Teacher Discussion Forums

That's one of the classical explanations for sentences like:

(1) I'm sure I've seen that woman before but can't remember her name.
(2) My mother's had bad headaches.

So, what do you say about it? Is it wrong or useless or of no helpful teaching that the Present Perfect is "used for past actions which the time when it happened isnot defined"?

José

Did Shuntang aka Xui pay you to do this, M? (Compare: Has Shuntang paid you to do this, M? - possibly ambiguous as to whether Shuntang did in fact approach you at all, or if he did and you are now simply waiting to be paid for what you've done here? What do the rest of you guys think?).

I prefer to view the speaker as 'not so much talking about an event as characterizing "I" at the time of the discourse. To know the time...requires additional questions and answers.'

That is, 'the function of the present perfect is to change the nature of the relationship between the subject and predicate - it emphasizes the predicated event's result on the grammatical subject. In the following example, (...), the speaker is...' (which actually leads us into the first quote above, which I put first because it is clearer and therefore perhaps more telling!).

Both these quotes are from page 125 of The Grammar Book (Second Edition).

So, what do you say about it? Is it wrong or useless or of no helpful teaching that the Present Perfect is "used for past actions which the time when it happened isnot defined"?

Ah, but time is defined for present perfect phrases, Jose'. Stephen Jones has emphasized many times, and quite correctly, that present perfect is grounded in NOW, the present moment. [He says that means present perfect is a present tense, but that's another matter.] And with the speaker's feet planted firmly at the present moment, he looks backward in time (there's time again) to see the event he wants to discuss. If it's there, anywhere along the line, be it "recently" or at the beginning of time (15 billion years ago), then present perfect aspect is quite proper for speaking about it. Whether or not the time is definite is, for me, irrelevant. It will not be because present perfect is about the direction of time (backwards from NOW) rather than its definiteness, so the particular time of the event is irrelevant to the speaker. What is relevant is that it happened before NOW.

So to answer your question directly, I can't say that it's wrong to say to your students that PP is used for events that have no definite time in the past, but I do say that it's not very helpful for them. That's hard for them to imagine. But it is easy to imagine looking back in time from some point in time. (Of course, once you've established present perfect as looking back from NOW, it is easy to show them that past perfect is looking back from a point in past time, and future perfect is looking back from a point in the future.)

Larry Latham

The point about time in relation to tenses is that it is not the objective time in which the action took place that determines the time but the time frame in which it took place, as sujectively determined by the the speaker.

This is important so I will repeat it and break it down into two parts.

• It is the time frame in which the action took place and not the time of the action itself that determines the tense. So although the action in "I've jsut finished putting Daddy through the woodchipper Mommy" takes place in the past, the time frame is considered as going up to the present.
  The time frame is subjectively determined by the speaker. (indeed you may even get the extreme case where the time frame is objectively completed in the past, but still viewed as being part of the present as when you tell a joke that begins Last Tuesday I'm sitting in the bar down at the Hinge and Bracket when in walks this dude carrying a huge Venn diagram of....."[i/] So the difference between Have you seen John? and did you see John is that tn the latter you have subjectively decided that seeing John is an action bound in a time frame that is not complete.
  
  Now let's look at the case of the indefinite past. It is clear that this is a grey area. It is past, and thus you could argue that the time frame is completed and the Past Simple should be used. On the other hand it is indefinite and thus you could argue that it is not completed and thus the Present Perfect should be used. The fact that Anericans tend to use the Past Simple in the same cases where Brits use the Present Perfect makes it clear this is not written in stone, and that there may even be a gradual shift in usage taking place.
  
  My advice for teaching is to use a semi-diagram. I'm not sure how well it comes out here.
  
  .......................NOW<<<<<<<<<Have you seen John? >>>>>>>>>>>
  
  ........................NOW <<[Did you see John? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>]

It is the time frame in which the action took place and not the time of the action itself that determines the tense. So although the action in "I've jsut finished putting Daddy through the woodchipper Mommy" takes place in the past, the time frame is considered as going up to the present.

Correct! And a simpler way to put it is: The action is perceived to have taken place before NOW, and as viewed from NOW.

The time frame is subjectively determined by the speaker.

You are sooo right here, Stephen. And I hope people reading this listen up, because this ought to be obvious to anyone who thinks about languages, since, after all, languages are used for people to express their thoughts to others. But it is apparent from some of the comments here and elsewhere that there are more than a few language teachers who haven't wrestled with this idea yet. Teachers argue endlessly about "when the action takes place".

Larry Latham

languages are used for people to express their thoughts to others.

I've got to bear it in my mind when teaching. Things like this are strangelly paid lip services when it comes to foregn languages, I just asked this for the overwhelming majority of English teachers (including the ones who really have a good command of the language) around here will forever explain and emphasise that pupils should use the present perfect for actions that happened in the past but we do not define the past because the event is more important than when it happened and the most important aspect of the present perfect (If I understood Lewis well I won't call it tense) is that it is based at NOW, the moment of speaking.

To explain things like grammar as fact or grammar as choice, remote and immediate will surely take long for my students to 'swallow',When I start teaching this it seems to theorical for them or they would just say 'but what does it mean in Portuguese?' maybe it's my fault, I have to create new strategies for them to start to explore language and not just translate it as if it were just a matter of changing words and sometimes the order of the words; and I haven't met anyone here who heard about Lewis or the General Principle or anything of the sort.

One excellent teacher I know once explained me that in a setence like During the 1800s, the sport that is known as football in many countries was played at British schools and universities. he argued that it would better go ...that was known... because it was grammatically correct to keep the whole sentence in the past, now, I believe that in many countries, including mine, we still know that specific sport as football (futebol in Portuguese).

Ah, before I forget, Xui didn't pay me anything.

José

, I just asked this for the overwhelming majority of English teachers (including the ones who really have a good command of the language) around here will forever explain and emphasise that pupils should use the present perfect for actions that happened in the past but we do not define the past because the event is more important than when it happened

Actually that's a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it. There is more tnan one way to skin a cat.

Because the event is more important than the time scheme the time frame is unmarked, and the Present (first form) is the tense we use for unmarked time. Were the time more important we would use a past tense, because the past tense (second form) is marked for completed past time.

...the most important aspect of the present perfect (If I understood Lewis well I won't call it tense) is that it is based at NOW, the moment of speaking.

Jose', the fact that you've even read Lewis indicates so much about your devotion to your field, and suggests to me that you are most likely an excellent teacher. I'm sure you realize that you cannot teach Lewis to your students, nor did he intend for that, as he says in his postscript. But what you know about the behavior of English verbs will no doubt help to place you in the top tier of English teachers in your country. My congratulations to you. Lewis is hard even for native English speakers. I can't imagine how tough it must be for you.

Larry Latham

Actually that's a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it. There is more tnan one way to skin a cat.

Because the event is more important than the time scheme the time frame is unmarked, and the Present (first form) is the tense we use for unmarked time. Were the time more important we would use a past tense, because the past tense (second form) is marked for completed past time.

I got it, now it's my turn to apply this in classroom, thank you Stephen.

But what you know about the behavior of English verbs will no doubt help to place you in the top tier of English teachers in your country.

What I am learning I would say , but indeed Larry, reading Lewis and Swan has shown me that I wouldn't need to go through lists and lists of rules and exceptions and that I can make sense of a language which its mechanism is more logical than one can imagine, it has given me quite a little boost (as an English user and teacher of it).

And you know what Larry? I can see that Portuguese and English share common bases, the ideias of immediate and remote are quite applicable here and is one vivid example that pops up now.

Lewis is hard even for native English speakers. I can't imagine how tough it must be for you.

Yes, it's hard, that's why I am here counting on (and learning from) you here on Dave's, you have been through the process and can share your knowledge

Thanks for the incentive

José

We all learn from each other, Jose', and I'm willing to bet I speak for most people here when I declare you a full-fledged colleague, entitled to all the benefits and perks (as well as the right to be hammered occasionally when we don't agree with what you might say) appertained thereto.

Actually, Jose', it is wonderful for us as native speakers to exchange ideas with a superbly competent non-native speaker such as you. You've probably noticed we all treat you with respect, and that is because you've earned that by your comments here.

Larry Latham