'The Past' can refer to social distance. Discuss.

strider · Post by **strider** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:36 pm

In an appendix of Business Grammar Builder (Macmillan), the author (Paul Emmerson) states that '...The Past in English can refer to social distance and distant probability as well as its more obvious meaning of distance in time.'

He then gives an example 'Knowing that we can use the past to show social distance helps to understand why Could I..? is more formal or polite than Can I..?

Is he right? What are your views?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:38 pm

Hmmm, remoteness again....

Those who agree with Michael Lewis will argue that the "Past" actually reflects "remoteness". Therefore the use of the past in formal situations is quite consistent as it reflects another kind of distance. Those who don't would (probably) argue that the past in formal situations is another use.

Whatever your analysis, it's certainly not unusual. One example I've used in other threads is:

(In a travel agent's)
Customer: I'd like to book a flight to Hong Kong.
Agent: When did you want to travel?

Here, the travel agent uses the Past to reflect the fact that it's a formal situation. When do you want... would probably sound a bit too familiar.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:00 pm

the author (Paul Emmerson) states that '...The Past in English can refer to social distance and distant probability as well as its more obvious meaning of distance in time.'

Obviously correct. I fail to see how anybody can disagree.

stephen · Post by **stephen** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:34 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:
the author (Paul Emmerson) states that '...The Past in English can refer to social distance and distant probability as well as its more obvious meaning of distance in time.'
Obviously correct. I fail to see how anybody can disagree.

Correct, yes I agree. I, unfortunately, see how other people can fail to see this. I will summarize the reasons below.

1. It wasn't on there cert.TESOL/CELTA course.
2. They have had no/little EFL training.
3. 1 or 2 and They have done no reading on the subject.
4. It isn't explained like that in the textbooks they teach from probably in conjunction with 1 or 2 and 3.

Sorry, if this is a little depressing, I would welcome someone to correct me by listing some books/papers which state differently about this view of the past, but Murphy's Grammar in Use, Headway, New Interchange, or equivalent textbooks do not count!

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:25 pm

I think that's exactly why we are here, if many fail to see this phenomenon we are among the ones who see it. Lewis in his Lexical Approach states that sometimes editors and teachers know these nuances in the language but as compiling a book is a commercial venture, they try to keep their approach to grammar as traditional as possible so that students won't be shocked and some most non-native speakers who teach English won't feel (and consequently lose the little "power" they have on the language comparing to their pupils) that what they were teached is not a canon to be blindly followed.

When I teach this aspect of remoteness I remind my students that we do the same in our native language, i.e., using a "past form" with present or even future meaning when we feel that the relation between the speakers is remote, distant, formal, so why can't English behave like this? The so-called Present Simple is not attached to the Present Time and the same goes for the "Past simple".

But I guess we are a long way to change this.

José

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:40 pm

I tnink a lot of the fault lies with Lewis and his acolytes. In "The English Verb" he attempts to divorce the Past Simple completely from any idea of time, and gets his knickers in a right old twist. And his attempts to find a single explanation for modality cut him off completely from reality.

As a result of this kind of fundamentalism other authors decide his theories are either incoherent or incomprehensible or both, and ignore them altogether.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:04 pm

I don't think you're being entirely fair with Lewis. It's not that he divorces the Past Simple completely from time, but he rather proposes a basic meaning that explains why we use went, was... etc with the past when it is seen in a certain way:

The idea of remoteness is even helpful in looking at the more starightforward uses of the second form (Past Simple). Many uses of this form, of course, refer to Past Time and are what people would think of as obvious uses of the past tense. (page 70 of the LTP edition)

Personally I find that making a distinction between Tense and Time helps to clear up a lot of confusion, particularly with the high level students who have a lot of trouble coping with authentic language which doesn't follow Murphy's laws.

As for a "single explanation of modality", Lewis himself points out what a tricky area it is, and accepts that some modals have multiple meanings that have to be treated separately.

Now, I'm not saying that Lewis has all the answers but I wouldn't recommend anyone chuck their copy of The English Verb in the bin. If he was so completely cut off from reality then TEV wouldn't be required reading on so many DELTA courses.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:15 pm

Who needs Larry when there's lolwhites to carry on the good fight!

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:58 pm

Lolwhites wrote:

Personally I find that making a distinction between Tense and Time helps to clear up a lot of confusion, particularly with the high level students who have a lot of trouble coping with authentic language which doesn't follow Murphy's laws.

And I thought that Murphy's law was that "if it can go wrong, it will go wrong."

But seriously, we've been here before many times and I think everyone is agreed on this.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:08 pm

I think you are selectively reading Lewis lolwhites. He refuses to accept that the Past Simple (or second form as he prefers to call it) has anything to do with the past and ties himself completely in knots trying to explain why if it is distance in time that is the explanation, then how come it is never used for events that are in the distant future.

Lewis believes there must be one explanation for everything and completely ignores historical linguistics. The result is that incisive analysis is topped by delusional synthesis.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:43 pm

But seriously, we've been here before many times and I think everyone is agreed on this.

I quite agree and I don't want to go over old ground, and I don't want to get into another pointless argument of whether he is right or wrong. What I am objecting to is this red mist that seems to descend over some people's keyboards as soon as Lewis's name is brought up, as though he had absolutely nothing to offer. Like I said, if that was the case why is he recommended reading on DELTA courses? Is it a conspiracy to bump his sales up?

I've just skim read the section on the "Past Simple" in my copy of TEV and I can't find the bit where he says the form has nothing to do with the past.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I don't see him as some kind of guru. I just think that he, like many other writers, makes some valid points and some not so good ones. That's hardly radical, is it?