Weekly News Archive

September 26 (’04) – October 2 (’04)

A Cause Worth Fighting For

This is pretty surreal.

I don’t get a lot of email through this site. Not a lot of real email, anyway; I get metric tons of spam, of course, but the number of messages coming from this website that are actually intended for me are fairly minimal.

This email came several months ago, and I’ve gotten a few more since then, with the same basic content but slightly different wording. The main reason it’s ever so strange is that I can’t really tell whether it’s serious or not. The basic premise makes a certain amount of sense, as far as it goes, but the very possibility that somebody would write such an impassioned polemic about a single rule of grammar — and then undertake a grassroots activist movement to spread the word — do it for the sake of the entire community of Chinese English-language instructors — and then, as a final stroke of irony, write it in tortured, improper syntax — is very, very odd.

Anyway, I’m not going to draw any conclusions on this beyond “How strange,” but it’s certainly fun, and hey, if the author was serious, here’s his publicity.

Quoted verbatim with original formatting:

Teachers of English in need of help: Their scandal or ours?

We are a group of English teachers in Hong Kong, with Chinese as our first language. We are in a very embarrassing situation that grammar books have created for us, and we hope that you may lend a hand. We may sleep much more easier at night if we can solve this problem, which has long existed but we didn't quite take it seriously. These years, however, the question or scandal has been passing around fast and it is difficult for us to handle. Please allow us to explain the situation here.

It is well known that, according to grammar books, we don't use present perfect tense when there is a past time adverbial mentioned:
e.g. *I have seen him yesterday. (ungrammatical)
Nearly every grammar book reminds us of this important rule, so we have accepted it without question.

Because of this rule, however, we Chinese usually use simple past tense with "in the past few years", for this time adverbial is as past as you can possibly define what is past:
e.g. He worked there in the past few years.
We cannot interpret the adjective 'past' as referring to present or future time, can we? From schools to even government departments, we usually choose only simple past tense for such time adverbials as in the past four years, during the past three weeks, etc. It is as simple and logical as can be.

However, gradually, English native speakers strongly reminded us we shall use present perfect tense with such time expressions:
e.g. He has worked there in the past few years.
At first we didn't believe this. We argued ferociously against them how possibly could present perfect tense stay with past time expressions? They told us frankly that they actually don't know much better than we do. In teaching, they use last instead of past, to bypass the embarrassment. But if so, I think it is more than an embarrassment. It is still cheating, deliberately.

Their arguments were weak (for example, explaining "past has a relation to present, so it is present"). Most important, they couldn't even show us a grammar to support themselves. There wasn't any grammar book that has talked about this kind of examples, bearing time adverbials like in the past few years. At last, we thought they were irrational and pulling our leg.

But as we carefully read foreign newspapers and magazines, we notice that it is true that time adverbials like within the past five years, during the past four weeks are permissible to stay with present perfect tense. With searching machines on Internet, we also know it is predominately so. On the other hand, past is as common as last. Surprisingly, however, no English grammar sources whatsoever on the web have ever reminded us of this exceptional use. How could this happen? Now the trouble is, how can we explain to our class? As you see, a teacher cannot tell his class that "I heard someone said this strange usage on Internet and I believe in him. But I have not any grammar book to support me, and the usage violates our common knowledge in using English tense." Put it simply, we need a grammar book saying so and supporting us. Is this asking too much?

Could it be that time adverbials we are mentioning like within the past five years, during the past four weeks are not specific past time adverbials, so they have a right to stay with present perfect tense? Curiously, we have spent time in checking the definition for specific past time adverbials. Then there comes another surprise: in all grammar books in our libraries or on Internet, there are no such definitions for these time adverbials. The best results for the definition we found is like:
e.g. "...we don't use Present Perfect tense with specific past time like yesterday, in 1987, etc....."
All the time we thought we certainly understood what specific past time expressions are, and we actually didn't. Grammarians have yet started the first step to define them. -- But why?

We soon noticed the advantage of not having specific past time adverbials defined. If a student cannot judge whether in the past few year is specific past time or not, then he cannot judge whether "He has worked there in the past few years" is ungrammatical or not. Here, advantage is on the side of grammar writers, or on us teachers if we like to say brazenly. Therefore, the whole English study deliberately 'forgets' to define what is specific past time. A concealment is silently constituted to conceal another concealment. As we come closer to the core, the case has become more weird and irritating, especially to us teachers.

What we say here is true, and the evidences are actually right next to you. All the grammar books near you and the Internet are our testimony. In various forums on Internet, there have been no satisfactory answers whatsoever. Most people didn't even know about the concealment and said, "I don't think so. I have seen grammars talking about them....."

Then please tell us what has happened exactly? How can English grammar books, nearly all of them if we may say, hide away such examples as "He has worked there in the past few years", and teach us a false rule that the present perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions? It is not a rule at all. It is a cheating. But we can't cheat in our class, can we? It is now very awkward and embarrassing. If a student asks about such question, we even have to defend those grammarians who have cheated us shamelessly. Luckily, anyone who asks about such basic questions in English tense must be a very young student, who usually posts no threat to an average English teacher. A wise teacher told us in a forum how to cope with this problem: ask the student to suggest an answer, and tell him he is correct.

But cheating wisely is still cheating. Do you really believe that the relation between present perfect tense and in the past few years is so clear that no grammar books whatsoever would like to take a look at them? Of course not. As is more imaginable, the relation is really so difficult that they wouldn't talk about it.

For years we have visited many forums on Internet and we're still unable to locate a book which has talked about the case. Theories from forum readers attempting to render this embarrassment are inconsistent and grotesque. But as you see, even if we blindly believe and accept them, we still need a grammar book to show to our students in class. While English native speakers can depend on everyday experience, we depend mostly on grammar books. If grammarians really have any reason at all, why don't they say it in their books? Some readers recommended a few books, but as we looked into it, there was nothing in there about our subject. A professor had once typed up a dozen of grammars for us to read, but refused to say anything about the phenomenon.

The whole thing is a scandal. We trust in grammar books and they're all cheating us. Most important, it is not about a trivial point. The thumb rule in English tense is valid only by hiding away the unflavored evidence. Now according to their grammars, we have to cheat our students in return, and some of us don't even know it. Woe comes to those teachers who know this concealment silently.

Our jobs as English teachers are now at risk. What if our schools find out that we don't even know the basic part of English -- tenses? We suggest you post your answer to the following free forum:

http://fine.serveftp.org/forum

All we want is simply a grammar book to defend ourselves, in class, explaining why present perfect tense sometimes stays with past time adverbials. You can urge publishers for English language to print a book explaining this phenomenon. The book will be a saviour to us and it will be the end of our sufferings. No matter it is a wise or grotesque reason, we can then face our students with it, in black and white. With one or two new books clarifying this point, we are truly teaching English tense in class.

We victims of grammar are honest and make no fun of the English problem. The case has now become more ethical than grammatical one. We don't know who is cheating whom anymore. How can one write a grammar book and sleep easy with this concealment? Yes, we have been naive and proven wrong by some English native speakers. But do you think grammarians will keep their righteousness for long, as long as they hide away "in the past few years"? They have successfully misled us before, but we cannot cheat our students in return, can we? A grammar book solving this problem has to be published to help us, immediately!! If you have the book, tell us, please.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

(Mr) Xui
Speaker for a few teachers
Hong Kong, China

— Brandon