I am from Canada, and "in the past year" is different from "last year" for me.
in the past year- in the 12 months prior to today
last year- the last calendar year ie. 2003
Present Perfect x Simple Past
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hi Milena and everybody,
I'm sorry that I've just now come across this thread. Usually I don't visit this forum, finding somehow that the "Applied Linguistics" site is often more interesting for me.
At any rate, there seem to be a number of ideas expressed here, and they all have something of value. But I have a feeling Milena is still confused about the the 'meaning' of the use of Simple Past verb forms as contrasted with the 'meaning' of Present Perfect forms, and how to tell when each is appropriate. So I have decided to throw in my two bits worth too. The more, the merrier, I guess. (The truth is, I just can't help myself).
The primary reason, I think, for people's confusion about the meaning of different verb forms is that most people (both teachers and students, I'm afraid) mix-up tense and time. They are different concepts. Verb tense, in English, simply refers to the morphology (different ways of spelling and pronouncing) of verbs used to express different points-of-view. There are only two of them in English, Simple Present and Simple Past, and neither of them has anything whatever to do directly with time. I know this might be hard to swallow, because it goes against everything you've read or been taught about verb tenses, but please bear with me a while longer. It is unfortunate, I think, that tenses are named as they are, because 'Present Tense' and 'Past Tense' promote misunderstanding. Let's look at a couple of examples that I hope might help make my point clearer. Here are three very simple sentences using Simple Present verbs:
Babies cry a lot.
Wood floats in water.
I love you.
I have not used any time markers in these sentences. They aren't necessary. Note, that time has no purpose in any of these sentences, despite what you may have read in some textbooks. Some books make the absurd suggestion that "Simple Present is used for something that was true in the past, is true now, and will be in the future." Clearly, then, time has nothing to do with use of Simple Present, since it is true for all time. Simple Present verbs are chosen when the user wants to express something he considers to be a fact, pure and simple. References he may make to time in the sentence are made with other words, not verbs. You can use longer sentences, like this one I found on an open page of Discover Magazine on my desk: As air flows from high pressure to low pressure, Earth's rotation deflects air in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in a basic west-to-east direction. It doesn't matter if the sentences are simple or more complex, use of Present Simple verb forms express what users see as facts, with no additional interpretation intended.
Choice of Simple Past forms also express facts, but this time, the user has some reason to feel remote from the idea expressed.
I already ate lunch.
She went home.
Bobby lost his socks.
These are factual, but in addition, they are somehow remote in the user's mind. There are several reasons why she might feel the remoteness. One of them involves time, but it is not the only one. In all of the above examples, you might argue that the "farness", or "distance", or remoteness, implied is about time. I wouldn't argue with you. But look at this sentence: "Did you want to see me, boss?" A person using this sentence in a real situation surely would be asking the boss if she wants to see him now. If that's the case, then what is the remoteness? Two possibilities come to mind: one is that the user is not sure whether the boss wants to see him (a colleague said so, but still he is not sure); the other is that his use of a remote form is suggestive of the remote relationship between him and the boss (this boss is much higher ranking than he is). Maybe it's a combination of both. Interpreting what someone actually means is always an issue for a listener. All we know for sure is what our interlocutor says--what he means is always up for grabs. That's why humans are good (native speakers of a language are usually better) at "reading between the lines."
What about: "Would you mind if I opened the window?" Here a user applies a Past Simple form to an event that hasn't yet taken place!!! It's impossible to explain this [totally correct, and not uncommon or particularly unusual] use of form if you believe that it must signal an event in past time. But if you understand that it is a remote form, and not a past time form, the explanation is easy: users are not sure whether permission will be granted--hence the remote feeling associated with this sentence. (Of course, the user could just as well say, "...if I open the window?", but this is not what is said on many occasions. Users have the right of choice of form. It is up to us as listeners or readers to infer what is meant. Different forms are chosen for reasons, and the reasons have something to do with meaning, however great or slight the differences may be at any particular occasion. Note also, that this idea explains why people, when they wish to be more dramatic with the stories they tell their friends use Present Simple verbs to good purpose even when they clearly are talking about past time events. They are removing the remoteness and replacing it with "immediacy":
So this guy runs in and waves a gun at the teller. "Give me all your money", he shouts. The bank teller opens the cash drawer and gives it to him.
OK, so now we have some new ideas about Simple Past forms. What about Present Perfect forms? Several posters above were quite correct when they said these forms have something to do with connecting a past time event to the present moment somehow. Present Perfect verbs are not tenses, you see. They are aspects, and aspects have everything to do with time...unlike tenses. Aspects express the users view of the temporal elements of an event. In the case of Present Perfect, a user looks back in time to an event (the perfection part of Present Perfect) from the present moment (the Present part). All uses of Perfect aspects involve looking back in time. The differences between them depend on what point in time the user places himself at when he looks back. No distinction between "specified" or "unspecified" time is necessary. What is important about Perfect forms is that two times are connected, one of them occuring before the other.
Taking two of your examples, Milena, (if I remember them correctly):
I cleaned the house twice in the last week. (or...twice last week. For this sentence it doesn't matter.)
I've cleaned the house twice in the last week.
One verb form is a tense, the other is an aspect. The first sentence is a remote fact. That's all you need to say about it (as far as the verb form is concerned). It is remote in time, in this case, as is made clear by the prepositional phrase marker, "in the last week", which further explains (or limits) "twice".
The second sentence contains an aspect form: have cleaned. Since it's an aspect, we can surmize that it is surely about time. Since it is a Perfect form, we can say that the user is looking back in time. Since it's a Present Perfect form, we can say that user is looking back from "now" (which is to say, the moment of speaking). In this sentence, the use of "twice in the last week" is preferred, since he is looking back from now and therefore including now in the time-frame he wants to discuss. "Last week" could mean a gap of several days between the time period under consideration and the moment now.
Both sentences above are entirely correct, and normative (they don't sound 'funny' to native speakers). They are different in meaning because the verb forms are different. That choice is up to the user, depending on how he wants to look at the event.
Whew!
Thanks for sticking with me through all this. I know it was a lot to read, but then the question is important because so many people seem to be confused by it, and required some background to answer properly. I hope it helps, Milena. 
Larry Latham
I'm sorry that I've just now come across this thread. Usually I don't visit this forum, finding somehow that the "Applied Linguistics" site is often more interesting for me.
At any rate, there seem to be a number of ideas expressed here, and they all have something of value. But I have a feeling Milena is still confused about the the 'meaning' of the use of Simple Past verb forms as contrasted with the 'meaning' of Present Perfect forms, and how to tell when each is appropriate. So I have decided to throw in my two bits worth too. The more, the merrier, I guess. (The truth is, I just can't help myself).
The primary reason, I think, for people's confusion about the meaning of different verb forms is that most people (both teachers and students, I'm afraid) mix-up tense and time. They are different concepts. Verb tense, in English, simply refers to the morphology (different ways of spelling and pronouncing) of verbs used to express different points-of-view. There are only two of them in English, Simple Present and Simple Past, and neither of them has anything whatever to do directly with time. I know this might be hard to swallow, because it goes against everything you've read or been taught about verb tenses, but please bear with me a while longer. It is unfortunate, I think, that tenses are named as they are, because 'Present Tense' and 'Past Tense' promote misunderstanding. Let's look at a couple of examples that I hope might help make my point clearer. Here are three very simple sentences using Simple Present verbs:
Babies cry a lot.
Wood floats in water.
I love you.
I have not used any time markers in these sentences. They aren't necessary. Note, that time has no purpose in any of these sentences, despite what you may have read in some textbooks. Some books make the absurd suggestion that "Simple Present is used for something that was true in the past, is true now, and will be in the future." Clearly, then, time has nothing to do with use of Simple Present, since it is true for all time. Simple Present verbs are chosen when the user wants to express something he considers to be a fact, pure and simple. References he may make to time in the sentence are made with other words, not verbs. You can use longer sentences, like this one I found on an open page of Discover Magazine on my desk: As air flows from high pressure to low pressure, Earth's rotation deflects air in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in a basic west-to-east direction. It doesn't matter if the sentences are simple or more complex, use of Present Simple verb forms express what users see as facts, with no additional interpretation intended.
Choice of Simple Past forms also express facts, but this time, the user has some reason to feel remote from the idea expressed.
I already ate lunch.
She went home.
Bobby lost his socks.
These are factual, but in addition, they are somehow remote in the user's mind. There are several reasons why she might feel the remoteness. One of them involves time, but it is not the only one. In all of the above examples, you might argue that the "farness", or "distance", or remoteness, implied is about time. I wouldn't argue with you. But look at this sentence: "Did you want to see me, boss?" A person using this sentence in a real situation surely would be asking the boss if she wants to see him now. If that's the case, then what is the remoteness? Two possibilities come to mind: one is that the user is not sure whether the boss wants to see him (a colleague said so, but still he is not sure); the other is that his use of a remote form is suggestive of the remote relationship between him and the boss (this boss is much higher ranking than he is). Maybe it's a combination of both. Interpreting what someone actually means is always an issue for a listener. All we know for sure is what our interlocutor says--what he means is always up for grabs. That's why humans are good (native speakers of a language are usually better) at "reading between the lines."
What about: "Would you mind if I opened the window?" Here a user applies a Past Simple form to an event that hasn't yet taken place!!! It's impossible to explain this [totally correct, and not uncommon or particularly unusual] use of form if you believe that it must signal an event in past time. But if you understand that it is a remote form, and not a past time form, the explanation is easy: users are not sure whether permission will be granted--hence the remote feeling associated with this sentence. (Of course, the user could just as well say, "...if I open the window?", but this is not what is said on many occasions. Users have the right of choice of form. It is up to us as listeners or readers to infer what is meant. Different forms are chosen for reasons, and the reasons have something to do with meaning, however great or slight the differences may be at any particular occasion. Note also, that this idea explains why people, when they wish to be more dramatic with the stories they tell their friends use Present Simple verbs to good purpose even when they clearly are talking about past time events. They are removing the remoteness and replacing it with "immediacy":
So this guy runs in and waves a gun at the teller. "Give me all your money", he shouts. The bank teller opens the cash drawer and gives it to him.
OK, so now we have some new ideas about Simple Past forms. What about Present Perfect forms? Several posters above were quite correct when they said these forms have something to do with connecting a past time event to the present moment somehow. Present Perfect verbs are not tenses, you see. They are aspects, and aspects have everything to do with time...unlike tenses. Aspects express the users view of the temporal elements of an event. In the case of Present Perfect, a user looks back in time to an event (the perfection part of Present Perfect) from the present moment (the Present part). All uses of Perfect aspects involve looking back in time. The differences between them depend on what point in time the user places himself at when he looks back. No distinction between "specified" or "unspecified" time is necessary. What is important about Perfect forms is that two times are connected, one of them occuring before the other.
Taking two of your examples, Milena, (if I remember them correctly):
I cleaned the house twice in the last week. (or...twice last week. For this sentence it doesn't matter.)
I've cleaned the house twice in the last week.
One verb form is a tense, the other is an aspect. The first sentence is a remote fact. That's all you need to say about it (as far as the verb form is concerned). It is remote in time, in this case, as is made clear by the prepositional phrase marker, "in the last week", which further explains (or limits) "twice".
The second sentence contains an aspect form: have cleaned. Since it's an aspect, we can surmize that it is surely about time. Since it is a Perfect form, we can say that the user is looking back in time. Since it's a Present Perfect form, we can say that user is looking back from "now" (which is to say, the moment of speaking). In this sentence, the use of "twice in the last week" is preferred, since he is looking back from now and therefore including now in the time-frame he wants to discuss. "Last week" could mean a gap of several days between the time period under consideration and the moment now.
Both sentences above are entirely correct, and normative (they don't sound 'funny' to native speakers). They are different in meaning because the verb forms are different. That choice is up to the user, depending on how he wants to look at the event.
Whew!
Thanks for sticking with me through all this. I know it was a lot to read, but then the question is important because so many people seem to be confused by it, and required some background to answer properly. I hope it helps, Milena. Larry Latham
yay :)
Hi, Norm, Larry and everybody
I've been working a lot these days, and, unfortunately, couldn't come back till now. But here am I and... wow! I'm amazed by your explanations... That's just what I need: get rid of some simple concepts that deceive us sometimes. I really wasn't aware of this confusion envolving "tense" and "time", Larry. Thanks so much for warning me. My teacher at college (who's american, btw) told us a little about Simple Present and Simple Past as being the only tenses in English. But, I know it sounds absurd (and it is), most of my classmates needed to learn how to use the verb to be first. So, no further talks about that. And I just didn't get what she meant. Should have asked for details... But sometimes I just can't take a hint and I just let it go.
Well, as for the present perfect verbs, I had never heard they were "aspects". After everything I read here, I can really understand the use of the Present Perfect better. Great! I can set some boundaries and get to some clearer conclusions already. My greatest concern was about leaving no doubts to my students. Well, I don't know if it was possible. Our classes are over and I was confused myself. But I had the chance to talk to them after I read the first responses, and it really helped. Now they'll have to go on trying to find their answers by themselves, or maybe with another teacher
Anyway, going back to the subject of tense, do you think there's an effective way of telling students it's not only about time without freaking them out? Or do you think that, initially, it's not necessary? I have never been taught about the real meaning of tenses, and I think I've lost a valuable thing. But maybe I'm saying that just because I've become a teacher and I need to know which possibilities I have, I need the details. I'm still trying to find out if simplifying grammar focuses is good or not. Should students be told of certain things only after a while, or a teacher can tell everything to a beginner, as long as he/she finds a good way to do it? Or it would be an overload of input?
Thank YOU for your generous post and your very appropriate examples, Larry. And thanks for your previous explanation about the expressions of time, Norm. I would love to visit Australia
You guys have no idea how much you've been helping me.
Milena
I've been working a lot these days, and, unfortunately, couldn't come back till now. But here am I and... wow! I'm amazed by your explanations... That's just what I need: get rid of some simple concepts that deceive us sometimes. I really wasn't aware of this confusion envolving "tense" and "time", Larry. Thanks so much for warning me. My teacher at college (who's american, btw) told us a little about Simple Present and Simple Past as being the only tenses in English. But, I know it sounds absurd (and it is), most of my classmates needed to learn how to use the verb to be first. So, no further talks about that. And I just didn't get what she meant. Should have asked for details... But sometimes I just can't take a hint and I just let it go.
Well, as for the present perfect verbs, I had never heard they were "aspects". After everything I read here, I can really understand the use of the Present Perfect better. Great! I can set some boundaries and get to some clearer conclusions already. My greatest concern was about leaving no doubts to my students. Well, I don't know if it was possible. Our classes are over and I was confused myself. But I had the chance to talk to them after I read the first responses, and it really helped. Now they'll have to go on trying to find their answers by themselves, or maybe with another teacher
Anyway, going back to the subject of tense, do you think there's an effective way of telling students it's not only about time without freaking them out? Or do you think that, initially, it's not necessary? I have never been taught about the real meaning of tenses, and I think I've lost a valuable thing. But maybe I'm saying that just because I've become a teacher and I need to know which possibilities I have, I need the details. I'm still trying to find out if simplifying grammar focuses is good or not. Should students be told of certain things only after a while, or a teacher can tell everything to a beginner, as long as he/she finds a good way to do it? Or it would be an overload of input?
Thank YOU for your generous post and your very appropriate examples, Larry. And thanks for your previous explanation about the expressions of time, Norm. I would love to visit Australia
You guys have no idea how much you've been helping me.
Milena
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I hasten to add, Milena, that the explanation I offered above was for YOU as a teacher. I would NOT recommend you explain it in just this way to your students (with a possible exception for very advanced students). But you, as a teacher, need to be very clear in your own mind about how English verbs work if you're going to work with your students on verbs. (Actually, it may not be necessary at all for you to do that, but most teachers feel at some time--possibly as a result of student questions--they should).
Exactly how you work with your students I would not try to describe. Each teacher and each class of students is different, and requires different methods or approaches. Part of the skill of being a good teacher is the ability to size up your students and proceed appropriately. There is no single approach, I think, that will always work. Of course, it sometimes helps to read here about techniques other teachers have applied just to get ideas on how you might do something, but your situations will always be unique, and require unique elements to your methods. Having said that, I also believe that teachers can make their overall task easier if they are straightforward with their students from the beginning. Offering tainted explanations "because they are easier to understand" to elementary students will come back to bite you in the behind later on. Easier now may lead to much greater difficulty later. If not for you, then for some of your colleagues.
I can see that you are already a dedicated and conscientious teacher, Milena, from the style of your posts here on this forum and the information you provide. I feel sure your students are lucky to have you, and I'd bet they already know that too. I wish you good fortune in your continuing quest to be the best teacher you can be. Language teaching as a whole is a lot better because of you and others like you.
Good luck!
Larry Latham
Exactly how you work with your students I would not try to describe. Each teacher and each class of students is different, and requires different methods or approaches. Part of the skill of being a good teacher is the ability to size up your students and proceed appropriately. There is no single approach, I think, that will always work. Of course, it sometimes helps to read here about techniques other teachers have applied just to get ideas on how you might do something, but your situations will always be unique, and require unique elements to your methods. Having said that, I also believe that teachers can make their overall task easier if they are straightforward with their students from the beginning. Offering tainted explanations "because they are easier to understand" to elementary students will come back to bite you in the behind later on. Easier now may lead to much greater difficulty later. If not for you, then for some of your colleagues.
I can see that you are already a dedicated and conscientious teacher, Milena, from the style of your posts here on this forum and the information you provide. I feel sure your students are lucky to have you, and I'd bet they already know that too. I wish you good fortune in your continuing quest to be the best teacher you can be. Language teaching as a whole is a lot better because of you and others like you.
Good luck!
Larry Latham
-
mrandmrsjohnqsmith
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Japan
Wow! What a thread! I feel almost blasphemous in dragging it back to a textbook level, but I noticed that nobody else pointed this out, I assume either because it's too rudimentary to warrant mention, or because the cultural gap is wider than we realize. English Grammar in Use (Cambridge) asserts that certain situations which should be expressed in the present perfect in the U.K., for example, "I've cut myself," can be expressed in either the present perfect or the present simple, "I cut myself," in the U.S.
Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, I just noticed it hadn't been mentioned, and it seems relevant.
LarryLatham, thank you for blowing my mind, if you'll pardon the expression.
Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, I just noticed it hadn't been mentioned, and it seems relevant.
LarryLatham, thank you for blowing my mind, if you'll pardon the expression.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Hi Mr&MrsJQS. Murphy's been mentioned before:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=2485
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=2485