still a habitual
action, isn't it?
This is the whole confusing situation of the Present, the Perfect, and the Past.
Now you may understand why we shall ask questions. You can ask the questions by yourself, and answer them with
a good discussion!!!