Perfect agony

[Metamorfose]

This is from another forum, one asked something about perfect aspect and the past simple (as usual) and one of the posters came up with this example:

(1)I've broken my leg yesterday. This plaster really bothers me.

Then they went on explaining:


"Although the action is finished and there is a precise reference to the past , the speaker's chosen the present perfect. This could have been on the following grounds: Either the speaker wanted to emphasise that the event was recent or they wanted to draw attention to the broken leg."

What do you think? I am quite aware that some people might use the perfect aspect with words such as yesterday but is it proper for an EFL environment?

José

[metal56]

What do you think? I am quite aware that some people might use the perfect aspect with words such as yesterday but is it proper for an EFL environment?

José

It's an error. Not proper for any environment really.

[lolwhites]

I don't think I've broken my leg yesterday is necessarily an error - as it only happened yesterday, it could well be "present" in the mind of the speaker. Whether or not it's appropriate to the classroom will depend on the class, but as a rule I'd tell students to avoid such structures until they have a pretty high level.

[Andrew Patterson]

I've broken my leg; I did it yesterday. This plaster really bothers me.

Sorry, but you've got to use the past simple if you say yesterday.

[metal56]

I don't think I've broken my leg yesterday is necessarily an error - as it only happened yesterday, it could well be "present" in the mind of the speaker. Whether or not it's appropriate to the classroom will depend on the class, but as a rule I'd tell students to avoid such structures until they have a pretty high level.

This is basic stuff, Lolwhites. Take a look at this:

The most important thing to remember about the present perfect is that it can never be used with adverbs which describe finished time periods, such as yesterday, five minutes ago and at three o'clock. If a time adverb is used with the present perfect, it should describe a time period which is unfinished.

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/ ... rfect.html

[Metamorfose]

This is basic stuff, Lolwhites. Take a look at this:

But if we are to go for the basics we would end up in things like "never end a sentence with a preposition", "one cannot split to + basic form" and the like, some (rare) natives use this, look:

English Observed, Richard MacAndrew, LTP, page 63

1. Sir Robin Day has ended his 20-year marriage in the London divorce court yesterday.

6. I've been to the British seaside last Sunday.

References (page 64)

1. The Guardian 8.11.1985
6. BBC1. Paramount City. 19.5.1990

And on page 64

Again, I would not wish to make too much of these rare instances. They do, however, demonstrate an important point -- speakers set out to create meaning. They do this by combining words and structures spontaneously to make their meaning clear. English grammar, just as much as vocabulary, contributes to the meaning of what is said or written.

If we put aside the EFL part, we could think that if something happens in a language it is not by chance, the language user somehow has decided to make use of something, even if it may sound unusual or odd at first.

And I'd ask, as native speakers, have you ever met such usages?

José

[fluffyhamster]

The thing with those sort of "examples" is that they aren't exactly leaping off of every printed page or transcripted speech that we see (MacAndrew himself admits that they are rare - one wonders how much he might have had to dig). It's probably best to categorize them as performance errors, reformulations, anomalies overall (notwithstanding the by no means low incidence of error and/or reformulation in speech generally - see e.g. Carter and McCarthy's new grammar), rather than valid alternatives or a growing trend or whatever; nor did they exist prior to, and seem therefore to appear as an exception to, silly prescriptivist rules (why would you consider those "basic", Jose?!).

[fluffyhamster]

And I'd ask, as native speakers, have you ever met such usages?

None in NS writing, that I can recall; as for all the speech I've "heard" (so much passes one by) in my life, I can't be so certain, but I suspect the incidence would again be very low.

[lolwhites]

Metal, you'll have to cite better sources than something fellow teachers upload to the Internet. Check this out from Swan:

Grammars usually say that the present perfect cannot be used together with expressions of finished time...In fact, such structures are unusual, but not impossible (though learners should avoid them). They often occur in brief news items, where space is limited.
Page 443 of the Third Edition

[metal56]

But if we are to go for the basics we would end up in things like "never end a sentence with a preposition", "one cannot split to + basic form" and the like, some (rare) natives use this, look:

Not the same thing at all. I do not know of any dialect of English that uses adverbs of completed time with the present perfect. Maybe some idiolects do, but those have no place in teaching ESL/EFL.

Try to think about why the perfect forms do not sit well with adverbs of finished time. Just think about it and then reply.

If we put aside the EFL part, we could think that if something happens in a language it is not by chance, the language user somehow has decided to make use of something, even if it may sound unusual or odd at first.

And so for you, there are never errors in usage at all, right?

[metal56]

...They often occur in brief news items, where space is limited.
Page 443 of the Third Edition

Even so, the logic of the present perfect does not allow adverbs of finished time.

[metal56]

for you, Meta:

The horse's trainer has had a winner here yesterday.

Do you like it? Would you use it?

[lolwhites]

Metal - I see you're quoting Swan's examples too. Are you saying you disagree with him when he says "such examples are unusual but not impossible"? The "logic of the present perfect" certainly makes such usage highly unlikely, but I wouldn't say they were completely wrong. I would still advise students to follow the principle of "don't use present perfect with an expression of finished time", which covers the overwhelming majority of cases.

I know the question was for Meta, not me, but personally I don't have a problem with The horse's trainer has had a winner here yesterday, and I might well use it if the event is psychologically "close". However, I would probably be more likely to say, and expect to hear, The horse's trainer had...

[Andrew Patterson]

Surely principles of Plain English have to come in here. The example of the horse might just about count as grammatical through the use of principles of logic, but you are exposing the reader or listener to odd language for which there are more easily understandable alternatives.

[lolwhites]

The problem, Andrew, is that students who surf the web, listen to podcasts, visit English-speaking countries etc may well come across the construction. I wouldn't go out of my way to expose students to it, particularly early on, but I still have to say something to the student who asks "I was watching TV last night and heard this sentence - is it correct?"

Something else just occurred to me: If a speaker begins by saying "The horse's trainer has had winner here" and, halfway through the utterance, decides it would be a good idea to specify a time, then surely they are more likely to simply add "yesterday" at the end rather than rephrase the whole thing. Could this account for how the structure could appear in spoken language?