The English progressive is difficult

Mxsmanic   Thursday, August 26, 2004, 05:26 GMT
>> In my perception, the sentence defines neither the beginning nor the end of the "process" of giving gifts. <<

In that case, you would use the past simple. If you don't see it as a process that starts and ends, the past simple is the tense to use. Using the progressive _always_ implies that it starts and ends at some point.

>> How is a learner supposed to know how he's supposed to perceive an event? <<

There is no rule telling you how to perceive an effect. There are only rules telling you how to express something in English based on your perception.

>> The use of the future simple tense in "Do you think it will rain?" results from the perception of rain as a point in time. <<

More generally, the future simple just places the rain in the future, without any real reference to its potential duration. Often it means a point in time, but it could mean anything--simple (non-progressive) tenses don't really say either way.

>> My point is that your rule only looks simple ("always use the progressive tense to describe a process"). The hard part is figuring out which real-life events are perceived as processes by native speakers of English. Even the same event can be perceived as a process in one case, and as a point in time in another. <<

Absolutely, and once you understand that, you're one the way to mastering the progressive tenses. It's not a matter of following a long list of rules to figure out which is "correct" in a given context, it's a matter of using the correct tense to express what you have in mind. There aren't any cases in which a progressive tense is absolutely forbidden or required, but there are some cases in which it sounds very odd (and other cases in which a simple tense would sound very odd).

The hard part is indeed in figuring out which tense to use for which perception, but giving students a list of 40 rules to follow doesn't make it any easier. I find that just giving them a single rule works at least as well as giving them dozens of rules. There isn't any set of rules that will allow a student to correctly select the tense to use if he doesn't understand the fundamental meaning of the progressive tenses, so there's no sense in trying to give a large set of rules to cover every situation--because it can't be done.

Ultimately, students must read and write and speak and listen until they get accustomed to the progressive tenses. Nothing will replace that. Lots of rules won't help. Until they are used to using these tenses, they'll make mistakes. Therefore I apply Occam's Razor and simply give them one simple rule that governs all uses of the tense.

>> But then you have nouns like "police" and "family": "The police ARE investigating", "The family ARE happy". Why use "are"? Because English speakers perceive "police" and "family" as plural objects. <<

Actually, a family is singular in my perception, although people in the UK may feel differently. The British tend to see some entities as plural where Americans see them as singular. A company is singular to Americans because they usually think of the legal entity; it is often plural to the British because they think of the people working within the company.

>> But in other languages, these objects are perceived as singular. <<

Many languages have grammatical number, gender, etc. In English, gender is semantic--you call something "he," "she," or "it" based on the gender that you _perceive_ it to have. Most other languages have strict grammatical gender. Number is usually grammatical in English, but it can vary a bit in a very small number of cases, as described above.

>> So in order to use the "simple" rule, you basically have to get into the mind of an English speaker. <<

The minds of English speakers aren't different from those of anyone else. They are just accustomed to speaking English, and experienced speakers of English tacitly agree upon certain conventions for expressing certain things. With time and practice, anyone can learn the same conventions and express himself perfectly in English.

I find that, in any language, depending upon the rote application of long lists or rules is an exercise in futility. You either feel the language or you don't; if you don't, you'll constantly make mistakes, with or without rules, and if you do, you'll speak correctly, even if you don't ever look at the "rules." So it boils down to practice, more practice, and still more practice. That's why I tend not to give a lot of rules.

In the case of the progressive tenses, my rule is based on the actual perception that I have of these tenses. Invariably, any use of a progressive tense conjures up an image of a process with a beginning, a duration, and an end. Every use of the progressive tense can be boiled down to this; it's the one common denominator whenever the tense appears. So that's the rule I give. Thus far I've always had good luck in teaching students this way. For example, using this rule to explain the use of the present progressive to express a future event seems to work a lot better than a recitation of the classic rules ("arranged or planned," etc.). First I give them my simple rule, and after a few minutes they _infer_ the classic rules, which demonstrates that they are getting the idea.
Tom   Friday, August 27, 2004, 22:07 GMT
I'm glad you agree that the most important thing is to learn the conventions used by native speakers (which can only be done through input). When reading your posts earlier in this topic, I was under the impression that you rely on rules in your teaching.

You wrote:
"More generally, the future simple just places the rain in the future, without any real reference to its potential duration. Often it means a point in time, but it could mean anything--simple (non-progressive) tenses don't really say either way."

This implies that we can use EITHER a simple tense OR a progressive tense to refer to a process with a beginning and end. How is a learner supposed to know which one is more natural? I hope you agree that he or she has to internalize a number of example sentences that will clarify the conventions used by native speakers.

Learning the rule may be useful (e.g. it makes you focus on the grammatical details when getting input), but it doesn't make you produce natural-sounding sentences.


"You'll be hearing from my lawyer" sounds more natural than "You will hear from my lawyer", even though both are correct under your rule.

"Mr Davies will be giving a lecture at 3 pm Thursday" sounds more natural than "Mr Davies will give.." or "Mr Davies is giving" or "Mr Davies is going to give..." -- I'm not sure if your rule can explain this.

And what about the difference between "Will you go to the party?" and "Will you be going to the party?" -- doesn't it have little to do with whether the speaker perceives the "going to the party" as a process?
Mxsmanic   Saturday, August 28, 2004, 02:15 GMT
>> This implies that we can use EITHER a simple tense OR a progressive tense to refer to a process with a beginning and end. <<

That's right.

>> How is a learner supposed to know which one is more natural? <<

The more natural one is the one that corresponds to the speaker's intended meaning.

One does not _learn_ what is natural; one _feels_ it. That's what "natural" means.

First, you decide what meaning you wish to communicate. Then you choose the tense that will communicate your meaning.

If, in your mind, you see an event as a dimensionless point, or as something without any specific localization in time, you will tend to prefer a simple tense. If you visualize it as something that has a start and a finish and a duration, then you will tend to use a progressive tense. The choice is based on your perception and intention, not on any objective reality.

>> I hope you agree that he or she has to internalize a number of example sentences that will clarify the conventions used by native speakers. <<

He or she has to know the distinctions in meaning between various tenses. He or she must also understand that it is the speaker's intention that determines the meaning and thus the choice of tense, not any objective external factor.

>> Learning the rule may be useful (e.g. it makes you focus on the grammatical details when getting input), but it doesn't make you produce natural-sounding sentences. <<

The fewer the rules, the more quickly one advances to natural-sounding language.

>> "You'll be hearing from my lawyer" sounds more natural than "You will hear from my lawyer", even though both are correct under your rule. <<

They both sound equally natural to me, but they don't convey exactly the same meaning.

>> "Mr Davies will be giving a lecture at 3 pm Thursday" sounds more natural than "Mr Davies will give.." or "Mr Davies is giving" or "Mr Davies is going to give..." -- I'm not sure if your rule can explain this. <<

It can't explain it because there's no difference in "naturalness" among these examples. They are all equally natural ... they just don't all mean the same thing.

>> And what about the difference between "Will you go to the party?" and "Will you be going to the party?" -- doesn't it have little to do with whether the speaker perceives the "going to the party" as a process? <<

It has _everything_ to do with the way the speaker perceives the situation. "Will you go" means that the speaker doesn't think that his interlocutor has made a decision on going to the party and can even mean that the speaker is asking her to go; "will you be going" means that he thinks his interlocutor has already reached a decision, and he simply wants to know what that decision is.
Tom   Saturday, August 28, 2004, 17:38 GMT
"They both sound equally natural to me, but they don't convey exactly the same meaning. "
-- what's the difference then?

"They are all equally natural ... they just don't all mean the same thing"
-- can your rule explain the differences in meaning?


"It has _everything_ to do with the way the speaker perceives the situation" -- yes, but does it have anything to do with your rule (which says "if progressive, then a process is involved")?
Mxsmanic   Saturday, August 28, 2004, 19:10 GMT
In both cases, the differences in meaning are very tiny when these tenses are not associated with any other actions. Often you'll use a future progressive tense when you want to describe a process (start, finish, duration) in relation to some other event or process in the future, e.g., "I'll be studying in Munich when my sister gets married next year." When you use the tense without such an association, it's hardly any difference from the future tense ... although to my mind it makes it sound as if the speaker has a slightly more definite idea about the future event, since he already sees it as a process rather than just a vague checkmark on a calendar. The progressive tense also implies that the future action will be temporary, since it must have a start and a finish. By extension, this also means that the action is not happening now (because it has a start time, and if the start time were now or prior to now, it would be the present progressive, not the future progressive); and it means that that it cannot continue forever and has not occurred in the past, for the same reasons.

The present progressive for a future action indicates that some part of that action has already begun (often just the planning or decision stage): progressive = start/finish/duration, and present = start date now or prior to now.

The "going to" construction is simply an emphatic way of indicating one's intention to do something or the certainty of it happening. The process of going in the direction of the future action is already underway--it creates the impression of a nearly unstoppable progression towards the future event or action. Note that "going to" is different from a present progressive alone in that the former indicates that the target action hasn't actually begun at all, even though it's certain, whereas the latter indicates that the target action _has_ started in some way or form (and is thus certain because it's already underway).
Sanja   Sunday, August 29, 2004, 16:02 GMT
I never have troubles with that (for instance, works/is working). That was one of the first things I learned in English grammar. I was taught that they were called "present simple tense" and "present continuous tense", and I can always use them correctly.
Mi5 Mick   Tuesday, September 07, 2004, 12:32 GMT
>> And what about the difference between "Will you go to the party?" and "Will you be going to the party?" -- doesn't it have little to do with whether the speaker perceives the "going to the party" as a process? <<

I have to admit I don't perceive any difference and I've been using English as my primary language all my life.

B: Hey Ted, do you know about the party tonight?
T: Yeah, and I still feel ill from last night
B(1): So, will you be going?
B(2): So, are you going?
B(3): So, will you go?

How are B(1), B(2), B(3) different?

>> "You'll be hearing from my lawyer" sounds more natural than "You will hear from my lawyer", even though both are correct under your rule. <<

Again, no difference. I'd be surprised if any of the Brits, Americans, NZers, Canadians, etc. could convince me otherwise. Surprise me!
Ant_222   Tuesday, September 07, 2004, 13:50 GMT
Nevertheless, I feel some subtle tints.

If we speak about going to visit somebody and are interested in the fact wether T plans to do it or he plans to leave at home we should declare the best the "Will you go?" variant.

If T and B have already decided to visit their old friend, their train is to arrive soon and T has not begun preparing yet, then the second variant is the most appropriate because we mean the current process of preparing for the journey. And sometimes we can mean the journey itself that has almost begun and, hence, to emphasize it we use the Present Progressive.

Also the Present Continous may be used for denoting an action which has been planned before (and, therefore, considered as having already begun):

They are arriving at the airport at 5 pm.
He is taking an exam in April.
What are we having for dinner?

As to the Future Progressive, it denotes an action which will be going (happening) at a certain moment of time in the future:

I can't come at one o'clock tomorrow because I'll be giving a lecture at this time.
Now I'm studying. This time next Monday I'll be sitting in the cinema.

And for action planned before like this:
You'll recognize me. I'll be wearing a red dress
Draw your attention to the difference between the use of Present and Future Progressive tenses for this purpose. Here we just point to the time by the preceeding sentence.

P.S. (or, rather, a warning): I'am not a native English speaker. My opinion may not match with it of pure English speakers.

Anton
Mi5 Mick   Tuesday, September 07, 2004, 13:54 GMT
I make use of "So" in B(1), B(2), B(3) to indicate that the person inquiring is doing so based on his assumption that his interlocutor has come to a decision. So, "so" probably nullifies any nuances.
Ant_222   Wednesday, September 08, 2004, 15:34 GMT
He's decided something. And what? Why all subtle nuances should be nullified?

Anton
Mi5 Mick   Wednesday, September 08, 2004, 15:49 GMT
It no longer matters how the question is asked because of "so". Read back over what Mxsmanic wrote:

>>It has _everything_ to do with the way the speaker perceives the situation. "Will you go" means that the speaker doesn't think that his interlocutor has made a decision on going to the party and can even mean that the speaker is asking her to go; "will you be going" means that he thinks his interlocutor has already reached a decision, and he simply wants to know what that decision is.<<
Mxsmanic   Thursday, September 09, 2004, 00:08 GMT
Indeed, saying "So" implies that you've already determined what will happen and you are just confirming it. I would normally say "So, you're going to the party?" rather than "So, you will go to the party?" for this reason. The first sentence asks for confirmation that the interlocutor will attend the party; the second proposes going to the party as a possibility and asks for the interlocutor's opinion--it's a considerably more open question (and it would usually be inverted, too, i.e., "So, will you go to the party?"). The answer to the first question would usually be "yes" or "no"; the answer to the second question would usually be more complex ("I don't know yet," "I was thinking of the movies instead," etc.).
Ant_222   Friday, September 10, 2004, 20:19 GMT
Hello All.

I have shown some subtle tints, which imply that there may be more than one correct variants. Due to the use of so, to show the actuality of the question and that the answer should be given quite soon, I would prefer the Present Progressive.

On the second place I would place the Future Simple as just the most grammatically correct, but not showing the actuality and urgency.

Thus, the Future Progressive turns to be on the third place. I consider it very close to be fully grammatically incorrect.

In my opinion, in the discussed example, the major meaning of "so" is the urgency.

And this place distribution (except the third place) directly follows from my explanaton in my first post in this thread.

Anton
Sanja   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 15:15 GMT
I would always say "The family IS happy", not "The family ARE happy".
Ant_222   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 17:37 GMT
«I would always say "The family IS happy", not "The family ARE happy".»
Nope, you are wrong.

Anton