Teacher Discussion Forums

In explaining tenses, most grammar writers have to hide away the family, which I call the Past Family, of past time adverbial IN THE PAST XX YEARS (such as in the past, in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years, etc.) These past time adverbials stay with Present Perfect.

Intentionally or unintentionally avoiding them, grammarians may easily attain a false conclusion: “Present Perfect doesn’t stay with past time expression”. The falsity is based on young students’ trust in them. It is neither study nor research at all. Grammarians make full use of the innocent trust and successfully avoid to talk about a lot of time adverbs. Many Asian English users, as well as English native speakers, now wrongly choose a tense for these past time adverbials, because they follow the rule that “Present Perfect doesn’t stay with past time expression”. Not to talk about the Past Family is an oversimplification. And yet, to produce a conclusion that depends on the disappearance of the Past Family, is universally not acceptable. Deliberately giving a misleading conclusion, grammar writers have built up a more ethical than grammatical problem. Where is the righteousness in doing so?

Shun Tang

I totally agree with you that much of what the grammar books say is misleading. Often they are overgeneralisations that only work with certain highly selected examples. The "rules" given are often no more than guidelines which are fine up to about First Certificate level, but no higher.
In particular, the "rule" that states that you can't use the Present Perfect with a definite time reference is utter codswallop. The real question is "which time adverbials can you use with the Present Perfect and why?"
Unfortunately, there are still too many teachers who treat grammar books as gospel. I'm not sure if that's down to insecurity or simple laziness, though it may be more common with non-native teachers who may not instinctively know what's right and what's wrong when confronted with an example that appears to contradict the books. Research has shown that non-native language teachers are more likely to over-correct students' work and find "mistakes" that a native speaker would find prefectly acceptable.
I don't think book writers are deliberately trying to mislead people. Rather, the real rules are argued over even by native speakers (as I'm sure you've seen in some of these threads), and it's often felt that they're too abstract to be of any use to learners of English. So long as the "rules" are seen for what they are (i.e. useful advice), I don't have a problem with it. What does wind me up is when a student comes to me and says "but my teacher/grammar book says....." If I teach an oversimplification, I make it clear that it's not the whole story and explain that the students may have to modify their "rules" when they get to a higher level.

In particular, the "rule" that states that you can't use the Present Perfect with a definite time reference is utter codswallop.

But that's not the rule. The rule is that the Present Perfect can't be used with a time reference, either explicit or iimplied, that refers to a period of time that finished in the past.

And in English there are very few, if any, exceptions to that rule.

I agree entirely, Stephen. However, I've known students who'd been told, or read, that any definite time reference was out. This would preclude Have you had breakfast this morning? or the examples that Shun Tang quotes. These adverbials are grounded in the present or at least have the "looking back" idea attached to them (so you can use them with the Present Tense with Perfect Aspect), so there's no contradiction. It's more a question of meaning than grammar; * I went to the pub tomorrow is just plain wrong as the meanings are contradictory - likewise for Present Perfect with yesterday, last week... etc.

Lolwhites,

The "rules" given are often no more than guidelines which are fine up to about First Certificate level, but no higher.

Very interesting idea. I heard they talk about Future Tense in the same way. When you learn more, you know the truth: There is no Future Tense. But please, we are not giving young students a second best idea or basic knowledge. We are preaching a totally opposite rule of using tenses. Furthermore, as for the Past Family, I am referring to all the grammars and all English websites on internet: There are no higher opinion.

Unfortunately, there are still too many teachers who treat grammar books as gospel.

I beg your pardon if I may say so, "Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions" has so far been the only rule in English tenses. People do have a reason to treat them with high regards. ALL they can do is only modify the description a little bit, to avoid a breach of rights.

I don't think book writers are deliberately trying to mislead people.

I have invited professors, doctorates and webmasters of websites to talk about the Past Family, sometimes in forums, and sometimes privately. They were quite interested in this kind of time adverbials. At some time I usually asked webmasters that since they now know about the Past Family, would they talk about them in their websites for English study? They mostly answered to think about it. Now I visit their websites, and they still preach "You cannot use Present Perfect when you mention a past time", with the Past Family totally unmentioned.

Shun Tang

Stephen,

The rule is that the Present Perfect can't be used with a time reference, either explicit or iimplied, that refers to a period of time that finished in the past.

Unfortunately, in the past itself is a period of time that finished in the past but it can stay with Present Perfect. So too are "before, previously, earlier, when they have come here, etc".
Ex: I have seen him in the past/before/previously/earlier/when they have come here.

By the way, no grammars will talk about BEFORE, etc. with Present Perfect. However, perhaps you may use searching machines on Internet to prove me wrong.

Shun Tang

Shun
Pretty much all the past time adverbials in your original post have a connection with the present (e.g. in the past two months means the two months leading up to now). You need to make a distiction between those adverbials and the ones that are wholly based in the past (e.g. last year, yesterday...). Unfortunately too many grammar books out there don't stress this enough. They just want to make sure students don't say I have been to London on Saturday, which is a common mistake for students whose first language also has a perfect aspect.
"Higher" in my last post refers to levels above First Certificate (or Upper Intermediate, if the term means more to you). Students often find that to improve requires them to "unlearn" certain things they were taught. I feel there is a lot of room for teachers to improve in this area.

Lolwhites,

Pretty much all the past time adverbials in your original post have a connection with the present (e.g. in the past two months means the two months leading up to now). You need to make a distiction between those adverbials and the ones that are wholly based in the past (e.g. last year, yesterday...).

The message just in front, from me to Stephen, has a group of past time adverbials:
Ex: I have seen him in the past/before/previously/earlier/when they have come here.
== Unless you prove otherwise, they are wholly based in the past. However, it is grammatical for them to couple with Present Perfect.

Please be further reminded that in the Past Family, there are IN THE PAST YEAR, and IN THE PAST DAY, which are similar to your last year, yesterday. I wouldn't say they are the same respectively. But you may want to tell them clearly apart, and once again modify the golden rule "Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions" to match your insight that you think other grammarians were not capable to think up.

Shun

Shuntang,
You're getting hold of the wrong end of the stick as loswhites pointed out. "Before " goes up to the present, and it is not a definite time reference anyway.

Every past time reference you mention that can be used with the Present Perfect goes up to the present.

Look at these two examples:
He's done some work for us this year.
He did some work for us last year.

In both cases the action took place in the past, but the present perfect can be used in the first case because this year is not yet finished.

Whether the time reference is finished or not is what matters, not how recent it is:

He's done a lot of work for us this year. Indeed he did some only five minutes ago

Stephen,

You're getting hold of the wrong end of the stick as loswhites pointed out. "Before " goes up to the present, and it is not a definite time reference anyway.

You couldn't even suggest an example of your own!! So, "I have seen him before" means the seeing 'goes up to the present'. Is this what you want to say? To tell the truth, if another ONE MORE person here agrees with you in this case, I also will have to. I really don't mind. Present Perfect is piece of cake, but also very complicated if you don't get the knack. I am afraid you are wrong about the use.

...and it is not a definite time reference anyway.

I hope you can be more careful with your definition -- perhaps this is why you didn't write one. TOMORROW is also a definite time reference, but it doesn't often stay with Present Perfect. In other words, merely definite time reference is not a necessary condition of using or not using Present Perfect.
I guess you actually wanted to say definite PAST time reference. However, the Past Family such as "in the past xx years" can be as specific as down to five, four, or three and years, months, days, minutes, or even seconds. Is it specific or definite enough? If not, please tell me how to define your definite PAST time reference. Also, members of the Past Family each have the adjective PAST, so they are PAST enough. It is as PAST as your forgotten 'PAST' in definite PAST time reference. It is the same PAST. Therefore, we will have a very hard time not to admit the Past Family as definite PAST time reference.

Look at these two examples:
He's done some work for us this year.
He did some work for us last year.
In both cases the action took place in the past, but the present perfect can be used in the first case because this year is not yet finished.

Very ingenious. We know that this year can be coupled with ANY tense:
Ex: I study Chemistry this year.
Ex: I am studying Chemistry this year.
Ex: I will study Chemistry this year.
Ex: I studied Chemistry this year.
Ex: I have been studying Chemistry this year.
And you use this year solely to explain Present Perfect, so that you see a fine match.

At last, let's suggest I have again got hold of the wrong end of what you have in mind. Could you now shape up a careful definition for using Present Perfect? Comparing with the golden rule "Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions", I really want to see how much better your definition will be. Try to break down the definition into a few points. This will help, I suppose.

Shun

I have seen him in the past/before/previously/earlier/when they have come here.
== Unless you prove otherwise, they are wholly based in the past. However, it is grammatical for them to couple with Present Perfect.

actually, they aren't "wholly based in the past" as they are all looked back on from now. Contrast "before" with "before 2001", "earlier" with "earlier than 3 o'clock" and you may see what I'm getting at. They are still grounded in the present insofar as the speaker is "looking back" from now. This is different from "before 2001", which is totally detached from now.

the Past Family such as "in the past xx years" can be as specific as down to five, four, or three and years, months, days, minutes, or even seconds

The point is that we're talking about a period of time which started in the past and continues up to now. It therefore has present reference. Yesterday, by contrast, is "cut loose" from the present in the same way as "before 2001"

We know that this year can be coupled with ANY tense:
Ex: I study Chemistry this year.
Ex: I am studying Chemistry this year.
Ex: I will study Chemistry this year.
Ex: I studied Chemistry this year.
Ex: I have been studying Chemistry this year.
And you use this year solely to explain Present Perfect, so that you see a fine match

I don't think anyone said otherwise. Just because you can use it with Present Perfect doesn't preclude it being used with any other tense. Language isn't some kind of jigsaw that you slot together. You have to look at the whole context.

Lolwhites,

actually, they aren't "wholly based in the past" as they are all looked back on from now. Contrast "before" with "before 2001", "earlier" with "earlier than 3 o'clock" and you may see what I'm getting at. They are still grounded in the present insofar as the speaker is "looking back" from now. This is different from "before 2001", which is totally detached from now.

I can't believe I could be so lucky to meet such distortion. If we say it is past, or present, or future, they must be as you said "grounded in the present". There is no other 'ground', or viewpoint. Obviously, if we use a past viewpoint to view past, then past is not past; rather, it is present. Try this: You can use your way of distortion to measure YESTERDAY: "It is not wholly based in the past, as it is grounded in the present moment insofar the speaker is "looking back" from now. It is different from "before YESTERDAY", which is totally detached from now.

But the simple fact is, does "I have visited Japan before" mean I am still visiting there? The visit is not wholly in the past?
===========

You wrote about the Past Family:

The point is that we're talking about a period of time which started in the past and continues up to now. It therefore has present reference. Yesterday, by contrast, is "cut loose" from the present in the same way as "before 2001"

Therefore for a few times I asked you to formulate a rule to use Present Perfect. Without any written guideline, now you even borrow the definition of Simple Present to explain Present Perfect, so that I may see a difference from Simple Past. I have to admit I don't like this kind of convenience, or confusion.
Ex: She lives in her mother's home these days/weeks/years.
== "The point is that we're talking about a period of time which started in the past and continues up to now." Sounds familiar? But we are actually talking of Simple Present.
===========

We know that this year can be coupled with ANY tense:
Ex: I study Chemistry this year.
Ex: I am studying Chemistry this year.
Ex: I will study Chemistry this year.
Ex: I studied Chemistry this year.
Ex: I have been studying Chemistry this year.
And you use this year solely to explain Present Perfect, so that you see a fine match

I don't think anyone said otherwise. Just because you can use it with Present Perfect doesn't preclude it being used with any other tense. Language isn't some kind of jigsaw that you slot together. You have to look at the whole context.

Brilliant!! Last night I just wanted to say to Stephen what you now say to me. But I was in a hurry. Just because you can use it with Present Perfect doesn't preclude it being used with any other tense. Therefore, we cannot explain THIS YEAR like it is so perfect solely for Present Perfect.
===========

Language isn't some kind of jigsaw that you slot together. You have to look at the whole context.

I too often use "the whole context" as a tool for discussion, so I don't need to do any reasoning nor give any examples. Most important, it handles anything and I am always right at large. I would say like this, "I know my rule is not good enough, but if you look at the whole context you will see using tenses is a piece of cake, and we don't even need any rule at all."

Shun

So, "I have seen him before" means the seeing 'goes up to the present'.

This quote from your post shows exactly where you are going wrong. The Present Perfect always refers to something that happened in the past, though it can, but does not have to, refer to something that is still true in the present.

The 'seeing' does not go up to the present - before does.

The Present Perfect can be used with any expression of time that is not completed in the past.

Your "golden rule"

"Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions"

is wrong, as well as its expression being closer to pidgin than to English. The Present Perfect can be used with time expressions that cover a period of time that includes the present.
At 11.00 am I can say
I've been to the bank this morning
At 2.00 pm I must use the Past Simple
I went to the bank this morning

The reason is that in the second case this morning is not finished.

If you don't like the explanation that "before" goes up to the present, you can take the explanation that "before", "previously", "in the past" and other such phrases which can all be used with the Present Perfect., do not have any closing date (other than the Present). "In the past" finishes where the present begins, whereas "five seconds ago" finshed five seconds before the present begins, and therefore must go with the Simple Past.
So,
I've seen him
and
I've seen him before follow the same pattern.

I have not idea what the "Past Family" you are talking about refers to.

By the way, no grammars will talk about BEFORE, etc.

If none of the grammars you have do, throw them out and get a better one. You might even make less grammatical mistakes in your postings

Stephen,

As for my example [i]I have seen him before[/i], You wrote:The 'seeing' does not go up to the present - before does.

As long as you agree the seeing doesn't go up the present, I don't care other elements. The fundamental question is, how can one break up an action into several elements, and analyze them one by one to see whether or not it goes up to the present? I want to add two more elements that do: I and him also go up to the present.
If according to your analysis, in the example "I saw John yesterday", I may say the seeing does not go up to the present, but YESTERDAY does. Also, John and I do go up to the present. Therefore, we may even claim that nearly the whole of "I saw John yesterday" is up to the present.

You wrote:Your "golden rule"

Shun wrote:"Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions"

is wrong, as well as its expression being closer to pidgin than to English.

Here, people will understand what I mean, but you don't. Please review the head of this thread. I am claiming that because of this so-called golden rule, people are hiding the Past Family. "The Past Family" is the title of this thread, if it can mean anything to you.

You wrote:If you don't like the explanation that "before" goes up to the present, you can take the explanation that "before", "previously", "in the past" and other such phrases which can all be used with the Present Perfect., do not have any closing date (other than the Present). "In the past" finishes where the present begins, whereas "five seconds ago" finshed five seconds before the present begins, and therefore must go with the Simple Past.
So,
I've seen him
and
I've seen him before follow the same pattern.

As long as your ingenious explanation, as well as others', can explain
Ex: "I have seen him before/in the past/previously/when they have come here/etc."
to be not a past action and the seeing is up to the present, I say it is a total distortion. (But you have already agreed that the 'seeing' does not go up to the present.)

You wrote:I have not idea what the "Past Family" you are talking about refers to.

I have no wonder about this. You came in between us and didn't see the head of the thread, the original question.

You wrote:

Shun wrote: By the way, no grammars will talk about BEFORE, etc.

If none of the grammars you have do, throw them out and get a better one. You might even make less grammatical mistakes in your postings

You have cut short my original statement. Please allow me to say it again: "By the way, no grammars will talk about BEFORE with Present Perfect". I've even recommended that you search for it on internet where any strange structures can be found. (You may even find ESL people use YESTERDAY with Present Perfect, in a lot of examples.) But you will never find an English website that talks about the relation between BEFORE and Present Perfect.

None of your grammar books will talk about IN THE PAST XX YEARS (such as in the past, in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years, etc.) Would you throw the books away? If you do, I promise that by tomorrow there will be no grammar books in your room. So, I suggest you don't joke about "throw them out and get a better one". There is no such better one, whether in the greatest library or on internet.

Shun Tang

Readers please understand I have intentionally made the discussion simpler, so that I didn't list examples in which people are using Simple Past with the Past Family. I searched for "in the past two years" alone and I got the following examples, among a lot of others:
Ex1: The low foodgrain prices in the past two years saw farmers not selling their agricultural output immediately.
http://www.indiainfoline.com/view/2402c.html

Ex2: "A typical household iin the past two years saw about a $20,000 gain in equity," said Lawrence Yun, forecasting economist at the National Association of Realtors.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/21/news/economy/housing/

Ex3: "This new board is refreshingly healthy, and their ideas are great," says one of the few returning School Board veterans, Reginald Malone, who in the past two years found himself on the losing end of many 7-2 votes.
http://www.richmond.com/richmondmagazin ... id=2515082

Ex4: It has always been in dispute, but only in the past two years did it cause a war.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/ ... itrea1.htm

The addresses are all valid today, because I have just picked up them this morning. If you insist to talk about them, please do. Anyway, I don't think people have a way to prove that the Past Family should be with Present Perfect only. Why not in Simple Past, as the example do?

Shun Tang