Now we have the Present Prefect tense and the Simple Past tense, and having learnt from grammar books, we make a remarkable effort to differentiate the two of them. My problem is, however, why then we waste such effort in indirect speech? In A Grammar of Contemporary English, Quirk et al. give us a clear formula of Back-shift: "Back-shift takes place when any reported matter is introduced by a reporting verb in the past tense. In these circumstances, the shift from direct to reported speech is accompanied by a back-shift of verb as follows:
present -------------------------------------------> past
past, present perfect, past perfect --------> past perfect"According to this formula, both "Mary bought a new hat" and "Mary has bought a new hat" are turned into the same form (the Past Perfect tense) in the reported speech, as in "John said Mary had bought a new hat." We can hardly tell whether the resulting Past Perfect tense could have come from the Present Perfect or the Simple Past. And usually we would not ask John exactly what tense did Mary use. Or, if to differentiate these two tenses is necessary and practical, should we ask?
It seems no trouble at all for grammarians to merge reportedly two different meanings (expressed by the Present Prefect and the Simple Past) into one (expressed by the Past Perfect tense). But it always bothers me. If we tell students to set a line between the two tenses, why shouldn't we ever do so in indirect speech? What do you pals think about this?
Shun Tang
Please send your comments to [email protected]
It should be noted that your comments will be treated and answered with respect, in this homepage.
Related message:
From a reader:
Again, the distinction is subtle but there is a difference. In "I've bought a hat" the hat was bought relatively recently. There is also an implication of this not being a normal action, buying a hat. "I bought a hat" means a hat was bought at some time in the past and probably not recently and that this action of buying a hat is probably not very unusual.
Does that help?
Shun replied:
You said, "the distinction is subtle but there is a difference." But I want to say," the distinction is so subtle that we cannot see a difference!" It is especially impossible for any young student to tell the subtle difference. Or else they will tell you a new, nonsensical way of their own.
If you still insist you see the subtle difference, please put it to test. According to your explanation, for example, if I want to say something both 'relatively recently' and 'not very unusual', should I say: "I bought and have bought a hat"? If not, why not?
For another thing, my subject is obviously about reported speech. Both "I've bought a hat" and "I bought a hat" are turned into the same form (the past perfect tense) in the speech, as in "John said Mary had bought a hat." And usually we would not ask John exactly what tense did Mary use. Now since you say that we can separate them in the speech, should we ask the speaker what tense did Mary use? What is your opinion?
From Bob:
If the time is really important then we would need to question more closely:
A: Mary said she had bought a hat.
B: Did she say when she had bought the hat?
A: Her exact words were "I bought the hat the day after the murder".
B: No further questions, Your Honour.
Otherwise, I don't think it's an important distinction.
Shun replied:
In sentences like "John said Mary had bought a new hat", since usually we don't ask John exactly what tense did Mary use, do you think this means that in reported speech it is usually not important to separate the two tenses? Why sometimes it is important to separate them (in direct speech) and sometimes (in reported speech) it isn't?
As for your example about the judge, in the court he has the duty and the power to ask about the time in details. But for most of the time, as in readings, how can we ask further about the time in details?
Bob replied:
My point is that if we really want to differentiate between a simple past and present perfect in reported speech, we would probably use a time adjunct.
"I bought the hat three days ago" becomes "Mary said she had bought the hat three days ago".
"I have just bought the hat" becomes "Mary said she had just bought the hat".
In the reported speech, "three days ago" and "just" serve to differentiate between the two past tense forms--but we would only use these time adjuncts if there was an important reason for being precise about the time relationship.
Shun relied:
You said, "My point is that if we really want to differentiate between a simple past and present perfect in reported speech....." But of course we want to! In fact, we have to because teachers tell us to differentiate between the two tenses.
It is true that a time adjunct will help a lot, for a while. But in the long run it does more harm than help. We actually say to students that "We HAVE TO differentiate the two tenses -- even in reported speech. You see, I can do it with time adjunct! You students have to figure out a way of your own." It is simply not fair. You just give the vision that you have solved the problem. In fact, you have found a way -- using time adjunct -- to avoid the problem.
Actually, without time adjuncts, we cannot separate the two tenses in the speech, can we?It should be noted that whether there is a time adjunct in the sentence, is not in our power. And most sentences in readings, as in "John said Mary had bought a new hat", contain no time adjunct. This is where the problem begins. Why shall grammars forget to tell us the reason why we don't need to differentiate the two tenses in reported speech?
Do grammarians recognize how much energy we have spent to tell children to draw a line between the meanings between Simple Past and Present Perfect (when we have no time adjunct) in direct speech? And then how can they back-shift and merge two different meanings into one meaning so easily, without explanation? They waste our energy and unfortunately, they waste students' too. They put teachers in a dilemma as to whether they shall draw the line any more.
Bob replied:
Teaching grammar and describing grammar are not necessarily the same thing.
I use many and varied techniques to help students understand the point I wish to make. I hope I would not force anything on my students, as that would be poor teaching.
If one wanted to have a logical explanation that matches the rules, one could (if one wished) suggest that no distinction is made in reported speech between the past simple and present perfect because both have become a past event viewed from the past:
"She said that she had bought a new hat."
said = refers to a past event (the moment of telling me)
had bought = a previous past event--therefore a past perfect may be used.
However, I would only use this explanation if I thought my students could cope with it and if it were relevant to their needs.
Shun replied:
If you said that "Teaching grammar and describing grammar are not necessarily the same thing", I think I have nothing more to say. I target at the confusion located in grammar books.