Present perfect In british and american

On the other hand, the use of a non-perfect form does not necessarily imply that the action did not precede some moment in time. It may, or it may not, have preceded it. To find this out, the reader or hearer has to take into account some other feature of the context, or, possibly, the situation, that is, an extralinguistic factor. Thus, the opposition between perfect and non-perfect forms is shown to be that between a marked and an unmarked item, the perfect forms being marked both in meaning (denoting precedence) and in morphological characteristics (have + second participle), and the non-perfect forms unmarked both in meaning (precedence not implied) and in morphological characteristics (purely negative characteristic: the collocation "have + second participle" not used). On the whole, as a general term to denote the basic meaning of the perfect the term "correlation" in the above-mentioned meaning seems quite acceptable and we propose to make use of it until a better term is found, which may take some time to happen.

If this view is taken, the system of verbal categories illustrated by the forms writes, is writing, has written, has been writing, wrote, was writing, had written, had been writing, will write, will be writing, will have written, will have been writing, — is based on three groups of notions, viz. tense: present vs. past vs. future; aspect: common vs. continuous; correlation: non-perfect vs. perfect. As is seen from this list, the latter two of the three oppositions are double (or "dichotomic"), i.e. they consist of only two items each, whereas the first (the tense opposition) is triple (or "trichotomic"), i. e. it consists of three items.

We will accept this state of things without entering into a discussion of the question whether every opposition must necessarily be dichotomic, i. e. consist of two members only. [9]

Thus, the opposition between writes and wrote is one of tense, that between wrote and was writing one of aspect, and that between wrote and had written one of correlation. It is obvious that two oppositions may occur together; thus, between writes and was writing there are simultaneously the oppositions of tense and aspect; between wrote and will have written there are simultaneously the oppositions of tense and correlation, and between wrote and had been writing there are simultaneously the oppositions of aspect and correlation. And, finally, all three oppositions may occur together: thus, between writes and had been writing there are simultaneously the oppositions of tense, aspect, and correlation.

If, in a system of forms, there is only one opposition, it can obviously be represented graphically on a line. If there are two oppositions, they can be represented on a plane. Now, if there are three oppositions, the system obviously cannot be represented on a plane. To represent it, we should have recourse to a three-dimensional solid, viz. a parallelepiped. Prof. Halperin has given a sketch of such a parallelepiped in his book. [10] However, a drawing of a parallelepiped cannot give the desired degree of clarity and we will not reproduce it here.

Uses of the Perfect forms

We have accepted the definition of the basic meaning of the perfect forms as that of "precedence". However, Kachalova and Izrailevich state that this definition can only be the starting point for a study of the various uses of the perfect forms. Indeed, for more than one case this definition of its meaning will seem wholly inadequate, because its actual meaning in a given context will be influenced by various factors. Though a very great amount of investigation has been carried on in this field and many phenomena have by now been elucidated, it is only fair to say that a complete solution of all the problems involved in the uses and shades of meaning of the perfect forms in Modern English is not yet in sight. [11]

At first we ask the question: what kinds of linguistic factors can be expected to have an influence on the use and shades of meaning of the perfect forms? We will try to answer this question in a general way, before proceeding to investigate the possible concrete cases.

These factors, then, would seem to be the following:

1. the lexical meaning of the verb;
2. the tense category of the form, i. e. whether it is the present perfect, past perfect, or future perfect (we cannot be certain in advance that the tense relation is irrelevant here);
3. the syntactical context, i. e. whether the perfect form is used in a simple sentence, or the main clause, or again in a subordinate clause of a complex sentence.

To these should be added an extralinguistic factor.

(4) the situation in which the perfect form is used.

We now consider each of these factors separately and then come to the question of their possible interaction.

(1) The meaning of the verb used can affect the meaning of the perfect form in so far as the verb may denote either an action which is apt to produce an essential change in the state of the object (e. g. He has broken the cup) or a process which can last indefinitely without bringing about any change (e. g. He has lived in this city since 1945), etc. With the verb break, for instance, the shade of meaning would then be the result of the action (the cup is no longer a cup but a collection of fragments), whereas with the verb live no result in this exact sense can be found; we might infer a resultative meaning only in a somewhat roundabout way, by saying that he has now so many years of life in this city behind him. Thus the meaning of result, which we indeed do find in the sentence He has broken the cup, appears to be the effect of the combined meanings of the verb as such (in whatever form) and the perfect form as such. It is quite natural that this meaning should have more than once been taken to be the meaning of the perfect category as such, which was a misconception.

To give another example, if the verb denotes an action which brings about some new state of things, its perfect form is liable to acquire a shade of meaning which will not be found with a verb denoting an action unable to bring about a new state. We may, for instance, compare the sentences We have found the book (this implies that the book, which had been lost, is now once more in our possession) and We have searched the whole room for the book (which does not imply any new state with reference to the book). Of course many more examples of this kind might be given. The basic requirement is clear enough: we must find the meaning of the form itself, or its invariable, and not the meaning of the form as modified or coloured by the lexical meaning of the verb. If this requirement is clearly kept in mind, many errors which have been committed in defining the meaning of the form will be avoided.

(2) The possible dependence of the meaning of perfect forms on the tense category (present, past or future) is one of the most difficult problems which the theory of the perfect has had to face. It is quite natural to suppose that there ought to be an invariable meaning of the phrase "have + second participle", no matter what the tense of the verb have happens to be, and this indeed is the assumption we start from. However, it would be dangerous to consider this hypothesis as something ascertained, without undertaking an objective investigation of all the facts which may throw some light on the problem. We may, for instance, suspect that the present perfect, which denotes "precedence to the present", i. e. to the moment of speech, may prove different from the past perfect, denoting precedence to a moment in the past, or the future perfect, denoting precedence to a moment in the future: both the past and the future are, of course, themselves related in some way to the

This was very aptly pointed out by Irteneva in her book, where she criticised this conception of the English perfect found in several authors. Present, which appears as the centre to which all other moments of time are referred in some way or other. One of the chief points in this sphere is the following. If an action precedes another action, and the meaning of the verb is such a one that the action can have a distinct result, the present perfect form, together with the lexical meaning of the verb (and, we should add, possibly with some element of the context) may produce the meaning of a result to be seen at the very moment the sentence is uttered, so that the speaker can point at that result with his finger, as it were. Now with the past perfect and with the future perfect things are bound to be somewhat different. The past perfect (together with the factors mentioned above) would mean that the result was there at a certain moment in the past, so that the speaker could not possibly point at it with his finger. Still less could he do that if the action he spoke about was in the future, and the future perfect (again, together with all those factors) denoted a result that would be there in the future only (that is, it would only be an expected result). [12] All this has to be carefully gone into, if we are to achieve really objective conclusions and if we are to avoid unfounded generalisations and haphazard assertions which may be disproved by examining an example or two which did not happen to be at our disposal at the moment of writing.

(3) The syntactical context in which a perfect form is used is occasionally a factor of the highest importance in determining the ultimate meaning of the sentence. To illustrate this point, let us consider a few examples: “There was a half-hearted attempt at a maintenance of the properties, and then Wilbraham Hall rang with the laughter of a joke which the next day had become the common precious property of the Five Towns. Overton waited quietly till he had finished. But before he had answered, she made a grimace which Mark understood.” The action denoted by the past perfect in these sentences is not thought of as preceding the action denoted by the past tense.

Another possibility of the context influencing the actual meaning of the sentence will be seen in the following examples. The question “How long have you been here?” of course implies that the person addressed still is in the place meant by the adverb here. An answer like “I have been here for half an hour” would then practically mean, 'I have been here for half an hour and I still am here and may stay here for some time to come'. On the other hand, when, in G. B. Shaw's play, "Mrs Warren's Profession" (Act I), Vivie comes into the room and Mrs Warren asks her, "Where have you been, Vivie?" it is quite evident that Vivie no longer is in the place about which Mrs Warren is inquiring; now she is in the room with her mother and it would be pointless for Mrs Warren to ask any question about that. [13] These two uses of the present perfect (and similar uses of the past perfect, too) have sometimes been classed under the headings "present (or past) perfect inclusive" and "present (or past) perfect exclusive". This terminology cannot be recommended, because it suggests the idea that there are two different meanings of the present (or past) perfect, which is surely wrong. The difference does not lie in the meanings of the perfect form, but depends on the situation in which the sentence is used. The same consideration applies to the present (or past) perfect continuous, which is also occasionally classified into present (or past) perfect continuous inclusive and present (or past) perfect continuous exclusive. The difference in the meaning of sentences is a very real one, as will be seen from the following examples. "Sam, you know everybody," she said, "who is that terrible man I've been talking to? His name is Campofiore." I have been saving money these many months. Do you mean to say that lack has been playing with me all the time? That he has been urging me not to marry you because he intends to marry you himself? However, this is not a difference in the meaning of the verbal form itself, which is the same in all cases, but a difference depending on the situation or context. If we were to ascribe the two meanings to the form as such, we should be losing its grammatical invariable, which we are trying to determine.

Of course it cannot be said that the analysis here given exhausts all possible uses and applications of the perfect forms in Modern English. We should always bear in mind that extensions of uses are possible which may sometimes go beyond the strict limits of the system. Thus, we occasionally find the present perfect used in complex sentences both in the main and in the subordinate clause — a use which does not quite fit in with the definition of the meaning of the form. E. g. I've sometimes wondered if I haven't seemed a little too frank and free with you, if you might not have thought I had "gone gay", considering our friendship was so far from intimate. We shall best understand this use if we substitute the past tense for the present perfect. The sentence then would run like this: I have sometimes wondered if I hadn't seemed a little too frank and free with you... An important shade of meaning of the original sentence has been lost in this variant, viz. that of an experience summed up and ready at the time of speaking. With the past tense, the sentence merely deals with events of a past time unconnected with the present, whereas with the present perfect there is the additional meaning of all those past events being alive in the speaker's mind.

Other examples might of course be found in which there is some peculiarity or other in the use of a perfect form. In the course of time, if such varied uses accumulate, they may indeed bring about a modification of the meaning of the form itself. This, however, lies beyond the scope of our present study.

The peculiarities of Present Perfect Tense

We will begin with the peculiarities of Present Perfect Tense.

In “Theoretical fundamentals of grammar” V. V. Gurevich said: “The Present Perfect Tense is the first difficult topic that frightens all English language learners” [14]. It is difficult to doubt this statement, so the first we will try to understand it. The true meaning of Present Perfect Tense: transmitted by it actions are committed in the past, but they are directly related to the present:

I have broken my arm. – Я сломал руку. (It does not matter when the speaker broke his hand, it is important that now he wears a cast.)

The formation of the Present Perfect Tense:

So, the affirmative form of the Present Perfect is formed with the auxiliary verb “to have” (for the third person singular (he, she, it) – “has”), and the third form of the semantic verb:

I have done the work. – Я выполнил работу.

We have done the work. – Мы выполнили работу.

To form the interrogative form, we move the auxiliary verb "to have" forward and put it before the subject:

Have you done the work yet? – Ты уже выполнил работу?

Has she done the work yet? – Она уже выполнила работу?

In the negative form a particle “not” is added to the auxiliary verb “to have”:

I have not done the work yet. – Я еще не выполнил работу.

He has not done the work yet. – Он еще не выполнил работу.

In abbreviated form the auxiliary verb “to have” looks like 've, “has”  - as the' s:

I’ve done the work.

He’s done the work.

Reducing negative form - haven't, hasn't:

I haven’t done the work.

Hasn’t he done the work?

The use of The Present Perfect Tense:

Now we are back to cases of the use of the Present Perfect, or its functions.

I. V. Davydova and M. V. Shapovalova state: “the Present Perfect transmits action, that was fully completed in the past, but it has a connection with the present through the result of this action” [15]. So, in this case, the action is important, but not the circumstances under which it is committed:

We’ve bought a new car, so it’s time to sell the old one. –  Мы купили новую машину, так что пора продать старую. (The car is bought, that forces to think about the sale of the old one; the car is already with us, we are its owners, i.e. have bought - part of the present time).

Even easier to understand this function in such examples:

Has the secretary come? = Is the secretary in the office now? —  Секретарша пришла? = Секретарша сейчас в офисе?

The example shows that the action expressed in the Preset Perfect, happened in the past, but it has the result in the present tense.

For the Present Perfect circumstances are not important in which the action is finished, so it is often used to introduce a new subject, summarize the situation or to specify the action:

- Have you managed to reach Tom? – Тебе удалось дозвониться до Тома? (and then further answer and a description of how it happened will go; already in the Past Simple)

- Yes, I have, eventually. I called him yesterday without much hope, but he answered almost immediately. — Да, наконец дозвонился. Я звонил ему вчера без особой надежды, но он ответил почти сразу же.

If the time of action is indicated or expected in the sentence, we will not use the Present Perfect, and will choose the Past Simple. (Recall that this tense is also being used to describe the actions that occurred in the past and the facts of the past, and also the steps in chronological order.) But there is a caveat: if the period of time is not completed, we should use Present Perfect:

Your speech has been awfully boring tonight. – Твоя речь сегодня вечером была ужасно скучной. (Now it is the evening of that day)

We’ve visited so many fascinating places this year. – В этом году мы посетили множество красивых мест.(the year has not ended yet)

If specified period of time is over, without hesitation we should use Past Simple:

We went to Poland on a business trip this spring. – Этой весной мы ездили в командировку в Польшу. (now it is summer)

It is logical that in the question of the time of action (the word “when”) also we cannot use the Present Perfect, since we are talking about a specific action in the past, ended, and owned the only past time:

When was the last time you ate apples? – Когда ты в последний раз ел яблоки?

Often the Present Perfect Tense is used to show the repeated steps:

I’ve watched this movie twice already! – Я смотрел это кино уже дважды.

I’ve visited Italy four times. – Я был в Италии четыре раза.

Again, using the Present Perfect, we mention that the action was repeated, but do not describe specific situations. If we want to do it, the Past Simple will be in our possession.

Like any other tense, Present Perfect has its signal words. In this case it is an adverb, which do not represent a certain time and frequency of the action: for (в течение), since (начиная с), ever (когда-либо), never (никогда), just (только что), already (уже), yet (еще, уже), before (до этого), often (часто), seldom (редко), recently (недавно), lately (в последнее время), etc.

I agree with the words of A. Levitski. He said that the Present Perfect is used to transfer the action that began in the past and continues in the present [16]. We may also add that this is the main function of different grammatical tense - Present Perfect Continuous, and we will be right. But there are three cases where Present Perfect will replace it:

if semantic verb is expressed by verb condition. As we know, state verbs cannot be used in the group of Continuous tense, so the group of Simple tense comes to the rescue to them:

She has wanted to become an actress all her life. – Она всю жизнь мечтает стать актрисой.

I’ve loved her since we first met. – Я люблю ее с нашей первой встречи.

if semantic verb is expressed by dynamic verb that means long-term action (sleep, wait, live, work). In this case, we can use the time Present Perfect, and Present Perfect Continuous, and the meaning of the sentence does not change.

I haven’t slept for three days! – Я не сплю уже три дня!

I’ve lived in this city since childhood. – Я живу в этом городе с детства.

when the verb is in the negative form, and also the action is denied:

I haven’t heard of him for the last three years. – Последние три года я о нем ничего не слышал.

The Present Perfect is used in subordinate clauses of time after the conjunctions when, before, after, as soon as, till, until, to pass on to future action, which ends before the beginning of the action of the main clause. Immediately we look at an example:

I’ll serve you a dessert only after you have eaten the main course. – Я дам тебе десерт только после того, как ты съешь основное блюдо. (At first the action of the subordinate clause completes, and then the main action begins.)

Sometimes in such sentences the Present Simple can be used instead of the Present Perfect:

I’ll start learning English after I have graduated. = I’ll start learning English after I graduate. – Я начну учить английский, когда закончу институт.

The peculiarities of Past Simple Tense

Now we will pass to the peculiarities of Past Simple Tense.

The Past Simple Tense is the main tense which is passed by the action in the past, so it is found in English very often. It can be used in any context, whether it is literary text or spoken language. In the description of any of the events that occurred in the past, there is a place for the Past Simple.

The formation of the Past Simple Tense:

The Affirmative form of the Past Simple Tense is one semantic verb, i.e., as Blokh said: “in the affirmative form there are not auxiliary verbs” [17]. It is in the second form: the ending “-ed” is added to the infinitive of regular verbs, but the form of irregular verbs is to be found in the second column of the table of irregular verbs: