I was adviced to rely on native speakers' intuition about Present Perfect, I have to agree.
Present Perfect is famous for its dual function, expressing either a finish or a continuity:
ExA: He has worked here in the past. (= A finish)
ExB: He has worked here since January. (= A continuity)
The meanings of the structures are well known and accepted by everyone. I want to know how shall English native speakers tell the difference? At what situation shall Present Perfect stand for a finish? At what situation a continuity?
Shun
The dual function of Present Perfect
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
My Dingaling
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: China
Dear Shuntang
The present perfect expression of continuity occurs when it is used with 'since' or 'for'.
ExA I have known Ben since 1970.
ExB I have known Ben for 2 hours.
Both sentences express situtations that began in the past and continue to the present, and in some cases imply the action will continue into the future. ExA generally implies that I would continue to know Ben in the future because the time circumstance is longer. With Ex B there is a greater possiblity that I may forget Ben because the modality of continuity is changed by the the length of time. Modality related to the stability of continuity is expressed through the circumstance of time following the 'since' and 'for'.
Here is another example;
ExC He has loved her for one minute.
In this example the time circumstance contradicts the modality implied in the verb 'love', and the continuity could be understood to be less stable. Likely, the listener would have a question about this sentence and perpetuate further conversation. So with this form of the present perfect the use of time can express modality of continuity as well as inform the listener/reader of the period of time that has lapsed.
Take Care
The present perfect expression of continuity occurs when it is used with 'since' or 'for'.
ExA I have known Ben since 1970.
ExB I have known Ben for 2 hours.
Both sentences express situtations that began in the past and continue to the present, and in some cases imply the action will continue into the future. ExA generally implies that I would continue to know Ben in the future because the time circumstance is longer. With Ex B there is a greater possiblity that I may forget Ben because the modality of continuity is changed by the the length of time. Modality related to the stability of continuity is expressed through the circumstance of time following the 'since' and 'for'.
Here is another example;
ExC He has loved her for one minute.
In this example the time circumstance contradicts the modality implied in the verb 'love', and the continuity could be understood to be less stable. Likely, the listener would have a question about this sentence and perpetuate further conversation. So with this form of the present perfect the use of time can express modality of continuity as well as inform the listener/reader of the period of time that has lapsed.
Take Care
How about other prepositions?My Dingaling wrote: The present perfect expression of continuity occurs when it is used with 'since' or 'for'.
ExA I have known Ben since 1970.
ExB I have known Ben for 2 hours.
ExC: I have known Ben in the past two weeks.
ExD: I have known Ben during the past three months.
ExE: I have known Ben within the past four years.
ExF: I have known Ben over the past five decades.
ExG: I have known Ben on the past few seasons.
Are they each continuity or not?
==========
Why are they so similar and yet so different?
Ex: I have worked there in the past. (=A finish)
Ex: I have worked there in the past few years. (=A continuity)
Shun Tang
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
The two sentences are almost identical. They imply that it is possible you will do some work there again.Ex: I have worked there in the past. (=A finish)
Ex: I have worked there in the past few years. (=A continuity)
I worked there in the past implies that your employment is well and truly finished.
Stephen,
Ex1 is a finish, so I don't work there today.
Ex2 is a continuity, so I still work there today.
If we can twist these two oppoiste things as "almost identical", if a finish (nearly) equates a continuity, we don't need tenses anymore.
==============
Shun Tang
I am afraid not.You wrote:The two sentences are almost identical. They imply that it is possible you will do some work there again.Ex1: I have worked there in the past. (=A finish)
Ex2: I have worked there in the past few years. (=A continuity)
Ex1 is a finish, so I don't work there today.
Ex2 is a continuity, so I still work there today.
If we can twist these two oppoiste things as "almost identical", if a finish (nearly) equates a continuity, we don't need tenses anymore.
==============
It can be that I worked so badly that I was fired. But today I still can say I worked there in the past.You wrote:I worked there in the past implies that your employment is well and truly finished.
Shun Tang
Last edited by shuntang on Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Dear Shuntang,
You are not a native speaker, you make loads of mistakes in your posts, and with regard to the two sentences you mention you are quite wrong.
I have worked there in the past few years
implies that you have done work on and off over that time; perhaps you are a plumber or an IT contractor or some other kind of freelance worker.
The sentence that means you are still working there is
I have worked there for the past few years.
In one of your posts you mentioned you had contacted lots of people but they stopped discussing with you. I can see why; you have many weaknesses in your understanding of English and no desire to learn from others or improve. Your claim to be an expert in a language you can't even express yourself properly in comes over as ridiculous presumption.
I, like all the other people you referred to, are no longer going to waste my time with you. Post all the rubbish you want. I won't bother to reply
You are not a native speaker, you make loads of mistakes in your posts, and with regard to the two sentences you mention you are quite wrong.
I have worked there in the past few years
implies that you have done work on and off over that time; perhaps you are a plumber or an IT contractor or some other kind of freelance worker.
The sentence that means you are still working there is
I have worked there for the past few years.
In one of your posts you mentioned you had contacted lots of people but they stopped discussing with you. I can see why; you have many weaknesses in your understanding of English and no desire to learn from others or improve. Your claim to be an expert in a language you can't even express yourself properly in comes over as ridiculous presumption.
I, like all the other people you referred to, are no longer going to waste my time with you. Post all the rubbish you want. I won't bother to reply
Stephen,
<I worked there in the past implies that your employment is well and truly finished.>
To be more precise, "I worked there in the past" implies that period of employment is finished.
So you're working at the deli now?
Yeah.
Must be hard to learn a new profession at your age.
Well, I worked there in the past, so not really.
<I worked there in the past implies that your employment is well and truly finished.>
To be more precise, "I worked there in the past" implies that period of employment is finished.
So you're working at the deli now?
Yeah.
Must be hard to learn a new profession at your age.
Well, I worked there in the past, so not really.
-
My Dingaling
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: China
shuntang wrote:
ExC: I have known Ben in the past two weeks.
ExD: I have known Ben during the past three months.
ExE: I have known Ben within the past four years.
ExF: I have known Ben over the past five decades.
ExG: I have known Ben on the past few seasons.
Are they each continuity or not?
==========
Why are they so similar and yet so different?
Ex: I have worked there in the past. (=A finish)
Ex: I have worked there in the past few years. (=A continuity)
Shun Tang
Shun Tang
When other prepositions are used other than 'for' or 'since' there is modality expressed regarding the circumstance of time itself. The prepositions you used 'in the past week' 'during the past week' 'within the past week' 'over the past week' express a modality of the time period 'week', not meaning the whole week but some smaller quantity of time. So those prepositions you added convey a modality about the time circumstance, and inturn, the time circumstance conveys modality of continuity to the verb in the present perfect.
I've known him in the last week.
This sentence has two modalities, the 'in' giving modality to 'the last week' and 'the last week' giving modality to the verb 'known'. This sentence reduces the strength of saying 'I've know him for a week' by adding the 'in'. The mood implied from just adding the 'in' is uncertainty or unstability about what I may know about him. Some may see these sentences as grammarically incorrect because the modality can degenerate the value understood in the verb. To illustrate this I will use the example 'love'.
Ex C I have loved her within the last week.
The modalities implied in this sentence degenerate the value and meaning given to the verb 'love' as a strongly continuous emotion, and in this sentence it is implied to be capable of either no continuity or very minimal. As you know, grammar rules arise from conventional values of those who use the langauge: something may be said that makes sense, but it may be understood to be degenerating the value of something and believed in strongly by a community using the language, and it would be said to be grammarically incorrect. To some people, Ex C would be similar to swearing using grammar and modality instead of using just a single word, and the effect may provoke similar hostile responses because a fought for value has been offended.
-
My Dingaling
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: China
Shuntang
Your sentence:
I have worked there in the past.
Why do you see this as finished? Again it can be understood in terms of modality. Using 'in the past' implies that the event 'worked here' has been interupted or suspended, but may not be finished, only suspended.
Ex A I have worked there in the past.
EX B I have worked there in the past few years.
Very similar, yes, but the difference is in the degree of continuity, not in terms of it meaning the action is finished or continuous.
This abstraction might clarify things better:
EX C I have worked there in the future.
EX D I have worked there in the future a few times.
These sentence have strange and unconventional meaning because of an unconventional understanding of time: it is not related to as linear but cyclic. However, the modalization of the verb's continuity still occurs regardless. It is not finished in either sentence because the future hasn't come. Because English is based on a linear understanding of time, we instead say:
I have worked there in the past.
I have worked there in the past a few times.
And from this imply or infer the modality of continued occurrence in the future.
Your sentence:
I have worked there in the past.
Why do you see this as finished? Again it can be understood in terms of modality. Using 'in the past' implies that the event 'worked here' has been interupted or suspended, but may not be finished, only suspended.
Ex A I have worked there in the past.
EX B I have worked there in the past few years.
Very similar, yes, but the difference is in the degree of continuity, not in terms of it meaning the action is finished or continuous.
This abstraction might clarify things better:
EX C I have worked there in the future.
EX D I have worked there in the future a few times.
These sentence have strange and unconventional meaning because of an unconventional understanding of time: it is not related to as linear but cyclic. However, the modalization of the verb's continuity still occurs regardless. It is not finished in either sentence because the future hasn't come. Because English is based on a linear understanding of time, we instead say:
I have worked there in the past.
I have worked there in the past a few times.
And from this imply or infer the modality of continued occurrence in the future.
My Dingaling,
ExC: I worked there last year.
== It implies that the event 'worked here' has been interrupted or suspended, but may not be finished, only suspended.
Please understand we judge things at the present moment. As now I don't work there, it is finished.
Shun
As for ExA, at least you agree the working is suspended now. It is a finish, at least at the day of speaking, you don't work there. Actually, what you say to ExA can be said again to:You wrote:ExA: I have worked there in the past.
Why do you see this as finished? Again it can be understood in terms of modality. Using 'in the past' implies that the event 'worked here' has been interupted or suspended, but may not be finished, only suspended.
Ex:A I have worked there in the past.
EX:B I have worked there in the past few years.
Very similar, yes, but the difference is in the degree of continuity, not in terms of it meaning the action is finished or continuous.
ExC: I worked there last year.
== It implies that the event 'worked here' has been interrupted or suspended, but may not be finished, only suspended.
Please understand we judge things at the present moment. As now I don't work there, it is finished.
Shun
THE DEFINITENESS OF PRESENT PERFECT
Present Perfect does have a dual function, denoting either a finish or a continuity:
ExA: I have lived in Japan before. (a finish)
ExB: I have lived in Hong Kong since 1978. (a continuity)
Therefore, to interpret Present Perfect as indefinite couldn’t cope with the reality.
Further, we shall pay a little attention to how we express a so-called definite time. Really, for example, I can’t remember exactly which year people landed on the moon. But if I say a very wide range of time: last century, or many years ago, it is still definite and demands Simple Past:
Ex: Man landed on moon last century/ many years ago.
For another example, I really don’t remember definitely when we started our discussion. But if I use vaguely "a few days ago", it is still a definite time and we have to use Simple Past:
Ex: I started this topic a few days ago.
So, is it really hard for us to tell a so-called definite time about our things happening in a certain time? I don’t think so, we actually use definiteness or indefiniteness to serve our purpose. Please see into the following example:
Ex: The Anti-corruption group was set up in 1978. It has successfully indicted and jailed 1,865 persons, including some high rank government officers.
== Here you simply cannot use the Simple Past instead of has indicted and has jailed. Should Simple Past be used, we imply all the arrestments are done in the same year of 1978, which is illogical. The group could not put so many persons into jail, through the process of law, in a single year. Present Perfect implies the indictments are outside 1978, thus again implying we actually know its time.
Whether definite or indefinite depends on formats or characteristecs, rather than a measurement of time. Take indefinite time adverbials BEFORE, LATELY, IN THE PAST for examples, if you make your own statements with them, the happenings very likely be more past than YESTERDAY. But their characteristics render them be called indefinite past. And YESTERDAY is in the format of definite past.
Shun Tang
Present Perfect does have a dual function, denoting either a finish or a continuity:
ExA: I have lived in Japan before. (a finish)
ExB: I have lived in Hong Kong since 1978. (a continuity)
Therefore, to interpret Present Perfect as indefinite couldn’t cope with the reality.
Further, we shall pay a little attention to how we express a so-called definite time. Really, for example, I can’t remember exactly which year people landed on the moon. But if I say a very wide range of time: last century, or many years ago, it is still definite and demands Simple Past:
Ex: Man landed on moon last century/ many years ago.
For another example, I really don’t remember definitely when we started our discussion. But if I use vaguely "a few days ago", it is still a definite time and we have to use Simple Past:
Ex: I started this topic a few days ago.
So, is it really hard for us to tell a so-called definite time about our things happening in a certain time? I don’t think so, we actually use definiteness or indefiniteness to serve our purpose. Please see into the following example:
Ex: The Anti-corruption group was set up in 1978. It has successfully indicted and jailed 1,865 persons, including some high rank government officers.
== Here you simply cannot use the Simple Past instead of has indicted and has jailed. Should Simple Past be used, we imply all the arrestments are done in the same year of 1978, which is illogical. The group could not put so many persons into jail, through the process of law, in a single year. Present Perfect implies the indictments are outside 1978, thus again implying we actually know its time.
Whether definite or indefinite depends on formats or characteristecs, rather than a measurement of time. Take indefinite time adverbials BEFORE, LATELY, IN THE PAST for examples, if you make your own statements with them, the happenings very likely be more past than YESTERDAY. But their characteristics render them be called indefinite past. And YESTERDAY is in the format of definite past.
Shun Tang
-
My Dingaling
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: China
Shuntang,
EX D I have worked there in the past.
This is not finished because you added the prepositional phrase 'in the past'. It has significant meaning, otherwise you would have just said:
EX E I have worked there.
So as soon as you tag on a time circumstance, you are adding modality, and this can only apply if the verb has a continuity of some manner, otherwise why modalize a verb that is finished. I would be like saying
EX F I have died there in the past.
The verb 'die' only has one interval and it is finished. Adding on 'in the past' doesn't make any sense, unless you are implying reincarnation, which requires continuity.
Even
EX G I have died there.
This sentence suggest that death is continuous, because you are still alive to say the sentence, and so another interval of death will likely occur.
But work is an activity we engage in throughout our life and has intervals and when you add on the 'in the past' it modalizes the continuity, not a finish as you are saying.
Not working there now does not imply a finish in the sentences you are questioning. It may be a seasonal job so that you only work in the summer, or have suspended the action of working, but it could begin again. Finality must be expressed in another sentence or clause:
I have worked there in the past, but won't ever again.
This is a finish, there is no continuity that can be inferred.
EX D I have worked there in the past.
This is not finished because you added the prepositional phrase 'in the past'. It has significant meaning, otherwise you would have just said:
EX E I have worked there.
So as soon as you tag on a time circumstance, you are adding modality, and this can only apply if the verb has a continuity of some manner, otherwise why modalize a verb that is finished. I would be like saying
EX F I have died there in the past.
The verb 'die' only has one interval and it is finished. Adding on 'in the past' doesn't make any sense, unless you are implying reincarnation, which requires continuity.
Even
EX G I have died there.
This sentence suggest that death is continuous, because you are still alive to say the sentence, and so another interval of death will likely occur.
But work is an activity we engage in throughout our life and has intervals and when you add on the 'in the past' it modalizes the continuity, not a finish as you are saying.
Not working there now does not imply a finish in the sentences you are questioning. It may be a seasonal job so that you only work in the summer, or have suspended the action of working, but it could begin again. Finality must be expressed in another sentence or clause:
I have worked there in the past, but won't ever again.
This is a finish, there is no continuity that can be inferred.
My Dingaling,
Shun Tang
=============
John and Mary in the bus, passing a building.
John: Look at this Company, it is very large.
Mary: Yep. I have worked there in the past.
John: Oh, yes?
Mary: So it is not finished.
John: What do you mean?
Mary: What? Didn't I just tell you? I have worked there in the past.
John: You mean you WORK there!! Don't you?
Mary: No, I have worked there in the past. By saying so, it is not finished.
John: I see.....!?
OK, "I have done something in the past" is not a finish. Let it be written.You wrote:EX D I have worked there in the past.
This is not finished because you added the prepositional phrase 'in the past'. It has significant meaning, otherwise you would have just said:
EX E I have worked there.
Shun Tang
=============
John and Mary in the bus, passing a building.
John: Look at this Company, it is very large.
Mary: Yep. I have worked there in the past.
John: Oh, yes?
Mary: So it is not finished.
John: What do you mean?
Mary: What? Didn't I just tell you? I have worked there in the past.
John: You mean you WORK there!! Don't you?
Mary: No, I have worked there in the past. By saying so, it is not finished.
John: I see.....!?