Progressive or simple / temporary or permanent

English as a Second Language English Vocabulary, Grammar and Idioms
1

Happy New Year!!!

I’ve read the following in Michael Swann:We often prefer the present perfect progressive to talk about more temporary actions, however the present perfect is more preferable when we talk about longer-lasting or permanent situations.

Compare:

  • [i]That man has been standing on the corner all day. (is it over, or not?)

  • For 900 years the castle has stood on the hill above the village. (so it still stands there)

  • I haven’t been working very well recently. (so, I’ll have to start working well again)

  • He hasn’t worked for years! (so, he still doesn’t work).[/i]

So can you also say: I haven’t seen him for years (meaning, I still don’t see him?)

Look at the following conversation:

A: Where’s your brother?
B: I really don’t know. I haven’t seen nor heard from him in years.

I find it a bit confusing since, the present perfect continuous also emphasizes the continuation of an action, whereas the present perfect emphasizes an event or situation which started in the past, leading up to the present-state-of-affairs and that situation might just have ended and might have present results or consequences.
Could someone, please, explain this to me.

Thanks, Detlef

2

I hate Swann. I truly wish he had read a linguistic book or two before writing his grammar books.

3

Recently I had to explain the difference to someone, and I failed; grammar books are usually a bit vague, and I find it very difficult to come up with clear rules; I always make my choice based on intuition. Some sense of progression is connected to the continuous form; but how strong it is, and to what degree this sense of progression is excluded from the simple form, I find it hard to determine. Oxford, do you have more articulate ideas on this?

What I can come up with are situations in which the simple form is possible but the continuous form is not. These “rules”, however, are very tentative ones: there may well be exceptions.

1. In a sentence that expresses a completed action in the indefinite past:
- Yes, I have kissed a girl. So what? It was before I took my vows.

2. In a sentence that is presented as expressing a definite number of repeated acts, as opposed to a single, continuous action:
- I have waved at the waiter five times since our arrival, but he appears to be ignoring us.

(The second rule could be regarded as included in the first.)

3. With verbs that cannot have the continuous form at all:
- I have had this car since 2001. (“To have” in the sense of “to possess”.)
[i]- I have loved her ever since I met her; if you killed her, I’d hang myself.

  • Big Ben has stood here for so long; we cannot simply demolish it without the Queen’s permission.[/i] (“To stand” in the sense used with buildings or trees; “Big Ben has been standing here” to me sounds like the slightest personification.)

On the other hand, there are situations in which the continuous form is preferred. But why?
[i]- Look at all those puddles; it must have been raining.

  • George has been working very hard this month.[/i]

A. Some say the continuous is restricted to actions that started in the recent past; but what about this:
- The Chinese have been taking it easy for centuries, as is their nature; but now their cities seem to be teeming with new factories and offices.
Or would you say that the simple form is better here?

B. Others say that the continuous is used to express that the action has not just ended but is still going on; but this, too, appears to be contradicted by the previous example, as it is by the following:
- I have been telling her all week to see a doctor, but she will not listen; she is at work now. (I am not actually telling her now; and it is by no means certain that I will tell her when I next see her, since it might then be too late, she might have changed her mind, or she might feel better already.)

4

Cerberus, you’ve really hit the mark with intuition. More than anything the selection of tense/aspect combination relies on the intuition of native or near-native speakers. What most fail to recognise though, is what characteristics of the language are governing that intuition. English utilized three types of temporal attribute in every expression (you could also say English has three grammatical categories based on time). These are tense (temporal reference), aspect (temporal nature of the utterance), and aktionsart (temporal nature of the verb).

Tense is simply a reference between the b[/b] time of the utterance (which is the time that the construction is spoken or written, or in reported speech, the time in which is is said to occur), and either the b [/b]time of assertion (time that the verb occurs – used for progressive constructions, and for non-progressive constructions except for habituals and generalizations), b[/b] time of completion (point at which the verb is completed – used for perfect and perfect progressive constructions), or b[/b] the time of evaluation (the time at which the assertion is evaluated as true – used for habituals, generalizations, and most modal future forms). All that tense is, is a contrast between these references. If the Tutt occurs concurrently with the other references, the sentence is present tense. If Tutt occurs after these references, the sentence is past tense. And, if Tutt occurs before the other reference, it’s in the future.

Aktionsart: Verbs in English (and especially other Germanic languages) have an inherent temporal nature. In German, this is very strong, so that the verb itself carries inherent in its meaning a nature of being an action, a state, etc. In fact, the word aktionsart is German for verb-type. Aktionsart is a strong force in German and governs the temporal nature of the sentence. This is why German only has one aspect while English has two – they don’t need a separate aspect, because the verb itself determines whether the sentence expresses action or not. Some English verbs have a strong inherent aktionsart that affect how the verb behaves but most verbs in English can be used in any combination of tense or aspect.

Aspect: Aktionsart in English, unlike in German, is not a strong governing force. The temporal nature of the verb itself rarely determines the temporal nature of the utterance as a whole. English instead uses aspect which utilizes the structure of the utterance to establish its temporal nature. This allows English to use verbs which may have a non-active aktionsart in an active way. Consider the current McDonald’s slogan “I’m loving it.” Love is a non-active verb and the normal usage would be “I love it” because love is generally thought not to have duration in the same way that run or drive does. Yet by using an active structure (be + -ing), non-active love can be used as as active “I am loving,” as in, “right now, this food is so great that I am loving it as we speak,” because the progressive aspect connotes duration as part of its structure regardless of the content verb used. This is the key difference between English and most other languages – English does with structure, what most verbs do with meaning.

The combinations of aspect and tense are themselves, very clear cut. The confusion of when to use which form comes from the relationship between aspect and aktionsart, especially with those verbs in which their aktionsart has a specific nature expressing duration, or inherent termination. These two attributes are normally handled by the progressive aspect and the perfected forms. But when a content verb’s aktionsart (inherent temporal nature) is already progressive or perfect, perfecting a perfect or making a progressive progressive becomes awkward, unnecessary, or even wrong. This is what’s happening in the examples Swann uses.

Swann fails to recognize this (as most grammar book authors do), and instead attempts to create rules based on observations of forms without reference to what is happening linguistically within the sentences. These ‘rules’ end up only working under certain conditions or having as many exceptions as applications – a total ‘fail’ in any scientific system.

Native speakers recognize when aktionsart overrides the need for aspect to establish the temporal nature of a sentence. Non-natives must learn this, and since most dictionaries don’t discuss aktionsart, learning about this is very difficult.

(I hope that made sense and wasn’t too technical)

5

Thanks Cerberus and OxfordBlues. You are quite right about Swann, sometimes he’s so unclear and vague! Can you recommend a good grammar book?

6

There really aren’t any great grammar books. And, being a year into writing one myself, I can understand why. It’s very difficult to write one that is correct in both linguistic terms and which accounts for standard usage.

Your best bet would likely be to purchase a US university-level grammar and composition handbook. They don’t cost much and you can find them on amazon. They are really nothing more than guides and rules on when to use what form, punctuation, etc.

7

Thanks OxfordBlues. Let me know when your book is published. I’d like to buy a copy.

8

Thank you, Oxford! That was a very systematic exposition of what I vaguely knew at the back of my head. I now remember scanning a similar explanation in your paper. It was great to read this kind of linguistic background on English grammar; aspect and Aktionsart are important for the only languages that I have been taught in a systematic way, Greek and Latin; but of course English works partly in the same manner.

Sometimes the metaphor of a camera was used to distinguish between tense and aspect in Latin: the ending of a verb was said to express the position of the camera of the narrator, being in past, present, or future; the stem of the verb then expressed the direction it was facing: back in time (perfect), or simultaneous (present). A direction forward in time is to be expressed by a periphrastic construction with future participles, or sometimes by past subjunctives. This metaphor can be easy to comprehend for beginners.

What I’d be interested in learning is the difference in aspect between the present perfect and the present perfect continuous, leaving Aktionsart alone for the moment. I assume that we consider their tenses to be identical? As I said, I use them on intuition only; but when I start thinking about them, I do not find this added progressive/continuous aspect to be very clear, even with verbs whose Aktionsart presumably does not interfere. Or am I mistaken? Consider:
1. I have worked here since November.
2. I have been working here since November.
How to define the difference in aspect? Or would you say that Aktionsart also plays a part here?

In Greek there is the difficult-to-solve question of the aorist participle: the aorist is supposed to preclude duration, and yet the participle implies contemporaneity, which is impossible without some duration.
Take for example: lusas ton andr’hos elegen
Lusas is aorist participle of luein: to loosen, to free. The main verb is elegen: he spoke. The choice is between:

  1. Having freed the man, he spoke thus.
  2. Freeing the man, he spoke thus.
    Since it is supposed that the Greeks viewed it as being earlier in time, we prefer 1; but it is very difficult to fit it into a system.
9

Actually Cerberus,

You really can’t consider most progressive versus simple (I really like my durational versus informational names better – they just seem to make more sense) problems with out aktionsart. The reason I say this is because the ones that are very confusing or seem to say the same thing is because the aktionsart of the verb is durational by nature. So in your example, work (in this usage) has duration. It’s simply by its own nature a verb that happens over a length of time. Even though ‘I have been working here since November’ is the form that expresses duration through its structure, its meaning is no different from ‘I have worked here since November’ because, while the second sentence’s structure doesn’t connote duration, the nature of the verb work does. So in this particular usage, using the durational form (be + ing) is redundant.

As for the perfected forms, remember that they are not separate tenses or aspects, but simply the completed forms of the two aspects. In the informational aspect, the perfected form designates a completion of the verb, or in other words, shows that it’s finished. In the durational though, even though the perfected form still connotes completion, it’s use is usually more one of interruption or completion up to a point (that point being established by the tense). So, ‘I have been walking for two hours’ means that as of this time (present) the activity of walking has occurred for a length of two hours and those two hours of that activity are complete. The thing about the durational forms is that there remains a possibility that the activity could continue onward beyond the time of the utterance (unless it is known that the activity is finished). Thus, the primary use of the perfected durational is to measure the duration of an activity up to a specific point in time.

To show further how integral aktionsart is to understanding the meaning of a sentence in regard to aspect, consider the other meaning of work (as in to be functional).

  1. It has worked before.
  2. It has been working since November.
  3. *It has worked since November.

In this usage, work (function) is not necessarily durational. In this case a single verb has multiple aktionsarten depending on usage and meaning. In ‘It has worked before,’ the sentence is non-durational, it’s merely a reported bit of information. In ‘It has been working since November,’ the structure provides duration so that the speaker can point out that ‘it’ has been known to function continuously since November (a period of time, or duration).

Example 3 is interesting because while it’s grammatically possibly, when work is used in this context it doesn’t make sense. In ‘It has worked since November,’ the phrase ‘since November’ carries with it a duration but since function in this sense is non-durational (aktionsart), the meaning is flawed because the ongoing (progressive, continous) functionality would be expressed with sentence number 2. The really neat part here though, is that if you negated 3, it would be ok. ‘It has not worked since November’ is a nearly identical structure, but it’s not durational, and since is used in a different way. In this sentence, ‘it’ worked in November (information). This was true in November, but it has not been true since November.

I can certainly see how this sort of thing is so confusing for language learners (and natives alike).

10

Hi Drew,

I tend to agree with you about Comrade Swann. The trouble is he’s done it, written it and published the book so he’s there to refer to even when you don’t agree with him. Some years ago in all eagerness I went to a conference at which he was a guest speaker and went away thinking how boring, lugubrious and uninspiring he was. David Crystal is a much better bet in my opinion. At least he tries to make his books entertaining.

Alan

11

Hi Alan,

First of all I’m sorry for my post at the rap-song-message. Thanks for your advice on Crystal. I have heard about him. Are his books still available?

Detlef

12

Hi Detlef,

If you go to www.amazon.com you will see all the books written by Crystal. He is very much alive and still writing. Simply put in David Crystal

Alan

13

Hi Alan,

Thank you and Happy New Year. If I ever lose my temper again, simply tell me, but I promise you it won’t happen again. I’m very well aware of the fact that I can be very nasty. That’s probably why you will never catch me on a dance floor; I might trip over my tongue!!
However, be that as it may, I’m very happy you replied.

Detlef