Job Discussion Forums

[Nabby Adams]

Today I found myself at a loss on quite a simple grammar point.

Imagine a guy coming out of a pool. Wet.

What have you been doing?
I have been swimming for 2 hours.

It's clear that he has now stopped. Present perfect continuos.

When did you come to Thailand?
I have been living in Thailand for 2 years.

It's clear that the person is still living in Thailand. Present perfect continuos.

How can this be?

[chinaamber]

In this case it is down to the speakers view of the time scale each event took place. The completeness, or lack of, is in regards to the time scale, not the event. The speaker views the time frame as a unified whole in both sentences. The event and the time frame are separate. In the simple past the event and the time frame are one and the same, the event and the time frame have both ended.

In your first example, I would modify the sentence to be !I have been swimming for the last two hours".

Does this make any sense?

[Dedicated]

Hi Nabby,

We use the present perfect and present perfect continuous to describe activities which started in the past and have continued up to the present, or activities which stopped recently. These are often verbs which describe activities which normally happen over a period of time, eg. live, study, learn, wait, work etc etc.

The problem with your example is that when you ask " When did you come to Thailand?", you would expect the answer to be in the past simple because it is a completed event.

eg. I came last September
I arrived two years ago.

Then the conversation might continue with the present perfect continuous, eg. I came two years ago. I have been living in Bangkok since then.

The speaker has just jumped the first stage! If it was a native speaker, we probably wouldn't think twice about it, but with an EFL learner, we might want to review the use of past simple / present perfect.

Does that help??

[johnslat]

Dear Nabby Adams,
The explanation Dedicated gave regarding your second example is excellent. To answer a present perfect tense question with the past tense would be unusual, but the opposite is more common:

When did you arrive here?

In 2000. I've been here for 8 years.

Regarding your first example:

The present perfect continuous can be used to describe an action that began in the past and stopped just prior to the time of speaking.
In such cases, evidence of the past action is usually visible:

A: Why is your hair so wet?

B: I've been walking in the rain (B is not walking in the rain at the time of speaking.)

"Riggenbach and Samuda (2000, p. 228) present the use of the PPP to talk about an activity that was happening very recently, the effect or results of which can still be observed or sensed:

Example 15

A: Why are your hands green?

B: I have been painting my room.

Example 16

K: How are you feeling?

P: Fine�a little tired�I've been working very hard as you can imagine."

http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol41/no1/p2.htm


Regards,
John

[Glenski]

Both examples show the same situation.

The action is still going to continue in the speaker's mind. The fact that the swimmer is out of the water is irrelevant. Using "have been swimming" implies he is going to continue, same with "have been living".

[TheLongWayHome]

[rusmeister]

One thing I would add to clarify John's example - because you could use both the PP Simple and PP Cont. to result in wet hair - the PPC would be used when the result is due to, not just the simple fact of an action, but due to its duration - ie, walking in a light rain for 30 seconds is not going to get you thoroughly soaked, but walking in it for half an hour may. Similarly, you would not necessarily be filthy from simply digging a hole, but if you had been digging all day, you probably would be.

[charlieDD]

One way PPC is used is to talk about what recent action caused what you can observe now.

EX: You walk into a restroom. Nobody is in the room. You smell cigarette smoke and there is still some cigarette smoke in the air. You say "Someone's been smoking in here."

Several perfect examples can be found in "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"

EX: Someone's been eating my porridge.
Someone's been sitting in my chair.
Someone's been lying in my bed. . . And there she is !!

Another example: Your office mate comes back from lunch and he's got a bit of wasabi on one corner of his mouth. You say "You've been eating sushi, haven't you?" . . Or maybe it's chocolate ice cream on a kid's shirt. "Johnny, have you been eating ice cream? You know you're not supposed to eat that before dinner."

It's basically an evidence observed, assumption made kind of thing.

Of course, if, as in your stated example, you know what caused that which you or others observe, you still can use the PPC to point out the cause, as your first example of the man recently swimming and explaining that is all wet because he's been swimming.

Your other example, about someone living in Thailand, . . it's a different case / situation. It is using the PPC to express the duration of an action or condition that started in the past and continues to the present. You may also use the PPS ( simple ) to express the same thing when you are talking about certain life situations, such as living, working, teaching, etc. So, you could just as well say "I have lived in Thailand for two years" when you have, uh, been living there for two years ! Of course, there is a limit to using the PPC in this way and that is when the verb is non-progressive, such as know, love ( unless you are McDonald's and are "lovin' it" - ARGH ), like, et.

Hope this helps.

And if anyone wants, feel free to reprint, repost, reproduce all you want !

[rusmeister]

[Nabby Adams]

Thanks for the replies. They are very helpful.

[tanuki]

Heya Nabby

The "problem" here stems from the erroneous "rules of usage" that we learn on our initial training courses and in just about every freakin' textbook there is. We "learn" this stuff, but if language is a system (natural inconsistencies aside) then how on earth can it be so ridiculously inconsistent on this particular grammar point?

Simple: What we learn is wrong.

The Present Perfect (progressive or simple) does NOT communicate the idea of "something that started in the past and continues to the present."

Sorry.

Yeah, I know a number of the previous posters have asserted this position.

And I know it's everywhere you turn in EFL materials.

And, no, I'm not going out of my way to be trollish or inflammatory (or even insulting to the previous posters)...

It's just a simple case of the fact that...

the Present Perfect (progressive or simple) does NOT communicate the idea of "something that started in the past and continues to the present."

Really.

This structure is a MAJOR cause of frustration for both teachers and learners of English. And the same old tosh keeps getting passed from one generation of teachers and materials writers to the next.

The perfect "aspect" of the English language communicates the concept of "before". Nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn't matter if you say "He's done X", "He's been doing X", "He'd done X", "He'd been doing X", "He [modal auxilliary] have done X", "He [modal] have been doing X"

...doesn't matter. The CHOICE of this aspect communicates the way the speaker "sees" the action as being something "before a point". And that point can obviously move forward or backward in time from the time of speaking (depending on the idea being communicated).

Now, the typical confusion arises surrounding the "continues to the present" crap with the use of the prepositional phrases of time used TOGETHER WITH a perfect aspect.

"He's done X... for [period] / since [point]"
"He's been doing X... for [period] / since [point]"
"He'd done X... for [period] / since [point]"
"He'd been doing X... for [period] / since [point]"
"He [modal] have done X... for [period] / since [point]"
"He [modal] have been doing X... for [period] / since [point]"

You'll notice that the combination of these two components demonstrates how whatever is seen as "before" the "point of focus" is linked through to that very same "point of focus".

----------------------------------------------------------

(a) I've been to Korea

and

(b) I've lived in Japan for 2 years

are both examples of something that I see as being "before now".

The ONLY difference in the second one is that it has an additional component to the idea I wish to communicate and that is "up to the focal point (which happens, in this example to be "Now").

Students (and teachers) RIGHTLY struggle to make sense of the Perfect Aspect when rubbish "rules" such as the one I referenced earlier are taught and re-taught uncritically.

I mean, really, if the "rule" we learn (the one about "started in the past..." **yawn**) is not true, then how do we make sense of sentences (a) and (b) to our students? Particularly (a), which clearly doesn't fit the "rule".

[You'll note, however, that it does fit the concept "before".]

Answer: We invent all sorts of complicated "get out of jail free cards" that do more harm than good for the development of the language learners' understanding (conscious or not) of the way the language actually works.

Further examples of these kinds of non-rules and my take on them can be found in this post:

http://www.usingenglish.com/weblog/archives/000356.html#more

(Pretty good site, by the way. Alex Case has just joined their team, too, so there should be some good quality stuff coming our way shortly)

As for the "progressive" or the "continuous" bit, well that's just another grammatical aspect piled on top of the existing idea. In English, this is communicated with the "be +ing" structure and is always (like just about everything we say) CHOSEN by the speaker (except in fixed expressions) in order to emphasise a duration (and the reasons for this are, of course, myriad and largely dependent on the speaker and the particular idea being expressed).

So to put them together in an example like "I've been painting my room" is fine. All it means is the speaker wants to emphasise the "painting" as an action "before now" AND that s/he wishes to emphasise the duration.

Now, someone might be quick (too hasty in fact, for the sake of splitting hairs, or playing Devil's Advocate, or just chiming in to hear the sound of their own voice when they don't know what they're talking about) to say "But hey! If she said 'I've painted my room" it wouldn't mean the same thing!"

And, wow, they'd be quite right. How 'bout that.

But it might be a valid question to ask "Well, why wouldn't a speaker BE LIKELY to say such a thing in that context?"

To which I would answer: "Because it is MORE LIKELY that the speaker wants to emphasise the duration of that action before now. In this case the painting over a period of time" Why? I dunno.

But it usually the case that when we (as English speakers) want to communicate an idea such as that one ("I've been dancing in the rain", "She'd been eating chocolate chip cookies all morning" By the time you get here, you'll have been driving for 17 hours and you'll need a rest!" etc. that we tend to select the combined perfect and continuous aspects for precisely the reasons that I just suggested.

Also, I'm not convinced of the "evidence" thing meaning it's finished or unfinished, which is another thing I hear and read often. "I've been doing push-ups" is probably finished, right? Well, who knows! maybe the speaker is just taking a little break when asked "Why are you sweating so hard?" Who knows?

Likewise, some grammar books like to suggest (the contrary!) point that "I've been painting my room" is not yet complete. Again, who knows? We need more contextual information that the verb form just cannot--by itself--adequately provide. What about "I've just finished painting my room"?

(Now, don't be confused by the "-ing" form here. I posted recently about vocab patterns versus grammar. Can't remember where now. On the Japan Board, I think.)

I admit that the present perfect continuous is a bit of a curly one in English, but I stand behind my assertion(s).

No doubt people will come up with a whole bunch of "Well, smart arse, what about this..." and that's okay; I'll click on the "Follow this post" checkbox and try to do my best to answer any "challenges" that come in!

I am, of course, interested to hear your thoughts. You might find holes in my argument. Well, frankly, that's a good thing because then we can work on tightening it! The basic premises here are pretty water-tight methinks, and while I don't have any delusions that this little ol' thread is going to be the definitive word on the use of the Present Perfect in English, this really does need to be corrected for the record at some point. May as well start here!

So if y'all have something to add, fire away and we'll see what we can come up with, eh?

Tanuki

------------------------------------------
http://www.eflteachertraining.com
If you're serious about this gig...

[spiral78]

This is why I advocate Murphy's Grammar. Present perfect is used to express something that happened at some undetermined moment/time in the past, which is interesting/relevant at the present time for some reason.

Not necessarily continuing to the present. (at least, this is how I recall Murphy's explanation at this moment) The exact time in the past is not important - the subject of the sentence is what's useful or interesting.

Murphy's good at clear descriptions. Betty Azar's a different story:)

[rusmeister]

Hi Tanuki!
I think other people have expressed what you're expressing - imperfectly, perhaps, but still doing so. Just because a) we have different ways of expressing it" and b) have to understand it via naked electronic text doesn't mean that we've all got it wrong - although you are right that some explanations are better than others. I don't think anyone here intended to post a complete unit on the Perfect tenses, though.

I personally have come up with my explanation of the PP over the years in spite of poor book explanations. It works, and people get it on an order of 97% (if I may dare quantify that). I have very few mistakes from people who complete course work on that topic and review periodically.

[miski]

Surely it's just 1) recent past and 2) unfinished past ??? Why are we making it so difficult?

And quite honestly, someone who can't explain it, shouldn't really be teaching it................

http://teachthemasses.wordpress.com/

[Stephen Jones]

As far as time goes the present tense refers to actions in a time period that includes the present and the past to actions in a time period that was totally in the past (remember that although the present and past tenses are normally used to reference time periods that is not the core distinction between them, which is that the past tense is used to convey distance, whether temporal, social, emotional or factual).

So you use the present perfect because the time scheme you envisage includes the present, possibly because the action you are describing (swimming) is viewed as having an effect on the present, or because the time scheme involved goes up to the present.

The Perfect aspect, as tanuki says, conveys the idea of before and the continuous aspect puts the emphasis on the period of time during which the action happened.