Here
is a big problem. How shall we deal with it? Nowadays, the principal way for grammars to explain tenses
is to play hide-and-seek. The hide away the difficulty, and seek out something from nowhere. And they trickily
arrange the data so that students will be aware of nothing. A grammar, Current English Usage, by F.T.Wood, is noted
for its aim at correcting students' errors in English usage. In explaining the Present Perfect, the book emphasizes
a helping rule: "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'." (Here the grammar itself
chose to use capital letters to emphasize the formula.) Actually, this is such a common rule that we need not
give a further example. But is this rule realistic? Everyone who has to write
a grammar book knows the corrupted fact when gathering data from readings. Instead of telling the truth, however,
they want to join in the hide-and-seek. In order to reinforcing the 'basic fact', grammarians agree to hide away
from their grammar books many past time adjuncts for the Present Perfect such as 'in the PAST few/four/ten years'!
Isn't this rather sneaky? Since we are not talking about just a few grammar books, the hiding problem can be bigger
than we could imagine. Ex: There have been great improvements in school teaching
in the past ten years. If you see an article in which the author argues against
some of current grammar principles, you must think that at least he is candid in facing the fact. Well, you had
better think twice. In his rather a short article, Tregidgo mentioned two times of the invisible adjunct "up
to now" (without examples). He must be an extremely careful reader to have frequently seen the elusive
time adjunct [see A question about tenses (5)]. But did the careful reader mention also the group of 'in
the past ten/four/few years'? Take a wild guess and you are still all right. In short, his data shall be false
data. I am therefore always asking myself: what will we finally
get from musing on false data? I can get no other answer but this: We will get nothing but something close to falsehood.
We pay money; grammars play hide-and-seek. To tell the truth, they have spent too much time on playing game, and
become detached far from the reality. They should ask themselves, "how far have we got away from the present
reality?"
A question about tenses (8): The "basic fact"
Remember the article "How far have we got
with the present perfect?" by P.S.Tregidgo
[see A question about tenses(6): The twin brothers]? He quoted many heavy-weight grammar books as references. He
questioned the validity of many statements explaining the tense. And he also relied much on the same rule: "Finally, the current relevance theory fails to explain the striking
fact that the present perfect is never accompanied by a past-time adverbial. ...'I have seen him yesterday'
typifies a mistake made and corrected thousands of times a day in schools all over the world."
Grammarians agree there is a 'basic fact' that in a sentence when we mention a past time, we shall use the Simple
Past instead of the Present Perfect. Hoping to clear away all the confusions about the two tenses, they use this
basic rule to put discussion to an end. So this is both a common rule and an important rule.
In ordinary readings like Time magazine, these past time adjuncts are frequently seen, and always combined with
the Present Perfect:
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.....
But have you ever seen a grammar book in which there are
examples explaining these past time adjuncts (with the telltale word PAST), in relation to the tense? No, you would
not. People have to learn it by themselves from readings other than grammars. A teacher even boosted this way of
learning as a natural way. I have seen many students using the past tense with such adjuncts. If asked,
they argue, "Because there is a past time adjunct in the sentence, I have to use the past tense!" Experienced
writers would know, however, the only suitable choice is the Present Perfect.
***Again, to back up the 'basic fact', when explaining "We have lived here since 1920", grammars
explain 'since' only, and keep silent about '1920'. The magic is that as long as they don't mention about
'1920', they may still neglect the past tense. Every grammarian has to know the trick. However, do we see by ourselves
a definite past time mentioned here in the sentence? Can't we see that THE PRESENT PERFECT TENSE CAN BE ACCOMPANIED
BY AN ADVERB OR ADVERBIAL EXPRESSION WHICH DENOTES PAST TIME?
The basic fact? Something is basically wrong here.
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:
Although I'm not an "English teacher", I think I know English enough in order to answer your question.
Of course, usual grammar books are rather sloppy about the use of the present perfect, as about everything in general. Here is what I can say to you about it.
The present perfect has two different, completely unrelated uses in English. The two uses can be seen as HOMONYMOUS (same form, different meanings). The first use is what your grammar book has in mind when it says `no past-tense adverbials' may accompany it. This is not precise, either, but this use is in principle restricted to events and states that started somewhere in the past and are still going on or still hold. The `past adverbials' that this use excludes are those that refer to the starting point or the entire run-time of the event/state, such as `two years ago', `back in 1920' or `yesterday'. The past adverbials that it tolerates, on the other hand, are those that are compatible with this meaning of the present perfect, i.e., adverbials like `since 1920', `for two days [now]' etc.
The other, homonymous, use of the present perfect is what is sometimes referred to as `existential' in the linguistic literature. This meaning is rather difficult to paraphrase, but it is like the positive affirmation that an event (of a given type) has occurred sometime in the past (you see, I had to use the present perfect itself to explain what it means). This use is compatible with all types of temporal adverbials. `There have been attempts in the last 20 years' or even `in the Middle Ages' are examples of this use.
The fact that the present perfect is used for two completely different purposes also raises problems in translation. Unfortunately, I don't know how its two senses are rendered in Chinese, but I would be glad to know it. In Hungarian, it is mostly reflected by word-order and stress variation, as in `Tu3zolto1 voltam' (I was a fireman [at that time]), which corresponds to a simple past tense, as opposed to `Voltam tu3zolto1' (I have served as a fireman sometime in the past; it is not the case that I never served as a fireman). The sense in which we talk about a state that still holds in the present, we normally use the present tense (`Ke1t e1ve tu3zolto1 vagyok' -- I have been a fireman for two years [and I still am one]). (Oh, yes: `tu3zolto1' means fireman, `voltam' means I was, and `vagyok' means I am.)
Finally, there are certain constructions that are peculiar for the existential use of the present perfect, and which show that this is a special use indeed. For example, the phrase `I have been to London before' is existential; if you want to say `I am in London and this has been like this for two weeks', you have to say `I have been IN London for two weeks', and you cannot use the preposition `to', as in all other forms of the verb `be': `I am IN London', not *`I am TO London'. So the prepositional phrase `to London' with the verb `be' only works if you use `be' in the present perfect AND in the existential sense.
-- Laszlo
Shun replied:
Truly you know much more English than I do. In fact, some of your message is beyond my ability to understand. Look at the explanation and we will say it is sheer madness for children to learn English tenses. But the truth is, children use tenses, and we had to explain to them how to use them. I have said elsewhere: The easier the explanation is, the more reasonable it is. The 'basic' rule above is wrong, but in no way shall we substitute it with a deep theory that has no bottom, to scare away children.
I am afraid that I cannot agree to what you said, "Of course, usual grammar books are rather sloppy about the use of the present perfect, as about everything in general." What I mean is, they shouldn't be that sloppy. Besides, Current English Usage is a very popular reference, a grammar of discretion. It teaches us to see between right or wrong of English usage. It seems to you that I have just found one loophole in an English grammar book and make a storm in the teacup. But do we know how common and important the rule we are talking about is? If this one is sloppy, which other one is better?
I am very surprised that you even didn't mention anything about the adjunct 'in the PAST few/four/ten years'. Can't you see they are the subject matter of our message? Why is this group of adjuncts so unmentionable and untouchable that we grammars can't even talk about it? Even here, at this stage, we still avoid them!! May somebody tell me why?
From Ronald:
As I read over your examples of what you call past tense adjuncts which seem to be compatible with the present perfect, I think they all have one thing in common. They all (or nearly all) seem to refer to a past time which comes up to the present (the past four years, this past decade, over the past 100 years, in the past two months, for much of the past year). In fact, all of the expressions you include contain the word PAST. I think that such expressions include the time going back as far as the expressions mentions and coming up to the present. And this is exactly what the present perfect does isn't it? It talks about things that may have happened in the past but maintain relevance in the present. Things that have happened in the past and could continue happening in the present. That is why we can say, "I have never had lunch with Chomsky" but we cannot say, "*I have never had lunch with Socrates".
All of these temporal expressions that contain the word "past" (past few months, past ten years) all seem to be the same kind of expression that starts in the past but maintains relevancy in the present, a feature they share with the present perfect. This is my explanation at least. Hope this helps.
Shun replied:
The point is, all things happened have current relevance. All past things have relevance in the present. That is why we cannot separate the two tenses: Simple Past and Present Perfect. Only a murderer in court wants to say: what I did last year have no relevance in the present.
In our daily writing or speaking, have we ever used a past tense? Look closely into it, and see if it really has no current relevance. If it has no relevance in the present, why do we say it at present?
As I have said in A question about tenses(6): The twin brothers, "The biggest fallacy of the above theory of current relevance is that they simply skip the past tense. Does the past which is expressed by the past tense have no current relevance at all? I doubt that. It is unfair to say, for example, that "John injured his leg badly last week and it was cut off in the hospital" has nothing to do with the present time. If you see result or current relevance in a present perfect sentence, why can't you see result or current relevance in a past tensed sentence? Believe it or not, anything you say about the pastness of the present perfect tense will eventually fits to that of the simple past tense like a glove. Both of them can say the same thing of the same time [see A question about tense (11): A new difficulty]."
You said, "That is why we can say, "I have never had lunch with Chomsky" but we cannot say, "*I have never had lunch with Socrates"."
But as for 'Socrates' and 'never', aren't they too obvious? They are time indicators, one always with the past, and the other always with the present perfect. Yes, using time indicators like 'yesterday' and 'in the past ten years', we can separate the two tenses. No one will disagree. And many teachers are using time adjuncts to end the discussion for the two tenses all right.But there is still one difficulty. Even though every single past time adjunct has its own specific meaning, they all are past time. Sentences with these adjuncts all are expressing something in the past and having a relevance to the present. Then how shall we define, in a general way, the difference between (1) and (2)?
(1) John was seriously injured at work yesterday.
(2) John has live here in the past ten years.I have no choice but conclude: Both Past and Perfect can be combined with the past time adjunct. What else is the statement? That's why I said we cannot separate the two of them by definition. To make things worse, 'in the past four/ten/few years' has long been neglected by traditional grammars. They are willing to look at 'yesterday' only. I therefore think we can never have a clear look at the twins, by the old way of explanation.
Now with the cases without these time indicators, how can we tell the difference between (3) and (4)?(3) Mary has bought a new hat.
(4) Mary bought a new hat.We can never tell the difference. My conclusion is: the two sentences are of the same meaning. That's why I said we cannot separate the two tenses by definition.
From a reader:
'In the past ten years' is not finished. When did the improvements happen? Last year? Two years ago? Several different dates between 1988 and 1998. More likely, present perfect is here describing an unfinished action. The changes may continue.
As for the idea that simple past and present perfect can describe the same action in the past, I agree. But we are bound by (imperfect) rules that suggest if there is a date, use simple past, etc.
Shun replied:
You focus on that 'in the past ten years' is not finished. I focus on that it is a past time adjunct. In fact, we are both right, aren't we?
In my answer page, under IT IS ABOUT TIME, I said, "And we may conclude here: A past action will have no temporal connection to the present moment; but a present action MUST have some connection with the past time. If we talk about the time of an unfinished action, we may talk about HOW LONG it is from a past time, up to the present moment." So I say we are both right.
Also your message:
=======================
As for the idea that simple past
and present perfect can describe
the same action in the past, I agree.
But we are bound by (imperfect)
rules that suggest if there is a date,
use simple past, etc.
=======================
One more time, you have clearly said what I need a lot of time trying to express myself. The rule that we use past simple with past dates, is imperfect. I wish I knew it when I was a student. We help students to get close to the truth by discussion, don't we?
Very strangely, this rule is proven imperfect soon after we have found out that ALL grammars are avoiding a group of past time adjuncts: IN THE PAST FOUR/TEN/FEW YEARS. In the eye of teaching, is this all right? How can grammars get away from these adjuncts for so long a time, and so simple?