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.
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.