Present perfect In british and american

Introduction

Topicality

Today there are many "versions" of English, due to the UK throughout its history had different geographical areas of influence on almost every continent. However, the two varieties of English, which today are taught more often, are British and American. Although English was originally distributed around the world from England, British English today is not called the "most important" and all kinds of language are treated equally.

For those who are learning English, traditionally one of the most important tips in this regard was the fact that the speech and the letter should still stick to one dialect. But today, in the context of globalization and cross-cultural communication, linguists are beginning to talk about the so-called "global" English. Today the number of people for whom English is not a native, but who speak it exceeds the number of native speakers. It leads to the fact that in a global English language boundaries of its geographic varieties are blurred.

However, it is worth to know the frequency of the use of time in the spoken and written language. In this case, in our diploma work, we have tried to identify the frequency of the use of Present Perfect and Past Simple verb forms in American and British English grammar. Because the frequency of the use of these tenses in these variants of language is different.

Difference in the frequency of the use of Present Perfect and Past Simple verb forms in American and British English (American English, hereinafter AE; British English, hereinafter BE) for a long time is discussed in the special language and popular literature.

Considerable attention to the study of this difference of American and British versions of English has given in a lot of writings of Russian linguists, in particular: V.N. Yartseva, I.R. Halperin, A.D. Schweitzer, L.P. Stupin, T.I. Belyaeva, I.A. Potapov, G.D. Zviadadze. Also, this problem were engaged some Kazakh linguists such as G. K. Kerdenova, T. Y. Shershneva

In particular Schweitzer in his book considers a number of questions on phonetics, grammar and lexicon. [1]

The specific features of these options are analyzed by him in the light of common problems of national options of the literary language. The author pays much attention not only to identification of distinctive elements of these options, but also definition of their status in system of language and to ratio identification between the general and distinctive signs of English in England and in the USA.

Also Schweitzer claims in his book: “The comparative analysis of the use of the verbal Present Perfect and Past Indefinite forms in the British and American English suggests that the ratio of the use of these forms in BE and AE are different. The average ratio of Present Perfect to Past Indefinite is equal 1: 2 in BE and 1: 3, 5 in AE.” [1] We will check this ratio in practical part of our research.

All of the above explains the relevance of our work.

Theme of our work is “The comparative analysis of Present Perfect Tense and Past”.

The aim of the research work is to analyze the reasons of the frequency of the use of Present Perfect and Past Simple verb forms on the example of American and British fiction and to identify this frequency.

Objectives are:

- to study the definition and characteristics of the category of tense of English verbs;

- to examine the peculiarities of Present Perfect and Past Simple;

- to compare the frequency of the use of Present Perfect Tense and  the Past Simple Tense in American and British English and to identify the average ratio of Present Perfect to Past Indefinite.

Object is the Present Perfect Time and the Past Time expression in English grammar.

Subject is the percentage of use of Past Simple and Present Perfect verb forms in English grammar on the basis of literary works.

Hypothesis. We suppose that the Present Perfect Tense is more frequently used than the Past Simple Tense in British fiction rather than in American fiction. And we also assume that the average ratio of the use of Present Perfect and Past Simple in BE and AE changes over time. The analysis of three chapters of the texts "An American Tragedy" by Theodore Dreiser and "Mrs. Dalloway" by Virginia Woolf will show the frequency of the use of Present Perfect and Past Simple verb forms on the example of American and British fiction.

Methods of investigation: in the course of our investigation we have used descriptive method and method of comparative analysis of differences between British English and American English.

Basis of investigation: our investigation has been carried out on the basis of the theoretical works of linguists such as M. Blokh, Ilyish B., Arakin V.D.; and the literary works "An American Tragedy" by Theodore Dreiser and "Mrs. Dalloway" by Virginia Woolf.

Theoretical value is presented in the study of the frequency of use of the two times in British English and American English.

Practical value is caused by the possibility of using the results of research in the course of theoretical grammar, and as a basis for further study of the problem.

Structure. Our course paper consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion and bibliography and appendix.

Introduction includes topicality, theme, problem, aim, objectives, object, subject, and hypothesis, methods of investigation, theoretical value and practical value.

The first chapter contains the theoretical basis and general notions of the work. In this chapter we have tried to give a comparison in the formation and use of Present Perfect and Past Simple.

The second chapter is the practical part of our work in which we give an analysis of sentences of three chapters of texts "An American Tragedy" by Theodore Dreiser and "Mrs. Dalloway" by Virginia Woolf. In this chapter we have tried to show the frequency of the use of Present Perfect and Past Simple in the different variants of English.

In conclusion we summarize the results of our study why we use Present Perfect or Past Simple and what tense is more often used.

In bibliography provide list of literary sources of foreign and Russian linguists which we have used during our investigation.

In the appendix we provide the table of tenses of an English verb and diagram showing a ratio of use Present Perfect and Past Simple in the different variants of English.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 The Present Perfect Time and the Past Time Expression in different variants of English

 

In this chapter we will present the past time and the present perfect time in English. As we know, the past tense is a form of the verb, which indicates the time of action, which in this case is in the past. All tenses in English language differ only in the duration or quality. But, before we will present these times, we have to deal with the basics of this issue. In particular, we have to understand perfectly what from itself the category of tense of an English verb represents, and also have to know historical development of verb forms perfectly.

 

1.1 The category of tense of English verb and basic qualities of the Perfect forms

 

While the existence of the aspect category in English is a disputed matter, the tense category is universally recognised. Nobody has ever suggested characterising the distinction, for example, between wrote, writes, and will write as other than a tense distinction. Thus we shall not have to produce any arguments in favour of the existence of the category in Modern English. Our task will be on the one hand to define the category as such, and on the other, to find the distinctions within the category of tense, that is, to find out how many tenses there are in English and what each of them means and also to analyse the mutual relations between tense and other categories of the English verb.

General definition of tense

As to the general definition of tense, there seems no necessity to find a special one for the English language. The basic features of the category appear to be the same in English as in other languages. In particular Barkhudarov claims that “the category of tense may, then, be defined as a verbal category which reflects the objective category of time and expresses on this background the relations between the time of the action and the time of the utterance”. [2]

The main divisions of objective time appear to be clear enough. There are three of them, past, present, and future. However, it by no means follows that tense systems of different languages are bound to be identical. On the contrary, there are wide differences in this respect.

English tenses

In English there are the three tenses (past, present and future) represented by the forms wrote, writes, will write, or lived, lives, will live.

Strangely enough, some doubts have been expressed about the existence of a future tense in English. O. Jespersen discussed this question more than once. 1 The reason why Jespersen denied the existence of a future tense in English was that the English future is expressed by the phrase "shall/will + infinitive", and the verbs shall and will which make part of the phrase preserve, according to Jespersen, some of their original meaning (shall an element of obligation, and will an element of volition). Thus, in Jespersen's view, English has no way of expressing "pure

futurity" free from modal shades of meaning, i. e. it has no form standing on the same grammatical level as the forms of the past and present tenses. [3]

However, this reasoning is not convincing. Though the verbs shall and will may in some contexts preserve or indeed revive their original meaning of obligation or volition respectively, as a rule they are free from these shades of meaning and express mere futurity. This is especially clear in sentences where the verb will is used as an auxiliary of the future tense and where, at the same time, the meaning of volition is excluded by the context. E. g. I am so sorry, I am afraid I will have to go back to the hotel — (R. WEST) Since the verb will cannot possibly be said to preserve even the slightest shade of the meaning of volition here, it can have only one meaning — that of grammatical futurity. Of course numerous other examples might be given to illustrate this point.

Anyone who has learned English as a foreign language, and especially the one who chose the profession of teaching English in school, high school or college, knows that the greatest difficulty for Russian speakers are tenses of English verb. Indeed, for every Russian speaker puzzling is the existence of the twelve verb tenses in English grammar.

The name of any of the twelve English verb tenses begins with one of three words: Present, Past, Future. There are four types of the four types of the past and future four types which are known as Simple, Progressive, Perfect and Perfect Progressive. (Appendix 1)

The difficulties faced by English language learners in mastering English grammar is representation of verb forms (not only from the grammatical category of the times, but also the passive voice), due to the fact that the English textbooks there is no clear theoretical understanding of the meaning and function of forms of English verbs that would allow a simple way to explain what is their purpose. In other words, we need a good understanding of why the English language needs such categories as “time”, “view”, and “pledge” to communicate clearly and simply explain the principles of the relevant forms in the process of learning English. This awareness provides a cognitive approach to language as a system of knowledge representation.

In line with this approach, any grammatical category of English grammar used to express and preserve knowledge in a particular language. Whorf states: “Compared with the English vocabulary grammar is more abstract system, and so the knowledge is universal in the sense that they are important for the normal functioning of the company: no matter what language communicate members of society.” [4] This means that the grammatical categories that have different expressions in different languages substantially differ little from each other. That is why it is possible to transfer from one language (for example Russian) to another (for example, English).

With the help of the categories of tense a person divides the world around him on three areas of expertise: 1) experience directly included in the scope of the perceived feelings and perceived reality, or the present (present from Lat. Praesens), 2) experience that lasts as a memory of what has passed by our senses, or the past; 3) an experience that is predicted on the basis of existing knowledge, or the future. It is very important to understand that, in contrast to the English language in the Russian there is no-one correspondence between these concepts and so-called forms of the verb. We will consider the following situation as an example:

"The father some time ago went to business trip. Bob in the room learns lessons, mother in kitchen makes a dinner. Doorbell rings. Boy opens the door and at the sight of his father joyfully says," Mom, Dad has arrived! "

In any school (and not just the school) English grammar is indicated that "arrived" (in this case) - the form of past tense of an English verb of a perfective aspect designates the action which taking place in the past and has come to the end by the time of speech. This is the traditional approach to which all Russian speakers accustomed. But in the study of English as a foreign language such an approach we are no longer satisfied, as it allows relating what we know about the native language, with what we find in the process of learning English.

Cognitive approach focuses on answering a question about what the boy reports to mother. In this case its exclamation is interpreted so: "I see the father. Since some moment in the past, I didn't see him, i.e. he wasn't at home as he went to business trip. Now Dad is here again, so he has arrived (the logical conclusion based on background knowledge of the boy)". But after all it is a present verb. And in English where compliance between temporary concepts and tense forms of a verb is much more consecutive, than in Russian, the form of the present of a verb will be certainly used. Another question, what of four possible forms will be used: Simple, Progressive, Perfect or Perfect Progressive? And here rescue comes correct (i.e. cognitive) understanding of category of aspect in the English language.

Basic qualities of the Perfect forms

The Modern English perfect forms have been the subject of a lengthy discussion which has not so far brought about a definite result. The difficulties inherent in these forms are plain enough and may best be illustrated by the present perfect. This form contains the present of the verb have and is called present perfect, yet it denotes an action which no longer takes place, and it is (almost always) translated into Russian by the past tense, e. g. has written — написал, has arrived — приехал, etc.

The position of the perfect forms in the system of the English verb is a problem which has been treated in many different ways and has occasioned much controversy. Among the various views on the essence of the perfect forms in Modern English the following three main trends should be mentioned:

1. The category of perfect is a peculiar tense category, i. e. a category which should be classed in the same list as the categories "present" and "past". This view was held, for example, by O. Jespersen. [3]
2. The category of perfect is a peculiar aspect category, i. e. one which should be given a place in the list comprising "common aspect" and "continuous aspect". This view was held by a number of scholars, including Prof. G. Vorontsova. Those who hold this view have expressed different opinions about the particular aspect constituting the essence of the perfect forms. It has been variously defined as "retrospective", "resultative", "successive", etc.[5]
3. The category of perfect is neither one of tense, nor one of aspect but a specific category different from both. It should accordingly be designated by a special term and its relations to the categories of aspect and tense should be investigated. This view was expressed by Prof. A. Smirnitsky. He took the perfect to be a means of expressing the category of "time relation" (временная отнесенность).[6]

This wide divergence of views on the very essence of a verbal category may seem astonishing. However, its causes appear to be clear enough from the point of view of present-day linguistics. These causes fall under the following three main heads:

1. Scholars have been trying to define the basic character of this category without paying sufficient attention to the system of categories of which it is bound to make a part. As we shall see presently, considerations of the system as a whole rule out some of the proposed solutions.
2. In seeking the meaning of the category, scholars have not always been careful to distinguish between its basic meaning (the invariable) and its modifications due to influence of context.
3. In seeking the basic meaning of the category, scholars have not always drawn a clear line of distinction between the meaning of the grammatical category as such and the meanings which belong to, or are influenced by, the lexical meaning of the verb (or verbs) used in one of the perfect forms.

If we carefully eliminate these three sources of error and confusion we shall have a much better chance of arriving at a true and objective solution. Let us now consider the views expressed by different scholars in the order in which we mentioned them above.

If we are to find out whether the perfect can be a tense category, i. e. a tense among other tenses, we must consider its relations to the tenses already established and not liable to doubts about their basic character, i. e. past, present, and future. There is no real difficulty here. We need only recollect that there are in Modern English the forms present perfect, past perfect, and future perfect. That present, past, and future are tense categories, is firmly established and has never been doubted by anyone. Now, if the perfect were also a tense category, the present perfect would be a union of two different tenses (the present and the perfect), the past perfect would likewise be a union of two different tenses (the past and the perfect) and the future perfect, too, would be a union of two different tenses (the future and the perfect). This is clearly impossible. If a form already belongs to a tense category (the present) it cannot simultaneously belong to another tense category, since two tense categories in one form would, as it were, collide and destroy each other. Hence it follows that the category of perfect cannot be a tense category. We need not consider here various views expressed by those who thought that the perfect was a tense, since their views, whatever the details may be, are shown to be untenable by the above consideration. So the view that the perfect is a special tense category has been disproved.

In order to find out whether the perfect can be an aspect category, we must consider its relations to the aspects already established.

We use here the non-committal term "form" to avoid any pre-judgement concerning the essence of the category in question. We will use the term in similar contexts elsewhere, viz. the common and the continuous aspects. This problem does not present any particular difficulty, either. We need only recollect that there are in Modern English such pairs as is writing — has been writing, was writing — had been writing, will be writing — will have been writing, i. e. present continuous and present perfect continuous, past continuous and past perfect continuous, future continuous and future perfect continuous. All of these forms belong to the continuous aspect, so the difference between them cannot possibly be based on any aspect category. For example, since both was writing and had been writing belong to the continuous aspect (as distinct from wrote and had written), they cannot be said to differ from each other on an aspect line; otherwise they would at the same time belong to one aspect and to different aspects, which is obviously impossible. Hence the conclusion is unavoidable that the perfect is not an aspect. The views of those who consider the perfect to be an aspect need not therefore be discussed here in detail.

Since the perfect is neither a tense nor an aspect, it is bound to be some special grammatical category, different both from tense and from aspect. This view, though not quite explicitly stated, was first put forward by Dolinina in a posthumous article. It is in complete harmony with the principle of distributive analysis, though Dolinina did not, at the time, use the term "distributive analysis". [7]

The essence of the grammatical category expressed by the perfect, and differing both from tense and from aspect, is hard to define and to find a name for. Prof. Smirnitsky proposed to call it "the category of time relation", which is not a very happy term, because it seems to bring us back to the old view that the perfect is a special kind of tense — a view which Prof. Smirnitsky quite rightly combated. Later it was proposed to replace his term of "time relation" by that of "correlation" (соотнесенность), which has the advantage of eliminating the undesirable term "time". This is decidedly the term to be preferred.

As to the opposition in such pairs as writes — has written, wrote — had written, will write — will have written, is writing — has been writing, was writing — had been writing, will be writing — will have been writing, Panfilov proposed to denote it by the correlative terms "non-perfect" and "perfect". [8]While this latter proposal may be fully accepted, the definition of the meaning of the category presents considerable difficulty. Its essence appears to be precedence: an action expressed by a perfect form precedes some moment in time. We cannot say that it always precedes another action: the present perfect form is most commonly used in sentences which contain no mention of any other action.