To me, this sentence is ambiguous. Is it to you?
"Betty has lived in Moscow for three years."
"Betty has lived in Moscow for three years."
ambiguity in the present perfect
Yes, it can be read ambiguously.
Do you think it is still ambiguous when put like this?
"For three years, Betty has lived in Moscow."
Do you think it is still ambiguous when put like this?
"For three years, Betty has lived in Moscow."
They both mean and sound exactly the same. How does the sentence sound ambiguous? It seems pretty straight forward to me.
<They both mean and sound exactly the same. How does the sentence sound ambiguous? It seems pretty straight forward to me.>
To me, "Betty has lived in Moscow for three years." can mean that she lives in Moscow at the time of speaking the sentence or that she lived there at some time prior to the time of speaking.
To me, "Betty has lived in Moscow for three years." can mean that she lives in Moscow at the time of speaking the sentence or that she lived there at some time prior to the time of speaking.
«...or that she lived there at some time prior to the time of speaking.» — in this case Past Simple should've been used.
Is there any differences of meaning between "Betty has lived in Moscow for three years" and "Betty lives in Moscow three years"?
«Is there any differences of meaning between "Betty has lived in Moscow for three years" and "Betty lives in Moscow three years"?»
Yes. The second is incorrect.
Yes. The second is incorrect.
See now to me in
"Betty has lived in Moscow for three years." the "has" suggests she is still there.
If I wanted to say that at some time in the past Betty had lived in Moscow I would use:
"Betty lived in Moscow for three years."
"Betty has lived in Moscow for three years." the "has" suggests she is still there.
If I wanted to say that at some time in the past Betty had lived in Moscow I would use:
"Betty lived in Moscow for three years."
In theory this might be possibly ambiguous, in practice it is not, since time expressions indicating duration used with present perfect practically always indicate duration up to the present in actual usage. If one wanted to indicate duration in the the past which does not extend up to the present, one would use simple past or past perfect instead of present perfect. However, note that these usages also generally indicate completion in the past as well, *especially* in the case of past perfect.
This is not ambiguity as such. All that's going on here is that somethng is implied but not directly stated. Is she living there now? Usually we'd assume so but we can't be sure. It's not an ambiguous statement, though, because it's not a statement about whether or not she still lives there.
Either Betty still lives in Moscow, or she has lived there in the past on multiple occasions, each with a duration of three years. The latter meaning is highly implausible and improbable, so usually the former is taken for granted.
When the present perfect is combined with an expression that implies discontinuity in the past, it may refer to multiple events or actions entirely completed in the past: "He has worked for GM on many occasions." The use of the present perfect in this case implies that these events or actions may continue in the present or future; "He worked for GM on many occasions" implies that he will no longer work for GM, whereas "he has worked" implies that he may continue to work intermittently for GM in the future.
When the present perfect is combined with an expression that implies discontinuity in the past, it may refer to multiple events or actions entirely completed in the past: "He has worked for GM on many occasions." The use of the present perfect in this case implies that these events or actions may continue in the present or future; "He worked for GM on many occasions" implies that he will no longer work for GM, whereas "he has worked" implies that he may continue to work intermittently for GM in the future.