Greetings,
Although I still use my old notebook computer to edit, I know it will not last long. It nearly breaks apart. And it dances noisily inside for a while every time the power is on. But the manual for the computer is written in the present tense. Let's figure out why the present tense?
"The main use of the simple present tense is to express habitual actions", as puts a grammar book. Another grammar says, "It (the present tense) doesn't really describe present action, but something permanent or habitual." In those examples the grammarians give for habitual actions, there is not a single sentence starting with a lifeless thing. I agree to them. Those things without life will hardly have habits.
But the truth also is: such lifeless things as my computer, are not permanent. And then my question is inevitable: what are those present tenses in the computer manual doing? Why do people use the tense throughout the book to describe something neither habitual nor permanent?
Perhaps, let us put away the manual for a while. We ourselves use the present tense frequently and amply all the day. Do you really think there are so many permanent things we can discover swiftly and continually, as long as we talk? Or are we just talking about someone's habits while he is not around? I don't think so. I just have an idea that grammars nowadays are not even close to the main theme of the simple present tense we are using.
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 Bob:
Shun Tang: you're raising some excellent points. I think you're showing the inadequacy of many grammar books in encapsulating the full richness of English.
One concept that is useful is the idea of relativity. The systems on the computer (to take your example) are RELATIVELY permanent for the purposes of the communication. This means that, okay, the computer won't last for more than a few years, but within that time, this manual holds good and the instructions that it provides will continue to operate the machine (all being well).
Sometimes we have to construct a degree of relative permanence in our ever-changing world otherwise we will be completely destabilised and disorientated!
Shun replied:
Does the thinking ever occur to you that the Simple Present tense has nothing to do with permanence? The explanation of the grammar books is misleading. That's all.
Bob replied:
The thought has occurred to me and I reject it. "Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade" has permanence to it (or as much permanence as is possible in the universe).
The simple present tense is neither simple, nor always related to the present. It performs many functions, as the grammar books (often) rightly tell us--although I am not defending grammarians as my other e-mails show.
Relative permanence is a perfectly acceptable notion. "I am British" is an example. It is a permanent attribute so long as I am alive (and therefore only relatively permanent). Communication is about shared understandings between human beings. We construct the world according to those understandings, and relative permanence is a technique which we use.
Can you produce a counter-argument? For instance, I'd be interested in an alternative explanation for the computer example which you mention.
Shun replied:
I am trying to answer your question for me about relative permanence: "Can you produce a counter-argument? For instance, I'd be interested in an alternative explanation for the computer example which you mention."
I give a few items of counter-argument below. But I have to do a short introduction first. All grammars nowadays have a weak point: If they say the present tense expresses habitual action for example, then what tense is used to express non-habitual action? The answer is again the present tense! The same thing applies to any other 'meaning', such as 'permanency', 'regular action', 'general truth', etc. We shall focus on this some other time if we want to.
As for relative permanence, in fact, you have already seen the main (or the only one) counter-argument in the main Question:
"Perhaps, let us put away the manual for a while. We ourselves use the present tense frequently and amply all the day. Do you really think there are so many permanent things we can discover swiftly and continually, as long as we talk?"
I have used the present tense myself, but I'll be damned if for one time I deliberately think of whether or not I am talking of some permanence when I use the tense.
Secondly, in the following drama:
John: "Which one do you want?"
Mary: "I take the apple."
here Mary uses the present tense. How on earth can we put an echelon of permanence here in explaining the tense? It is non-permanence. Both permanence and non-permanence can be expressed by the present tense.
Lastly, in grammars there is a kind of "Instantaneous Present: I now place the turkey in the oven". How can we match the tense with any relative permanence? This use of the present tense is truly anti-permanence.
The conclusion is that there must be cases rather relatively present than relatively permanent. Since all the cases between two relativity can be expressed by the present tense, why shall we have to hold on to the relatively permanent, rather than the relatively present?
Don't we see that in explaining the simple present tense, 'relatively present' is less offensive than 'relatively permanent'? Therefore, if we still like relativity, we should try 'relatively present'.
On the other hand, as for the kinds of permanence you take for example:
Ex: "Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade."
Ex: "I am British."
we know that the examples are instances of permanence -- even without the tense! Actually, it is the sentence that expresses the permanence. Therefore how can we say it is the present tense that expresses the forever meaning? We mistake sentence as tense [see A question about tense12): Sentence vs tense]. Consequently, there is no 'relatively permanent' theory for the present tense, and I think there is no 'relatively present' theory either.
My whole explanation is that THE PRESENT TENSE EXPRESSES SOMETHING NOT FINISHED NOW. This definition will explain all kinds of present tensed sentences. Not only mine, but also yours as well. My definition can be simple because most of the meanings are loaded onto the sentences.
"The earth moves around the sun" is a permanence expressed by the sentence. The present tense says that the permanent action -- the whole meaning of the sentence -- is not finished now.
Further, I hope there is no objection to the fact that the sense of permanence in our grammars can be changed, that is to say, can be finished. I cannot say "I am a Chinese" if I have changed my nationality. What I mean is, the action "I am a Chinese" can be finished. Using the simple present, one can say about anything but finished actions. What it cannot do is express both unfinished actions, and finished ones.
As for the computer manual, people may literally say anything in the present tense in the booklet, as long as they think that what they say is applicable (not finished) by the time they write. We should say every sentence in the manual has its own meaning, which has nothing to do with the tense.
People can speak and think fast, not because there are a lot of permanence. It is because there are a lot of unfinished jobs waiting.
This is my brief explanation, and I hope at least I can express myself to you.
Bob replied:
I don't think we disagree. I was focusing on one function of the present simple tense. Actually there are many functions, many of which have little to do with permanence or even relative permanence. See L.G. Alexander's diagrams in one of his grammar books (I forget offhand which one) for examples of the different time references of the so-called "present" "simple" tense.
Some are performatives ('I name this ship "Titanic"'); others are references to the future ('I go to Beijing next week.') And so on.
Shun replied:
You said, "I was focusing on one function of the present simple tense."
But I had already replied "My whole explanation is that THE PRESENT TENSE EXPRESSES SOMETHING NOT FINISHED NOW. This definition will explain all kinds of present tensed sentences. ...My definition can be simple because most of the 'meaning' is loaded onto the sentences." I admit I failed to express myself clearly.
Sentences, because of their infinite numbers, are much more capable than merely a few tenses -- we are talking about ALL the English tenses, and comparing tenses with ALL the possible meanings in sentences. As far as I know, even with all the tenses put together, they are fewer than one or two dozens. But do we have any idea how many meaningful sentences are there? A million? A billion? A billion billion? It is no doubt to me we express ourselves (in English) chiefly by sentences, rather than by a few tenses.
Therefore I have said elsewhere (in my Answer Page):
"I have introduced a new concept to the tense theory: SENTENCE. If you think I am joking, you are right. Sometimes I think the same way too. But to my long-term survey, SENTENCE is indeed a new concept for tense explanation: When grammars talk about tenses, they forget SENTENCE. After I have finally found out that grammars confuse sentence with tense, I know that what I say to tenses will be SOME different to traditional explanation."
In our eye, the real joke is to say something like "the present tense is used to express habitual action as in He goes to school everyday". The carefully chosen example here is so good and so perfect. But the explanation is nothing but hide-and-seek. In short, it is beyond human's ability to estimate how many meanings there are in the world. And how can we fit all the meanings into just a few tenses?
In fact, in order to explain English tenses, we have to count on a group of sentences, rather than just a sentence. Without paragraph, there is no real tense explanation.
Tenses are about time, and time only. The main function of tenses is to coordinate the timings (orders) between happenings (sentences). In one isolated, demonstrative sentence such as we usually see in grammar books, we will see nothing about the duty of the tense. It is not the meaning or definition such as 'habit' that controls the choice of a tense. It is the paragraph, the arrangement of a paragraph that controls a tense. For example, the Simple Past and the Present Perfect can only be sharply differentiated within a paragraph. (I did say the twins have the same meaning, but I didn't say they have the same function in a paragraph.)
I explain tenses not by introducing new inventive terms or theory, but by defining many of the basic terms about tense: present, past, future, sentence vs tense, finished action vs unfinished action, paragraph, etc. And I don't think these basic terms are already well defined in grammars or known instinctively by us. Nowadays English tense theory based on hide-and-seek, and jargons, if you know what I mean. I don't think we can get any valuable conclusion from false data. Never.
Now go back to our questions. How do we know "I name this ship Titanic" is performatives? It is because of the sentence that we know. The present tense says that the action -- the whole meaning of the sentence -- is not finished by time the speaker expresses himself.
And how do we know "I go to Beijing next week" is a kind of future action? It is because of the sentence that we know. The present tense can say the action is not finished now. Since you have skipped mentioning of the future tense here, I have to follow you.