PROGRESSIVE FORMS ARE ASPECTS
I try to link together all the information around here about the Progressives .
Stephen Jones wrote:The time difference here is the least meaningful of the distinctions, since all three can refer to exaclty the same period of time.
You are correct, time is the least meaningful of the distinctions, as there is no time period of time mentioned:
ExA: "
I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
ExB: "
I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
ExC: "
I exercise and diet, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
On the other hand, the idea I have been trying to deliver is that even we mention a time period, such as a Frame (=Definite Past Time Adverbial), the Progressive simply doesn't care:
Ex:
www.Schoolfriends.ie is reaching tens of thousands of people since it started 3 years ago.
== See also many other examples I found some messages ahead.
Why it doesn't care? Because the Progressive is not a tense. It is an Aspect. Yes, the famous jargon. After this message, however, it won't be one anymore. By the way, I have never used the term Tense to call Present Progressive or Perfect Progressive. (But Past Progressive working with Past Perfect will be different, as they are Tenses.)
To tell the truth, I studied Aspect Theory for quite a long time. I thought it was the only way to explain Present Perfect. And yet I finally found out, I didn't know what Aspect was, and didn't understand why we have Aspect at all. It is known to Aspect Theory that Aspect doesn't tell time. But the Present Perfect Aspect in Remoteness Theory, maybe from "The English Verb", relates time, according to some arguments here, and therefore I was quite confused at the beginning in dealing with such Aspect. In this message I will not refer to this kind of Remoteness Theory. I am not qualified to judge what is
remote. As I have mentioned, the bad thing is, the term Aspect is so vague that anyone who now has any idea about Present Perfect will call the idea Perfective Aspect. (See also "What is Aspect?" below.)
It is evident that usual Aspect Theory wanted to link Present Perfect to Aspect, implying a completion, just as Present Progressive has been linked to Aspect, yet relating a continuity. But they cannot explain that when we tell the time, such as
since 1900, we normally use Present Perfect to denote an incompletion:
Ex: He has lived here since 1900.
As I have reported, many Aspect tycoons always avoided this subject. As a result, I maintain Present Perfect is not Aspect, but telling
since 1900, a kind of Time, and therefore it is a tense. Actually, most present-day grammars still regard Present Perfect as tense. Yes, I did deny Present Perfect as Aspect. However, have we ever denied also that Present Progressive is an Aspect? We didn't. What a shame! After failing to include Present Perfect as Aspect, we would no longer talk about what is Aspect, the characteristic of Present Progressive. We didn't study the behavior of it. It is surely not a good idea.
===========
What Is Aspect?
In dictionary, ASPECT means direction, viewpoint:
Ex: We love the valley in all its Aspects.
== We love the valley if viewing it in all directions. But the important thing here is, as can be understood, though we may get a different look at it, it is the same valley.
Therefore I agree Present Progressive denotes a kind of Aspect. That is, most Simple Present can be repeated in Present Progressive without making a big mistake in expressing Time. That is to say, Present Progressive is another direction to look at Simple Present:
Ex: “He lives in Japan” compares with
“He is living in Japan”
Ex: “She writes stories for children” compares with
“She is writing stories for children”
Ex: “We discuss the use of Aspect” compares with
“We are discussing the use of Aspect”
All of above are referring to a continuity at the present time.
But Present Perfect is not an Aspect since it is not another direction to look at Simple Present:
Ex: “He lives in Japan” (a continuity) compares with
“He has lived in Japan” (a finish)
Ex: “She writes stories for children” (a continuity) compares with
“She has written stories for children” (a finish)
Ex: “We discuss the use of Aspect” (a continuity) compares with
“We have discussed the use of Aspect” (a finish)
Of course, the possibility has been considered that Present Perfect is another direction to look at Simple Past. Actually, this is the invisible essence of Aspect Theory, but it couldn't past "since 1900", as explained above.
====================
Another important point of Aspect is about logic. We use sentences (including tenses) to describe so-called actions in our life. Most actions or happenings are not like running a 60-meter match that has a clear start and end. Most actions are not so clear as to when to have started, or when will be ended. Progressive Aspects are used to help express or emphasize such kinds of vagueness.
At the beginning of doing something, logically, we don't know if the action is long-term or not, as we are not prophets. We cannot see the whole action by now. An addict to opium would always say at first "I am just smoking for fun." But the drug-smoking would very probably last forever. Judging from such logic, we cannot say Present Progressive is a temporary fad, can we? The fact is, we don't know the whole action, especially the future part.
We don't know that "I am just fishing for fun" will turn a career or not.
We don't know that "I am just swimming for fun" will turn a competitor or not.
We don't know that "I am just discussing for fun" will turn life-long or not.
We don't know that "I am just singing for fun" will turn a habit or not.
We don't know that "I am just robbing for fun" will turn a regular prisoner or not.
Therefore, we can hardly say Present Progressive is a temporary activity. We call it temporary activity only
after it ends, but it is not the right time to judge the time of an action.
Moreover, we even don't know exactly when we started to do such fishing, swimming, discussing, and singing. If you are still a teacher, actor, policeman, or fireman, can you tell me exactly when did you start? Or exactly when will the career end? We actually didn't know the exact time. For example, if you go for a vacation NEXT WEEK with your family, please tell me PRECISELY when it starts? Did it start on some fine day when you and your wife talked about traveling? Or another day you two made the decision? Or another day you finally booked the tickets? Or will you regard it starts on the day you step on the plane? Or the moment you step down the plane and reach the destination? You can never tell. No jury can judge this. However, all these are the Aspects of a vacation. All these times you can use Present Progressive to say it. It tells, or emphasizes, the vagueness of an
present action.
=====================
As for the difference in the use between Present Progressive and Perfect Progressive, please see the following timeline diagram, a present action from beginning A to the end D, like a horizontal curve:
A//////B|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||C\\\\\\D
1. From A to B is the starting part of it, expressed in Present Progressive. In simple words, A-B is a new action. The action is newly started.
2. From C to D is the ending part of it, expressed in Perfect Progressive. In simple words, C-D is an old, long-term action. However, sometimes it is a just-finished action, indicating it is approximately at D.
3. From B to C is the on-going part of it, expressed in Simple Present. It is the main part of present action. As logically, usually we can't see the whole part of action, and don't know when an action ends, this B-C part is supposed to be indefinitely long.
The whole part from A to D is a present action. Any part of it is “an action not yet finished”, which is the definition of Simple Present.
Please note that most of the time, the three tenses are nearly interchangeable, with two progressive forms indicating we look at the action from another directions, or Aspects:
Ex: I
am getting up early these weeks.
Ex: I
get up early these weeks.
Ex: I
have been getting up early these weeks.
We may use Present Progressive to describe something like
I am traveling to Japan next week when you ask me why I am packing up things. What I mean is, traveling to Japan doesn’t have to start at the time I leave home. When I start preparing to go, it is part of the traveling. This is much more reasonable than labeling Present Progressive as Future Tense.
Further, according to the diagram, though Perfect Progressive is mostly not a finished action, sometimes we use it to describe actions that are just ended (at the point D):
Ex: “What happens? I have been sleeping, what's up?”
Ex: “Joe, I have been talking to Mary and I know what you have done.”
== A just-finished action can be said in Perfect Progressive.
Because I know this phenomenon, I would endeavor to search for something like "*I have been reaching the summit", which is wrongly regarded by Lighthouse1971b as an erroneous structure, in the thread of "Perfect vs. Perfect Progressive":
Ex: Inflatable technologies for solar array deployment have been reaching maturity.
== A just-finished action can be said in Perfect Progressive.
Interesting, I have noticed a combination before, and if you want, you will also become aware of this more than usual: The adjective ‘new’ is frequently coupled with Present Progressive, while ‘long’ is well compatible with Perfect Progressive.
A//////B|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||C\\\\\\D
However, speaking logically, as in the diagram above, it is very hard to tell exactly where is A-B, because usually we don't see the whole action at the moment. Therefore, even exactly in A-B, Simple Present and Present Progressive are nearly interchangeable. Even with the whole situation being understood by the listeners, and even in writing, no one will challenge against either Simple Present or Present Progressive, should the speaker confuse them, or switch them at will.
Simply put, using Aspect is subjective, rather than objective, being just another viewpoint to Simple Present. The similarity applies also to C-D, the vagueness between Simple Present and Prefect Progressive.
Talking about A-B, the newest action is the one we are doing at the moment. Therefore we use Present Progressive to describe what happens under our very nose at the moment. In dialogue, this is the most frequent use of Present Progressive.
================
Some examples reviewed here.
ExA: "
I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== An old action. To me, the sentence relates a complaint about not losing weight for long suffering. If we don't use the style of Aspect, we may say in Present Perfect: "I have exercised and dieted for a rather long time, but I haven't lost weight."
ExB: "
I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== A new action. To me, it is no wonder I haven't lost weight -- yet.
ExC: "
I exercise and diet, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== A on-going action. A present action. An action now not yet ended. I don't know why I haven't lost weight.
Ex: Fasol
has been working professionally in or with Japan since 1984 and he
is working continuously in Japan since 1991 in responsible positions.
http://www.eurotechnology.com/info/fasol.html
== In this example the author uses both Progressives with
since. As relating Aspects, the time Frame doesn't work, violating my four simple rules.
Has been working is regarded as an old action, while
is working is new. Progressive tenses denoting Aspects are rather subjective, and yet we still cannot change the order of these two progressives here.
===========
As I can remember, I have expressed all my viewpoints about various tenses here. After this, I have nothing to say anymore, and therefore I am going away. If the information can be published, please do, as it has never been published in English, either in large scale or small. I have it printed in Chinese versions, though. I'll claim no money at all, but it is much better to add my name on it. If you think it is only rubbish, please forget the whole thing.
As I said I have spent decades on the studying, it is true. I started the discussion first by posting letters. I have done the whole study because I really can't hide away past time adverbials (such as "in the past xx years") for Present Perfect, and then teach that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time adverbials. Under this false conclusion, there will be no deeper researches anymore. To top all, more and more harmful things have been done just for the same concealment. In contrast, my four simple rules, or the horizontal curve in this message, for example, can be understandable to young students, I guess.
By the way, in order to support their theory of "current relevance" for Present Perfect, in A Grammar of Contemporary English, R. Quirk, et al. use only examples with expressions of a time adverbial, just like a group of examples selected by Lighthouse1971b, in the thread of "Perfect vs. Perfect Progressive". Maybe they
really, as same as Lighthouse1971b, didn't even know something special about those examples.
Shun