The English progressive is difficult

Adam   Sunday, August 22, 2004, 20:42 GMT
Have you ever wondered what is really, really hard for someone who has to learn English? Of course it's all equally easy for us, it just comes flowing out - well, mostly anyway. The only way we have of telling what might be difficult is to watch what speakers of other languages do with English. Those who approach it when they're past their childhood language-learning years.

There are things about English that the average non-native speakers seem to have trouble with. Mastering the ways we use the construction called the progressive is one of them. Many Americans were born abroad but have lived in this country for years. But even those who speak almost perfect English will occasionally slip and use the progressive in a way that sounds odd to us. We hear things like `At this moment she works' or `He is washing the dishes every night '.

If someone were to ask us under what circumstances to use the progressive, most of us would say something like "Well, I say `I'm writing' when I'm actually doing it as I say that." We know, in other words, when to say `I'm writing ' and when `I write '. But the confusions faced by learners of English tell us that it can't be anywhere near that straightforward. Often we do use a progressive to mean that someone is literally right in the act of doing something. `She is reading in the living room ' means that's where she is and what she's doing at the moment of speaking, where `She reads in the living room ' just means that's her usual custom. So far so good.

Picture yourself saying `Well, yesterday I'm walking along the street, see, when this guy comes up to me ...' Aren't you expecting your listener to know you aren't right in the act of walking as you say it? Your word `yesterday' makes it plain that it has all happened well before your talking about it. Now try saying `They are putting on a performance next year '. How could you be saying they're in the midst of something that is still months off? Again, something that isn't happening as you say it, but this time off in the future.

`You're looking tired these days'. What are you trying to communicate when you say this to someone? At least it's something going on right now, but do you really mean that it's just at the moment you're saying it? It doesn't seem you're saying that person is `right in the act of' anything at all, but more that you have an impression `more or less about this time', now but also `smeared' over both earlier and later.

Even that isn't all. How do we know that some verbs can't take a progressive at all, even though it seems quite reasonable to say that someone is `right in the act of' doing something'? You probably won't have much trouble agreeing that `She's knowing that ' or `You're having to do that sometime today ' sound distinctly odd.

If this were a grammar lesson, we would try now to account for how we get all these meanings from one -ing form. It is rather complex, so we would need a few pages. But fortunately this isn't a lecture. Let's try a thumbnail version anyway, and you can see if the above examples fit it. We find ourselves using the progressive when what is described by a given verb is more likely to be the case at some time than at others. This `more likely' time is most often the moment of speaking, but it might not be. It can perfectly well be some time in the past or future, as we just saw. This also accounts for why we understand immediately that `looking tired ' goes well beyond the moment of speaking. It explains as well the oddness of `She is knowing her geography '. If she knows it she knows it, so what about that `more likely'? It's just that it's not easy to picture times when it could be less likely.

Why does "Silence is Being Golden" sound so odd? Is `Silence' sometimes not `Golden'? Even though we may think of occasional instances where it isn't, that well-known saying puts it confidently in the form of a universal truth.

The point of all this, though, was not so much to explain how we use the progressive, but simply to say that we're all unconsciously aware of the same subtleties of usage, without ever having given much thought to how complex our knowledge really is. To answer the question we started with, if we're looking for an example of something that is almost impossible to learn at a later age, one of our most promising candidates is our familiar progressive.





Copyright © 1999 by William Z. Shetter
Mxsmanic   Sunday, August 22, 2004, 21:26 GMT
The progressive tenses are not nearly as complex as you imply (nor are they unique to English, so many students of English already have similar notions in mind or equally complex tenses in their own languages that they've mastered).

All the progressive tenses have one thing in common: they indicate that the speaker sees the referenced action as having a start, a duration, and a finish. Simple tenses do not carry this connotation; in fact, they don't really say much about start, finish, or duration at all (although they still place an event or action in time with respect to the present, in some cases).

Why and when do English speakers use the present progressive to represent the future? Simple: they use it when they visualize the action in question as having already begun in some way. It is thus a process, with a duration, a start, and a finish, and the start is in the past, which means the process is already underway--so the present progressive is used.

How can a future action be already underway, you might ask? It can already be underway when something perceived as part of the action has already occurred. For example, if you're going on a trip and you've already bought the tickets, the trip (including the purchase of tickets) as a process is already underway; you would thus say "I'm going to London next Tuesday." If you say "I'll go to London next Tuesday," no part of the travelling process has yet occurred in your perception.

Most grammars describe this use of the progressive as "indicating that something has been arranged, decided, or planned." But more simply, it just means that something perceived as part of the action has already occurred, and so the action is a process, with a starting point in the past, and an ending point in the future. The present progressive is clearly the logical choice in this case.

We do not use the progressive for certain verbs because we don't normally think of them as a process; we tend to think of them as a state or condition. Knowing something, for example, is a state or condition of mind, it's not an action that takes time (no duration, start point, or end point); for this reason, we rarely say "I'm knowing it." This rule is not cast in concrete, however. McDonald's has no qualms about saying "I'm loving it" in its advertising campaigns, even though love is something we don't normally visualize as a process with a clear-cut beginning and end.

In summary, you vastly overestimate the complexity of the progressive tenses. For students with nothing equivalent in their native languages, the progressive is quite new and takes some getting used to, but they all master it quickly enough if they study and practice. It helps if their teachers actually know how to properly explain the progressive (few do, alas!).
Xatufan   Monday, August 23, 2004, 00:51 GMT
Spanish uses the progressive almost the same way as English, so I don't have any problem.
Damian   Monday, August 23, 2004, 07:39 GMT
Being a native English speaker it is a bit difficult to understand the problems learners of our language have in dealing with various grammatical constructions.

As has been said, learning correct usage comes with emulating correct native speech or prose and constant practice.

The act of learning is progressive.....we all do a little of it each and every day in one field or another. One of life's experiences.....it is an on-going process. I know some things right now which I did not know yesterday and I have no knowledge of something I will be familiar with this time tomorow.

At the minute I don't know what I shall have for breakfast or what kind of working day it will turn out to be. Cheers now!
Tom   Monday, August 23, 2004, 11:32 GMT
Many uses of the progressive have nothing to do with the action being a process or not:

"I'm always losing my keys."
(the progressive used to express irritation)

"I'm not doing this!"
(the progressive as an intensifier)

"Will you do the dishes?"
(the progressive NOT used even though doing the dishes is a continuous process)

"She was always giving Paul these little gifts."
(the progressive used to describe repeated, unexpected actions)

"It's raining" vs. "Do you think it will rain?"
Mxsmanic   Monday, August 23, 2004, 12:33 GMT
All of your examples are processes.

In example 1, losing keys is a process that is temporary; it is not the normal state. If you lost your keys systematically, throughout your life, you'd say "I always lose my keys."

In example 2, it's not an intensifier, it makes it clear that the action is a temporary process, not a normal state.

In example three, the present progressive is not used because it is not seen as a process that has already begun (in particular, whether or not the dishes will be done is uncertain at the time of the statement).

In example 4, we again see a temporary state of affairs, with a beginning and end ... a process, in other words.

In example 5, the rain is a temporary process, with a beginning and end. The question does not describe a process with a defined beginning and end.
Steve K   Monday, August 23, 2004, 13:34 GMT
I think this discussion illustrates why studying rules of grammar is not helpful to most language learners. Listen and read a lot. Focus on phrases. Be observant and discover the language naturally.
Mxsmanic   Monday, August 23, 2004, 13:55 GMT
Experience is often the best teacher in language. But many students don't have the luxury of being able to wait five or ten or fifteen years to acquire a good mastery of grammar empirically, and so they seek a more formal instruction in the rules of grammar in order to save time. And it does save time, even if it isn't always easy.
Steve K   Monday, August 23, 2004, 14:23 GMT
If you listen intensively, at least one hour a day, then repeatedly read the same material; if you then systematically and consistently save and learn the key words and phrases you will need; if you try to write using these new words and phrases and have your writing corrected, and have incorrect phrasing replaced by better phrases;if you read a lot; if you do all of this you will not need "5-15 years". In fact you will learn faster than by trying to master abstract rules of grammar. Grammar can be an occasional reference, but mostly it is a distraction that appeals to the "intellectual" mind of certain teachers and learners but is simply discouraging to most language learners and on the whole not very effective.
Damian   Monday, August 23, 2004, 15:03 GMT
Mxsmanic makes a good point...the time factor is very important in many cases I imagine. Learning a language with those restrictions means you have to master the grammatical constructions. I know that from taking French at school up to secondary level.

I understand where Steve is coming from, too. As I've said before in this forum, learning a language comes more naturally when you mix with native speakers. Of course it's useful to know and understand the basic rules of grammar, but I don't think it's absolutely essential to be hidebound by them. When in Rome do as the Romans do. Making mistakes, correcting them and not repeating them is the best way to learn and better than any language lab, I reckon. We constantly use the the progressives without worrying too much which form is being used.

As a rule native speakers use the correct grammar, but not always by any means...that is apparent from ordinary day to day contact with a fair number of people. I speak from a UK perspective here. I have always loved my native language, have always done so from an early age and hate to see it debased, especially when it's important to write and speak it correctly. However, I usually use the colloquial form when it's appropriate, using local dialectal terms so I guess I speak two basic forms of English, like most other people. With one it's important to use correct English; with the other it matters not as long as you are understood!

Doing crash courses in language learning gives you the grounding for basic use, using correct grammar and construiction, but real, effective communication to native standard is best achieved by the ordinary day to day contact with people, and by other means such as reading and through the media.
Mxsmanic   Monday, August 23, 2004, 18:32 GMT
Steve appears to disagree with formal instruction, and yet the methods he describes are highly structured, and thus rather formal in themselves.

There are lots of ways to learn a language, ranging from pure trial and error (the way children do it—mainly because they have no choice) to purely formal study.

Pure trial and error has the advantage of being straightforward, and it also strongly reinforces everything learned; children take a long time to learn their native languages, but they never forget them or make mistakes thereafter. The main disadvantages to this method are that it is very time-consuming (many years) and it provides no clear negative feedback, such that one tends to learn errors just as thoroughly and irreversibly as one learns correct use of the language. Correcting the errors later can be extraordinarily difficult.

Formal study has the advantage of being very rapid; good progress can be made in an amazingly short time. However, it is much more dependent on discipline and intelligence, and since everything is covered in such a compressed and minimalized way, there is little reinforcement, and it's easy to forget things. Another advantage of formal study is that it prevents errors from becoming so firmly anchored that they can't be corrected.

Overal, for adult learners with a timetable, a method that leans more towards formal study than towards trial and error is probably best. One caveat here, though, is pronunciation, which often benefits from more of a trial and error approach, because pronunciation is the most automatic function of language and must really become a sort of reflex that one need not think about--and trial and error is a good method for that. Still, even for pronunciation, a study of phonetics, transcription, etc., can greatly speed acquisition of the spoken language and can forestall any mistakes that might be difficult to correct later.
Tom   Tuesday, August 24, 2004, 17:03 GMT
Wow, you actually think that the usage of the progressive tenses in English is perfectly logical and can be summarized with a single rule. Let's examine your explanations:

"I'm not doing this!"
You say "it's not an intensifier, it makes it clear that the action is a temporary process, not a normal state."

"Will you do the dishes?"
You say "the present progressive is not used because it is not seen as a process that has already begun (in particular, whether or not the dishes will be done is uncertain at the time of the statement)."

In 2, the process has not begun (in fact, it will not begin), and yet we use the progressive.


"She was always giving Paul these little gifts."
You say "In example 4, we again see a temporary state of affairs, with a beginning and end ... a process, in other words. "

A process has to be continuous. In this case, the actions described are intermittent.


"It's raining" vs. "Do you think it will rain?"

"In example 5, the rain is a temporary process, with a beginning and end. The question does not describe a process with a defined beginning and end."

The question describes rain, which, as you wrote, is a process with a beginning and end.
Jacob   Tuesday, August 24, 2004, 23:05 GMT
I don't have anything to add -- but good thread; posts like this are why I hang around the antimoon forum.
Mxsmanic   Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 00:08 GMT
Wow, you actually think that the usage of the progressive tenses in English is perfectly logical and can be summarized with a single rule.

Yes, I do think that the progressive tense can be summarized in a single rule. There's a common thread through all uses of the progressive tense, and that common thread is start, duration, and finish.

I'll review your examples again:

> "I'm not doing this!"

The only intensifier here is the exclamation point. The present progressive for a future event merely indicates that some part of that future event or action has already taken place or is already underway. Usually this means a decision or arrangement has been made, but there are many variations. In every case, it means that the event is being viewed as a process, with a beginning at or prior to now, and an end at some point in the future.

If the event or action is entirely contained in the future, the future simple tense is used.

If the event or action is a continuing or repetitive one, or if time is irrelevant, or if the speaker is looking at a calendar or agenda, the present simple tense is typical.

You say:

> In 2, the process has not begun (in fact, it will not begin), and yet we use the progressive.

Because the decision not to do it has already been made, and so the process of "not doing" is already underway.

> "She was always giving Paul these little gifts."

The giving of gifts was a temporary process, with a beginning and an end, entirely contained in the past.

If this giving occurred permanently (no clearly defined beginning or end), the past simple would be used.

If this giving occurred without a clearly defined beginning and extended to the present, the present perfect simple would be used.

If this giving occurred with a definite beginning in the past and continued to the present, the present perfect progressive would be used.

> A process has to be continuous. In this case, the actions
> described are intermittent.

So are actions of machines on an assembly line, and yet the operation of the assembly line is still a continuous process.

> "It's raining" vs. "Do you think it will rain?"

> The question describes rain, which, as you wrote, is a process with a beginning and end.

You're confusing the reality with the perception. The choice of the progressive or simple tenses is made by the speaker as a function of his _perception_ of the action or event, not as a function of its actual real-world characteristics. If real-world characteristics determined the choice of tense, then every reference to a given type of action or event under any circumstances would either be always in the progressive or always in the simple. Of course, this isn't actually the case in practice. Virtually anything can be described with either tense, depending on the speaker's intentions and viewpoint.
Tom   Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 23:43 GMT
<<<
"She was always giving Paul these little gifts."
If this giving occurred permanently (no clearly defined beginning or end), the past simple would be used.
<<<

In my perception, the sentence defines neither the beginning nor the end of the "process" of giving gifts.

<<<
"It's raining" vs. "Do you think it will rain?"

You're confusing the reality with the perception. The choice of the progressive or simple tenses is made by the speaker as a function of his _perception_ of the action or event, not as a function of its actual real-world characteristics.
<<<

How is a learner supposed to know how he's supposed to perceive an event? 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. This perception may be strange for people who speak other language. For example, in Polish it would not be correct to use the equivalent of the continuous tense to describe rain.

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.

There are other differences like this. You might say that the usage of "is" and "are" follows a perfectly simple rule -- use "is" to describe a single object, use "are" to describe two or more objects.

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. But in other languages, these objects are perceived as singular. So in order to use the "simple" rule, you basically have to get into the mind of an English speaker.