Putting the present into the present perfect

Eleanor Underwood
Dept. of Languages, University of Jyväskylä

1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to try to explain the difficulties that Finnish learners have with the English present perfect tense. It is a difficult tense for learners of English as a second or foreign language from many different language backgrounds, but good teaching materials can help students to understand and use it accurately.  I argue that the name generally used for the tense in Finnish school books is not helpful.

In the 19th century, when the first steps were being taken to systematize the teaching of oral Finnish to foreigners, it was determined that the grammar books should teach the Finnish language in Finnish, using Finnish terms (Vehkanen, 2013). The principle was that people should think in the target language from the start. It is pity that the same enlightened thinking has not been applied in Finland to the teaching of foreign languages.

At the moment in Finnish schools learners are generally introduced to all the English tenses through the prism of Finnish tenses. The English tenses are taught and named as though they were Finnish tenses translated and translatable straight into another language (see for example Silk et al. (2007), McWhirr et al. (2003), Folland et al. (undated)). The fact is, however, that our two languages do not see tense in the same way: there is no direct equivalence between them. Rather than distort English and pretend that it fits into the Finnish way of thinking, it would be much more pedagogically correct, more interesting for learners, and more honest, to declare right from the start that English has its own ways of doing things, and learning about them together is part of the fun – interest – challenge – enjoyment – of learning a foreign language. This would also mean that students would not arrive at the university and react with suspicion and disbelief when they find that the English tenses are not what they thought they were.

The Finnish National Core Curriculum states that with foreign languages students should be introduced to the most important patterns of the target language (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004). In my opinion, as learning goes on, one of the patterns that it would be worth students’ while to learn would concern the English tense and aspect system, firstly and most importantly because understanding it makes language learning easier in the longer term: one sees the links and common connections between the simple, continuous and perfect tenses, so that knowing how one tense works will help one understand the others. Learners learn better if there are patterns in what they learn, if they can see for themselves how things work. Secondly, some learners might be interested and attracted just by the challenge of something different.

Teachers definitely need to understand the English tense system as pedagogically conceptualised, because when they are familiar with the patterns of tense and aspect they can explain things more clearly and confidently to their learners, bring out the salient points about each tense, make comparisons between e.g. the past perfect and the present perfect. The Finnish National Core Curriculum declares that students should master the “basic declension of verbs” and “key tenses” (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004). In the case of learning English, this ought to be English tenses, not Finnish ones.

2. The English tense system

Awareness of the English tense / aspect system should underlie our teaching of the English tenses: it is important that the English tenses are taught right from the start in a way that is consistent with the concepts of tense and aspect as they operate in English, and the actual English names for the English tenses are most helpful in indicating how they are used. Conceptually we can start with the idea that just as there is in most people’s thinking present, past and future time, so from the pedagogical point of view there are present tenses, past tenses and future tenses. And for each of those times – present, past and future - there are simple, progressive and perfect tenses. To spell it out, there is the Present Simple, the Present Progressive and the Present Perfect, and the Present Perfect has a simple and a progressive form; there is the Past Simple, the Past Progressive, and the Past Perfect, also with a simple and progressive form; and there is a Future Simple, a Future Continuous and a Future Perfect, also with a simple and progressive form. This can be presented in table form as follows:

Table 1a. THE ENGLISH TENSES (from the pedagogical point of view). Time: Present, Past and Future

Aspect →
Tense ↓ 		Simple Progressive
(be + -ing) 		Perfective
(have + past participle)
Present Present simple
She walks 		Present progressive
She’s walking 		Present perfect (simple)
She has walked 		Present perfect progressive
She has been walking
Past Past simple
She walked 		Past progressive
She was walking 		Past perfect (simple)
She had walked 		Past perfect progressive
She had been walking
Future Future simple
She will walk 		Future progressive
She will be walking 		Future perfect (simple)
She will have walked 		Future perfect progressive
She’ll have been walking

Table 1b. THE ENGLISH TENSES (from the pedagogical point of view). Aspect: Simple, Progressive and Perfective

Aspect →
Tense ↓ 		Simple Progressive
(be + -ing) 		Perfective
(have + past participle)
Present Present simple
She walks 		Present progressive
She’s walking 		Present perfect (simple)
She has walked 		Present perfect progressive
She has been walking
Past Past simple
She walked 		Past progressive
She was walking 		Past perfect (simple)
She had walked 		Past perfect progressive
She had been walking
Future Future simple
She will walk 		Future progressive
She will be walking 		Future perfect (simple)
She will have walked 		Future perfect progressive
She’ll have been walking

The names of the tenses help the learner to understand them, and this is especially the case with the present perfect, which is a particular problem for learners of English from many different language backgrounds. The name of the English present perfect tense is an important aid to understanding when it is used: it draws attention to the importance of the present in the use of the tense and to the ways in which it parallels the more easily understandable (because more familiar from many other languages) past perfect tense.

3.The presentation of the present perfect in contemporary Finnish textbooks

Looking at the ways in which the present perfect is presented in Finnish school textbooks shows that these advantages are not acknowledged, or exploited; have the writers of these books even understood them? For this paper I looked at the presentation of the present perfect in a few of the more commonly used Finnish school books, first of all in the one that had been most commonly used in sixth form by my university students, Culture Cafe Grammar Rules (Silk, Mäki and Kjisik, 2007). It has on p.14:

Yleisperfekti (The Simple Perfect)

“Perfekti kertoo, mitä on tapahtunut, ja tapahtuneella on jokin yhteys nykyhetkeen” (“The perfect talks about what has happenend, and the event has some connection to the present.” Author’s translation) and it gives some examples:

  1. I’ve done my best.
  2. Ed has grown a beard.
  3. We haven’t seen him lately.
  4. My cat’s been out all night.

On the next page it says:

“Imperfekti vai perfekti?” It tells us that “Englanti käyttää usein imperfektiä, kun suomessa on perfekti” (“English often uses the past simple when Finnish uses the present perfect” Author’s translation).

It then gives three examples, in the first of which it is not entirely clear why they have chosen to use the simple past instead of the present perfect, which is usually used with ever in British English, though the simple past is of course standard in American English:

  1. It’s the best film I ever saw (Se on paras elokuva, jonka olen nähnyt)

– but it tells us to look for more information on p.39. Turning to p.39 it explains that the imperfekti, the simple past, is used when there is a clear time given, and when attention is on the activity itself, which happened in the past and has no connection to the present; we are advised that in Finnish the perfekti is often used in these circumstances. It also gives time words that are used with the perfekti. Ever isn’t mentioned at all, but following the rules it has given I would expect to find the present perfect with it, not the simple past. So that rather leaves the learner up in the air.

Open Road (McWhirr et al.) takes the same line – the yleisperfekti is the “Simple Perfect”, with exactly the same description of when it is used - and the following examples:

  1. Ryan has shaved his beard.
  2. The cat has gone out.

They add that

“Tietyissä tilanteissa englannissa käytetään imperfektiä, vaikka suomessa käy joko perfekti tai imperfekti” (”in certain circumstances English uses the simple past although in Finnish the present perfect or the simple past could be used” Author’s translation. Even the ”although” seems telling):

  1. When did you buy that belt? Milloin olet ostanut tuon vyön?
  2. I moved here two years ago. Olen muuttanut tänne kaksi vuotta sitten.
  3. Leo was born in 1999. Leo on syntynyt vuonna 1999.
  4. Did you meet him yesterday? Oletko tavannut häntä eilen?

Despite the fact that in each example there is reference to when, no explanation is offered as to why – what rule might be behind the fact that – the simple past is used in these cases, though the rule about using the simple past when one says when in the past covers them all. Just tietyissä tilanteissa “in certain circumstances”. Then it says that in the following cases one can use either the present perfect (the perfekti) or the simple past (imperfekti) and that in American English the use of the imperfekti is common:

  1. It’s the best film I ever saw / I have ever seen.
  2. Did you ever hear anything like it / Have you ever heard anything like it?

Key English 8 (Westlake et al. 2003) simply uses the Finnish names for the tenses: so it introduces the imperfekti first and then the perfekti.

Smart Moves 1 (Folland et al. undated) also avoids using English names. It starts off its section on Mitä on tapahtunut (Perfekti) (p.114) by declaring

  1. You have seen nature films – Sinä olet nähnyt luontoelokuvia and
  2. Bob has watched action films – Bob on katsellut toimintaelokuvia.

The explanation is that “jotain on tapahtunut” (”something has happenend” author’s translation) - or then “jotain ei ole tapahtunut” (”something has not happenend” author’s translation). It includes in the exercise book other rather artificial examples such as:

  1. Ann has eaten sweets all day.

(where one might expect a continuous tense, because obviously the interest is in the action going on for the whole day) and

  1. You have taken many pictures,

which is odd i) because we don’t usually tell people what they have done, and ii) we don’t generally use many in affirmative sentences except in formal and academic writing. One might well in the past have said to a small child, “Oh, you’ve taken a lot of pictures”, but not come out with the stiff example provided in the book.

Smart Moves 2 does have a timeline on p.168 with Kaikki aikamuodot – (“all the tenses”, Author’s translation). In practice “all the tenses” means six: translating from Finnish (which they do not do), they are the present (preesens), the simple past (imperfekti), the present perfect (perfekti), the past perfect (pluskvamperfekti), the future simple (futuuri) and the conditional (konditionaali). In the diagram it has examples:

  1. Preesens: I go to school now
  2. Imperfekti: I started school when I was 7
  3. Perfekti: I have done karate since 2006
  4. Pluskvamperfekti: Mum said that I had been a very sweet baby, etc.

Again, with the example for the perfekti (20), one might more commonly expect the progressive there (I have been doing karate since 2006), but the simple form is also possible.

Smart Moves 3 gives us more of the same but introduces Mitä on tapahtunut (Kestoperfekti) (“What has happened – the (continuous perfect)” but note that they do not give any translations, so the following are all mine) with the information that Kestoperfekti ilmaisee tekemistä, joka on alkanut menneisyydessä eikä ole vielä päättynyt (“The perfect continuous refers to an action which has begun in the past and has not yet finished”), which is true, but does not necessarily distinguish it from the present perfect simple – for example, I’ve had a headache all day or I’ve made a dozen scones. In other words, its explanations are as unhelpful as its examples.

Finally, of the current textbooks that I examined, In Touch Course 1 (Davies et al. undated), does have the present tenses, the past tenses and the present perfect tenses, etc. (p.103). It introduces the “Yleis- ja kestoperfekti / The present perfect simple and the present perfect continuous”. It gives good examples and good general indications of when to use and when not to use the present perfect. The examples it uses are natural and probably not too remote from the experience of the users of the book. 4.The presentation of the present perfect in older Finnish textbooks

Faced with this present custom of translating the Finnish perfekti as “Simple perfect” in English and aware of my colleague Jean-Michel Kalmbach’s work on the presentation of certain French expressions in Finnish French books (see for example Kalmbach, 2005), I have taken a brief look at past Finnish English books, hoping to identify who is responsible for this misrepresentation of the English tenses to Finnish learners. My exploration has not yet gone very far, but I can confirm that in a handbook published in 1968, A Handbook of English Grammar for Finnish learners by A-L Sohlberg and E-M Varmavuori, (Kirjayhtymä, ja “Kouluhallituksen hyväksymä” 1968), we find “The present tense”, “The past tense”, “The perfect tense”, “The pluperfect tense” etc. The two authors introduce “The perfect tense” very helpfully with the information that “The Perfect expresses that something has happened. The –Ing form expresses that something has been going on up to this moment.” Its examples encourage us to draw the conclusion that the simple form is used for completed actions and the progressive is used when we are interested in how people have been spending their time:

  1. Have you seen the sights of London? = Do you know them?
  2. Have you been seeing the sights? = Have you been spending your time looking at them?
  3. Have you read the paper? (= finished it.)
  4. Have you been reading the paper? = spending your time at it up to now.
  5. 26. We have studied English for seven years.

So the implication, from the previous examples, is that you now “know” it; your study is finished. This is confirmed by the next example:

  1. We have been studying English for seven years and don’t yet know it.

In 1939 A Simple English Grammar was written by V.F., Vivi Forsberg, and published in Helsinki. Vivi Forsberg has “Present, Past, Perfect, Pluperfect, 1st Future, 2nd Future” … In every case she is referring to the simple forms, and by “Perfect” she of course means the present perfect; interestingly, by “2nd future” she means the future perfect. She does later acknowledge the existence of continuous or progressive forms of the verb, used, she says, to “express an action as continuing, or going on for some time, e.g. all were talking at the same time.” She explains, how helpfully I do not know, that “This form uses the auxiliary to be just like the passive, but here the present participle of the principal verb is used in all tenses”.

Going back still further in time, A Short English Grammar by Hanna Andersin, published in 1919 by Otava, presents to its readers “Present (Tense)”, “Imperfect”, “Perfect”, “Pluperfect”, etc. No explanations are given, just examples of the form, as: I have called, seen; you have called, seen; he has called, seen; we, you, they have called, seen. From which we conclude only that in those days it was entirely a man’s world.

4. Conclusion

What’s in a name? In this case, a lot of useful information. The reason for my concern that the present perfect should be so called is basically that the name is a key to understanding the use of the tense. Firstly, the present perfect is a present tense: when it is used, the speaker or writer is expressing a perceived connection between what they are referring to and the present time. The event or state took place or began to take place at some time in the past, but for one reason or another it is still relevant at the time of speaking. We do not mention a past time that would lock the event into the past, but leave the time open so that there is no barrier between it and the present – since …, ever, never, yet, this year, today. The present perfect can also be used in cases where the rule calls for a present tense, for example in a future subordinate time clause or a first conditional sentence:

  1. I won’t test you when you have finished reading this.
  2. If this article has achieved its purpose, you will be sharing my concern.

And secondly, the present perfect is a perfect tense – one of the perfect tenses, all of which have simple and progressive forms. All the perfect tenses, present, past and future, describe an event or state that has happened – had happened – will have happened - before the time of reference, in other words, before the time that should be revealed by the name: the present perfect for an event or state that has occurred before the present time, the past perfect for an event or state before a past time, and the future perfect for an event or state before a future time.

  1. I have written enough.
  2. Before I started writing this, I had been thinking for some time about trying to publish my criticisms of the way the present perfect is presented in Finnish school textbooks.
  3. You will soon have finished reading this article.

If we take the present out of the present perfect, and just call it “the simple perfect”, as so many Finnish textbook writers have done, we lose the key to how and where the tense is used. The present perfect is used to talk about a state or event as seen from the perspective of the present. Whenever we use it, there has to be some reference or relevance to the present time – as we have seen. Why not helpfully tell our learners that?

 
References

Andersin, Hanna, 1919. A Short English Grammar. Helsinki, OtavaDavies, Mikael, Annnukka Kalliovalkama, Eero Lehtonen, Lynn Nikkanen, Tuula Sutela, Leena Säteri and Petri Vuorinen. (Undated) In Touch Course 1. Helsinki, WSOY

Finnish National Board of Education, 2004. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Accessed 12th June 2013. http://www.oph.fi/english/publications/2009/national_core_curricula_for_basic_education.

Folland, Tarja, Arja Haavisto, Mari Heinonen, Arto Nieminen and Mark Woods. Smart Moves 1. (Undated) Helsinki, OtavaForsberg, F. 1939 A Simple English Grammar. Helsinki, K.F. Puromiehen Kirjapaino OY

Kalmbach, Jean-Michel, 2005. De de à ça : enseigner la grammaire française aux finnophones. Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä. http://r.jyu.fi/4bmL

McWhirr, Jim, Jaakko Mäki, Teijo Päkkilä, Marjut Riite, and Riitta Silk. (Undated) Open Road. Helsinki, OtavaSilk, Riitta, Jaakko Mäki and Felicity Kjisik. Culture Café Grammar Rules. 2007. Helsinki, Otava.

Sohlberg, A-L and E-M Varmavuori, 1968. A Handbook of English Grammar for Finnish learners. Helsinki, Kirjayhtymä

Vehkanen, Marjut, 2013. Kuinka puhetta opetettiin S2-oppikirjoissa 1800-luvun lopulla ja 1900-luvun alkupuolella? Talk given at Kielipeda 2013, Jyväskylä.

Westlake, Paul, Raija Kangaspunta, Eero Lehtonen and Jyrki Peuraniemi. Key English 8. 2003. Helsinki, WSOY.

 

Kieliskooppi

11/2013