Ok, it's a joke title, but I've just been reading the languagelog entry entry on use of the phrase "passive tense" and I wanted to put down a couple of thoughts.

Of course I know, as I expect everyone here does, the difference between tense, aspect, voice and modality. Nevertheless I still find that I often refer to "progressive/continuous tenses" and to "perfect tenses" though I don't believe I've ever referred to any modal usage (apart from "will" to talk about the future) as a tense and I know I've never used the phrase "passive tense".

The question is what to do with my students. These are people who are learning English as a second language. That doesn't mean they are stupid or uneducated. Many of them are better educated than I am, just not in English. They are familiar with grammatical concepts and they want labels that they can write in their books and use to jog their memories when retrieving the correct structure.

I could, I suppose, try to teach them the various bits of jargon I used above. I could tell them that English has only two (inflexional) tenses and that the future is formed with a modal and that perfect and continuous are aspects and...

...well, I'm sure you get the picture. I could teach them all sorts of stuff but is it of any actual use to them? What they want to be able to do is communicate in spoken and written English. What they don't want, or need, to do is discuss linguistic terminology in depth. I am really commiting such a terrible sin if I tell them that "I have been swimming" is the present perfect continuous tense? After all it's the way most teachers refer to it, some through laziness, some through ignorance and some, like me, deliberately to simplify the terminology for the students.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of my colleagues don't know the difference anyway.

So what's to be done? Confuse my students with accurate terminology or use the inaccurate terminology to avoid confusion?

Anyone got any opinions?

Well, 2 thoughts, Bob, and neither will be helpful, I'm sure. First, I realize that I should scrap wanting to study linguistics; instead I need to go back and study my English. Unless I was taught different terminology for the concepts of "aspect" and "modality," I couldn't tell you what they are...I am sorry to say. Maybe I had learned them, but now I've forgotten; I just don't know.

Second, I see no benefit in teaching inaccuracies. If you were to simplify the terminology, perhaps you could tell the what it really is, and tell them you're simplifying it for them. I'd not want to teach an inaccuracy, though. It would go against my grain.

However...I'd better learn the correct terminology myself!

Is the terminology (or come to that the concepts) all that complex? That many people haven't learnt it doesn't necessarily make it difficult. There are plenty of complex terms in other disciplines and that doesn't stop their being taught to those who study the discipline.

Most people, of course, manage to speak English very well without knowing much about linguistic terms, but if your students are clever people and want to have a label for the various concepts, then why not teach them? After all, those who decide they can manage without knowing the name for a particular linguistic concept don't need to remember it.

It's hard enough teaching the concepts. Most languages don't use progressive tenses as we do. (I'm carefully avoiding saying don't have them as there are always other ways to express the same concepts).

For example my Asian students (and this is intermediate level) ALL still find it next to impossible to choose between. "I drive" and "I am driving".

Second, hands up everyone who noticed me say "progressive tense" instead of "progressive aspect" in paragraph one. I know the difference and I still wrote it without thinking. If not for the fact that it's the subject of the discussion I wouldn't have noticed it myself.

There are two schools of thought on this anyway. (Read the languagelog artocle for examples why it's complex.)

Third consider how to describe this structure

"By three O'clock I should have been travelling for three hours, if everything goes to plan."

This is a perfect continuous aspect of a future possibility expressed using the modal "should" attached to the present perfect continuous.

Or consider this.

By this time next week the building may have been demolished.

Now we have a perfect aspect of the passive voice of a future form expressed using the modal "may" attcahed to the present perfect simple.

You will find many grammar books that say we have twelve tenses.

Three simple ones (I try, I tried, I will try).
Three progressive ones (I am trying, I was trying, I will be trying).
Three perfect ones (I have tried, I had tried, I will have tried)
Three perfect continuous ones (I have been trying, I had been trying, I will have been trying.)

The other view says that, of these, only two (I try, I tried) are really tenses. The reasons I say this are explained in that article. Basically it comes down to if those are going to be called tenses then why not "I am going to try", "I used to try", "I need to try", "I can try", "the cake was tried but not eaten" etc etc.

There is terminology. The ones called perfect and continuous above are "aspects". The cake example is passive "voice".

But no-one except linguistics students use these more accurate terms. Don't feel bad for not knowing them, K. I'll bet if I asked five hundred people including most ESOL teachers they couldn't tell you the difference. Students are almost always taught that there are twelve tenses.


Now to show why it's the concepts that are difficult I want you to look at these sentences and use them to explain how to select the tense/aspect/voice (we'll ignore modality) that you need. You need to think first about what is the difference in meaning.

I live in Birmingham. (present simple)
I am living in Birmingham. (present continuous)
I have lived in Birmingham. (present perfect)
I have been living in Birmingham. (present perfect continuous)
I have been living in Birmingham since 1990. (present perfect continuous with a time expression.)

When you are sure you have it straight in your head write down sentences beginning

Use the __________________ when ________________________________.


You'll see just how hard it is and how you take for granted your understanding of these forms.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

For example my Asian students (and this is intermediate level) ALL still find it next to impossible to choose between. "I drive" and "I am driving".

I've noticed that with other nationalities - Germans, for example.

"I come today" instead of "I am coming today".

Precisely. German lacks the structure corresponding to "I am coming" and so both "I come" and "I am coming" translate into German as "Ich komme".

It is possible to express the sense of an action partway through in other ways but the continuous aspect as such doesn't exist.

Worse still is when other varieties of English use it to mean different things. In UK/USA English it is possible to say "I am coming (now)." and "I am coming tomorrow" but not "I am coming yesterday." This last construction is common among Indian speakers of English and is used in the Indian variety of English.

Too bad that Zmj is in India now because I am sure he'd have some thoughts on this.

I have had second thoughts, Bob, after reading your post. I had quickly read the LanguageLog article yesterday, but I will read it more carefully tonight. But now I think you are right not to focus on the terminology. They might become overwhelmed. I'd just be careful not to misinform them about terminology then. Perhaps say something like, "This terminology will make it easier for you to learn the concepts, though there is more specific terminology for those who study linguistics." As a professor myself, I just hate it when faculty don't provide accurate or up-to-date information, and that was what I was reacting to.

I am happy I've found this forum where such interesting questions so dear to my heart are posed on a daily basis!!!

Just an opinion-- but that's what you asked for. In teaching English as a foreign language, I would-- as so many verb charts seem to do-- avoid the words tense, aspect, voice, and modality completely. I am probably missing something, but having read all your references, I can't figure out how knowing how to describea verb form such as "present perfect continuous" will be useful to them. Of course they wantto start with what they know grammatically, and translate over to English, concept by concept and word by word, but that's not necessarily to be encouraged.

I think you are wise to zero in on the concepts in your teaching, as you have in your post. With Asian and German students, as you infer, you will focus on comparative contexts for simple vs. continuous. Ultimately, the student is going to have to learn what 'sounds right' when making these choices, because, unless you're learning Latin, there isn't sufficient time to consult a mental set of grammatical terms as extensive as ours before deciding whether it's "was going" or "went."

To me the difference between to present and the present continuous tense is one of permanence (and is similar to the Spanish verbs "Ser" (I am permanently) and "Estar" (I am temporarily).

Thus, in your example, "I live in Birmingham" suggests a permanent situation. Birmingham is why I am permanently living, not somewhere that I am based for a temporary period.

"I am living in Birmingham", on its own, would seem to mean much the same - but it is rarely used on its own. Thus, it might be used in answer to the question, "Where are you based?" "I'm living in Birmingham". The extra phrase "at the moment" is implied, but not stated.

Even more appropriately the present continuous would be used for the verb "To stay" when it's used to indicate location. "Where are you based?" "I'm staying at the Birmingham Thistle.". Again the extra phrase "at present" is implied.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
To me the difference between to present and the present continuous tense is one of permanence (.

And indeed you are right. To a degree.
State verbs (live/be/sit/stand/wait etc) do have this implication of permanence when used in the simple form and of transience when used in the continuous form.

Sadly nothing is ever cut and dried.

More active verbs carry the similar implication of an action performed now vs. an action performed habitually or regularly.

I am watching TV/I watch TV
The sun is rising/The sun rises

There is the further complication that a present continuous verb can refer in British/American English to the future and in Indian English to the past.

There is the further complication of the dramatic or narrative present so beloved of sports commenators and historians.

(So, he's running down the wing and the keeper hasn't seen him. He crosses it to Beckham who's just waiting in the middle. Beckham streaks towards the goal. They're chasing him but cant, catch him. He shoots...he scores...

Or, lest anyone considers this to be inarticulate

It is the nineteenth century. Queen Victoria is on the throne. The poor people of London are living in squallid an unsanitary conditions. This, then, is the world with which Dickens is familiar.)

Then to further complicate things we have the emphatic use of the present continuous.

You never listen.
I AM listening.

Then there is the use to indicate that something has started which may or may not be a permanent thing.

Oh, yes, life here is changing, there's no doubt about that.

Global warming is increasing.


------------------------------------------


All of that is before we even come onto trying to describe how the present perfect is used for an action that started or occurred in the past but has some impact on or connection with the present, or the past perfect is used for sequencing things that occurred in the past.

As I say the concepts themselves are complex enough. As native speakers we never have to think twice about them. We just know what is meant. We never even think once about the structures. No native speaker is going to say. "I coming tomorrow" or "I am eat my dinner".

Explaining the forms is relatively easy. Explaining the choice isn't.

Also, when it comes to the passive voice, there isn't really a difference in meaning between

The boy broke the window.

and

The window was broken by the boy.

But nevertheless we would know which, in given circumstances, sounded right. (Though it might be different for the English and the American speakers.)

Incidentally, in line one of Richards post he said "present continuous tense". He meant of course "The continuous aspect of the present tense."

quote:

Incidentally, in line one of Richards post he said "present continuous tense". He meant of course "The continuous aspect of the present tense."

Indeed. But I was using your own nomenclature as in:

I live in Birmingham. (present simple)
I am living in Birmingham. (present continuous)

Of course, nothing is ever simple in language since all rules seem to be breakable. To those whose brains work in a "mathematical" way this seems strange, since in mathematics rules are always rules and there can be no exceptions. So 2 plus 2 always equals four - it doesn't equal five if the overall sum is more than five lines long, for example.

But as we all know, it's "I before E except after C" (although there are exceptions that follow no rules at all!)

2+2=11 Base 3
2+2=10 Base 4

Just being argumentative now.

quote:

Just being argumentative now

And in the same vein:

The rules for addition using different bases are still fixed. Once you know them they always apply. There are no capricious exceptions as is so often the case with language.