The use of the present perfect in British English and American English

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

The use of the present perfect in british english and american english bachelor's thesis

Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication

Alyona Trublovskaya

Moscow, 2020

Abstract

A substantial number of studies concerning the Present Perfect tense (PP) have discussed and compared its usage in British English (BrE) and American English (AmE). It is proposed that the PP is being gradually replaced by the Past Simple (SP) and this trend is more noticeable in AmE. However, little is known about how British and American people use the PP in their everyday lives. The paper attempts to extend the scope of the concept of the PP and determine how the variety of English influences the choice between the two competing tenses. We have used a correlational study and conducted a questionnaire among native speakers from Great Britain and the USA. The results confirm the principal hypothesis and demonstrate that relevance to the moment of speech might have come to be a weak determinant of the PP. Furthermore, Americans become less inclined than Britons to use the PP in informal English. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as limitations of the research, are thoroughly discussed in the paper.

Keywords: the Past Simple, the Present Perfect, American English, British English, the verb

Table of contents

Introduction

1. Theoretical framework

1.1 The placement of perfect in the grammatical categories of the verb

1.2 The notions of the PP and the SP

1.3 The PP in BrE and AmE

2. Methods of research

2.1 The outline of last year's survey

2.2 Design of the modified questionnaire

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Findings of the modified questionnaire

3.2 Limitations and future research

Conclusion

References

Appendix

Introduction

As many other European languages, English differentiates between two tenses describing the past: the PP (have + past participle) and the SP (verb in the past form). While the SP describes completed actions, the PP is used to emphasize the connection of the past event with the present moment. The function of the PP varies crosslinguistically. For example, the analogue in French the passй composй has almost replaced the SP and is employed now to describe most past events (Yao, 2014). Similarly, in German the equivalent Perfekt describes actions occurred in the past, whereas the SP, though may be used interchangeably, carries a narrative function (Drosdowski & Eiseinberg, 1995).

The concept of the PP in English has been investigated from different perspectives. Several research papers have been concerned with the use of the PP in some dialects of English (Kirk, 2017; Werner & Fuchs, 2016). Several studies have compared the notion of the PP in English and similar European languages (Korrel, 1993; Wada, 2002). From the theoretical point of view, it is suggested that the belonging of perfect to one of the verb categories remains debatable (Davydova, 2011). Most recent studies comparing the PP and the SP focused on a diachronic approach and therefore tried to detect the changes in the use of the two tenses over the years (Hundt & Smith, 2009; Yao, 2014). Since both tenses are related to past-time reference, the function of the PP tends to overlap with that of the SP which is of paramount importance for grammarians. This fact has created the problem of some contradictions between the grammar rules in terms of the PP and the use of this tense in real life. The primary concern might be that the intention of the speaker to use either the PP or the SP is mostly governed by their perception of the situation rather than by following the rules prescribed by grammar manuals (Kaushanskaya, 2008). Some attempts have been made by researchers in order to examine the PP in BrE and AmE. There is a widespread hypothesis that is mentioned in a number of books: In AmE the SP is used more frequently than in BrE for describing situations happened in the past (Algeo, 2006; Darragh, 2000; Greenbaum, 1996).

Nevertheless, several gaps in the realm of the PP remain that need to be sufficiently covered. None of the modern studies is present that would be concerned with the current employment of the PP among British and American people. There has been a bias towards the written language, and thus structures of spoken communication have lacked analysis (Carter & McCarthy, 2006). Moreover, contradicting views regarding the placement of perfect in the categories of the verb represent another gap. Also, it is unclear what associations with regard to the PP and the SP people have and how it affects their choice between the two tenses. Hence, it is necessary to conduct further research that would examine the PP tense from a synchronic perspective and address existing questions.

This paper discusses the following problem in modern English grammar: controversies in the use of the PP and its counterpart SP in BrE and AmE for describing past situations. It attempts to extend the stream of research in this regard and establish how the standard of English influences the use of the PP. The research objectives are as follows:

to explore the belonging of perfect to one of the verb categories,

to systemize the rules on the PP that are discussed in grammar manuals,

to conduct a literature review on the use of the PP in BrE and AmE,

to evaluate the frequency of the use of the PP in the two varieties.

With a view to achieving the above objectives a critical literature analysis, as well as a correlational study, has been carried out. With regard to the literature, the sources have been selected, evaluated, and further compared. The full list of references is placed in the relevant section. Since this paper is the result of two years' research into the problem of the PP, the findings of the earlier study will be outlined as well. The new correlational study conducted this year comprises a questionnaire among native British and American speakers. Thus, the novelty of this thesis lies in that it employs a new method of research in order to address existing issues and examine the PP further.

It is important to outline what lies beyond the scope of this research. First, only the PP is discussed in this paper and no attention is given to other perfect constructions (e.g., the Past Perfect, the Future Perfect, etc.), though they are examined in some other studies (Bao et al., 2018; Bowie et al., 2013). Second, a different function of the PP, such as the PP Inclusive, is not studied in this paper as it does not have substantial room for an investigation. Hence, the scope of this research is the notion of the PP Resultative and its use in BrE and AmE. For this reason, its main counterpart SP is also substantially explored.

This research paper has significant implications for several groups of people. First, it provides the outline of how the problem of the use of the PP is covered in other research papers. Second, the findings of this study may be crucial for the future research related to the PP tense as they will show new directions for researchers. Moreover, the results may be of use to the learners of English planning to develop a deep understanding of the notions of the PP and the SP in order to speak grammatically correct English.

The research paper is organized as follows. The first section deals with the theoretical framework. It includes a debate on the belonging of perfect to one of the verb categories (1.1.), the concepts of the PP and the SP viewed by linguists (1.2.), and the outline of the distinctions concerning the PP tense in BrE and AmE as well as possible causes of them and some statistics (1.3.). The second section comprises the information of last year's research, namely its methodology and main outcomes (2.1.), as well as the design of a new study (2.2.). Section 3 incorporates the results and discussion of the research carried out this year (3.1.). Limitations of this study as well as suggestions for further research are covered in the third section as well (3.2.).

1. Theoretical framework

This chapter will address the most crucial areas related to the status of the PP and outline what has been scrutinized in terms of the PP so far. Its main focus is theoretical, though some examples will be given for a more refined understanding of the issues. First, three main approaches concerning perfect as a category of the verb will be analysed. Second, the concepts of past and present based on the SP and the PP tenses respectively will be outlined. Finally, in this chapter some more delicate domains related to the PP will be covered, such as the employment of the PP with different time adverbials, the use of the PP in interrogative sentences, etc. This section is fundamental as it allows us to gain more insights into the notion of the PP and its functioning in the English language.

1.1 The placement of perfect in the grammatical categories of the verb

In modern English grammarians have not yet come to the agreement on how many grammatical categories within the verb should be recognized. A significant part of linguists assert that there are six categories: number, voice, aspect, person, mood and tense (Kaushanskaya, 2008; Saakyan, 2013). Some grammarians, however, add the seventh category named modality that is often comprised in the category of mood (Greenbaum, 1996).

Although tense and aspect are sometimes regarded as related, they are two independent categories (Kakzhanova, 2019). Based on the definition of tense, it is the category of the verb that “relates actions, events or situation to a certain time point” (Davydova, 2011, p. 142). Hence, its main function is to locate the situation in relation to the moment of speech: before, after, or simultaneously with it. Tense constitutes past/present/future opposition. It should be pointed out that grammatically the verb has only two forms - past and present (Carter & McCarthy, 2006; Greenbaum, 1996). Aspect is usually regarded as the most contentious category of the verb. As it is advanced, aspect is “the grammatical form used by a speaker in taking a particular view of a situation” (Radden & Dirven, 2007, p. 175). The question of how to treat perfect as a grammatical category remains open among linguists. Three main approaches can be singled out: tense, aspect, or a separate category (Davydova, 2011).

Some scholars believe that perfect should be placed under the category of tense as it describes time reference (Davydova, 2011; Hantson, 2005; Radden & Dirven. 2007). Others attribute perfect to the category of aspect (Biber et al., 1999; Klein, 1994). For example, Hirtle (1975) identifies two oppositions in verbal aspect in English: progressive and perfect. Greenbaum (1996) and Carter & McCarthy (2006) believe that English has two aspects, namely perfect and progressive, which can be combined together in perfect progressive forms (e.g., He has been reading some books). Finally, perfect is sometimes viewed as a separate domain (Dahl, 1999; Musan, 2002; Smirnitsky, 1957). Based on this approach, aspect represents progressive/non-progressive dimension.

Although perfect as an aspect remains a predominant view, the latter stance helps to avoid some contradictions in grammar. Viewing perfect as a single category preserves the rule of a grammatical category comprising one oppositional group. Furthermore, perfective forms express neither time nor manner (duration) of the action which are implied by tense and aspect respectively. Perfective/imperfective dimension establishes the relations between the two situations and their order. For example, in the sentence I have lost my key and I cannot open the door the PP shows that one event precedes the other (Smirnitsky, 1957). In some sources this category is referred to as phase (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Krylova & Gordon, 2003; Meyer, 1992). Thus, the PP implies that the action and its result are in different phases, which demonstrates the priority of situations, e.g., The film had already started by the time we came there.

There is no conclusive answer to the issue of to which category of the verb perfect is related. Attributing perfect to the category of phase would indicate the sequence of events in an utterance. Furthermore, some linguists suggest that the categories of tense and aspect should not be viewed as isolated as they are usually intermingled (Kaushanskaya, 2008). This premise was reflected in the book by Krylova & Gordon (2003, p. 16) who noted that the categories of tense, aspect, and phase are “closely merged together” and thus should not be treated independently. The idea that aspect and tense are closely intertwined was further supported by Davydova (2011) in her observations.

1.2 The notions of the PP and the SP

The concepts of past and present

Two main approaches to grammar should be outlined in order to have a deeper understanding of the problem discussed in the paper. In earlier periods of language development linguists had a prescriptive approach to grammar which implies the idea of rules governing the use of the language. In his book Blokh (1983) noted that such rules were often based on the linguists' subjective judgments which consequently led to the contradiction between rules and lingual reality. However, the modern approach to grammar tends to be descriptive (Blokh, 1983). Its main goal is to see how language functions in real life (Ezat, 2014). In this regard, in order to preserve the agreement between grammatical regularities and lingual reality, grammarians should detect and analyse utterances falling beyond the rules. Hence, this research paper will be concerned with the two tenses (the PP and the SP) and their both domains: theoretical (grammar rules) and practical (functioning in speech).

It should be pointed out that although the word `tense' has been discussed above as a grammatical category, it will be further used homonymously to denote the tenses in English the way they appear in grammar manuals. We should also add that the PP has other functions for employment in the English language, for instance, the PP Durative, or the PP Inclusive, which is used to describe actions starting in the past and continuing in the present moment (comparable to the Present Perfect Continuous): “I have never felt at home since Flora told me she had heard us discussing her” (Greenbaum, 1996, p. 270). Since the PP Inclusive does not show much difficulty, this study focuses on the PP from the perspective of speaking about past situations; thus, some features of the PP are not discussed.

It is crucial to draw a line between the PP and the SP and the concepts of `past' and `present' in general terms. With `past' it is suggested that the speaker clearly distinguishes between the two spheres of time. The first sphere denotes the moment of speech, i.e., a conversation itself, whereas under the second sphere the situation from the past implied. (Greenbaum, 1996). Moreover, in the SP the time frame is always defined. The definiteness of the event constitutes the main feature of the SP. It may be displayed explicitly with an adjunct referring to a particular point of time in the past or with an adverbial clause: “He left yesterday” (Saakyan, 2013, p. 136). Furthermore, in some situations adverbial modifiers of place can also point out to the past: “Did you see him at the theatre?” (Krylova & Gordon, 2003, p. 32). Also, time definiteness can be implied or understood in a conversation and thus omitted (Carter & McCarthy, 2006). The following sentence might be considered: “How did you get your present job?” (Thomson & Martinet, 1986, p. 177). In the above example time markers are implicit since in the conversation both interlocutors recognize the past event and do not feel themselves linked to it. Sometimes this separation is based on the assumptions of shared and general knowledge (Carter & McCarthy, 2006). Nevertheless, some disagreement in terms of the concept of the SP remains present. For instance, Declerck (2006) proposes that past tenses can denote a recency meaning as well.

The notion of `present' denotes the situation happened in the past that is still viewed as relevant or important to the moment of speech (Swan, 2005).The relevance could also be stimulated by the idea that the event has occurred recently or has just been revealed (e.g., on the news, in newspaper reports, etc.). According to the definition of the PP, it usually refers to “actions and states which start in the past but which have a link with the present” (Foley & Hall, 2003, p. 62). The authors show that the PP usage tends to be affected by the person's subjective attitude rather than by the rules of grammar manuals. Therefore, a number of implications may arise: contradictions between grammar rules and the use of the two tenses, difficulties in compiling and testing the use of the PP by means of grammar tasks in teaching, etc. Concerning the PP and its relation with time reference, in a dialogue the definiteness of time is usually not determined since this information is not crucial for interlocutors (Krylova & Gordon, 2003). A research paper examining A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER), namely its drama section, has pinpointed certain conditions that may affect the employment of the PP tense. For example, the study indicates that the PP is widely used in negative and temporarily determined sentences, while its frequency is limited with transitive verbs and contexts implying direct outcomes (Yao, 2014). It should be mentioned that the PP possesses a stricter semantics than the SP as the use of it is usually guided by the absence or presence of a perfect state (i.e., relevance of the past event) (Bao et al., 2018). On the contrary, in other European languages, such as German or French, the opposite is true. Based on Russian grammarians, language incorporates two concepts: the plane of expression and the plane of context (Blokh, 1983; Kakzhanova, 2019). Some researchers refer to the same notions as `phore' and `value' respectively (Rastier, 1997). The main idea is that the plane of content constitutes semantic elements of language, whereas the plane of expression implies formal (material) units. This division resembles the ideas of Saussure and his theory of linguistic signs (Bouquet, 2004). Thus, when two language units of the same plane correlate with one unit of the other plane, polysemy or conversely synonymy arises.

Applying this model to the problem examined in this thesis, we may conclude that the PP and the SP have different planes of expression but share the same plane of content to a certain extent. Since in language there is a natural principle of economy, the PP and the SP cannot be absolute synonyms and hold the same meaning, i.e., content (Vicentini, 2003; Zykova, 2008). Hence, the PP and the SP remain in constant competition encroaching on the semantic side of each other. In this regard, Wynne (2000) assumes that the process of one form becoming dominant and the other one gradually declining is inevitable in language.

In their study Riou et al. (2017) explored the scripts of emergency calls and proved that the distinctions in the perceptions of the PP and the SP remain present. It was noticed that when the call-takers made a question in the SP (`What happened?'), people began to respond in the form of a detailed narrative. When, however, the question was put in the PP (`What's happened?'), callers were more likely to give a brief and informative response concerning the current situation. The findings indicate that people have different associations with the two tenses. It may be that when natives hear a question in the SP, they subconsciously imagine the past separated from the current moment and therefore focus on details. In contrast, the PP tense could be identified with the present situation and thus the question in this tense stimulates to answer in the form of a report. The idea of the past tenses bearing a narrative function was also put forward by Davydova (2011). It must be pointed out that employing the SP for a narrative style is observed crosslinguistically. For example, the German equivalent Preterite is often used in written English to describe a story (Drosdowski & Eiseinberg, 1995). The following example is worth some attention: “Where have you been? - I've been to the cinema. - Did you like it?” (Thomson & Martinet, 1986, p. 177). It demonstrates that in the process of a conversation there may be a switch from the PP (introducing the situation, i.e., emphasizing relevance) to the SP (further discussion of details, i.e., emphasizing narration of the past event).

The following table attempts to systematise the rules of distinguishing between the PP and its counterpart SP with respect to denoting past actions. The core principles were generalized on the basis of the grammar references listed in the relevant section. It should be added that for a profound understanding of the rules it is necessary to address additional papers.

It is crucial to understand that time markers are of a recommendatory character and exemplify only the most traditional cases. In English it may be that the tense is not picked according to the rules but rather because of the setting of the event (context), as well as the speaker's intentions. The following examples are to be observed:

Table 1. Main differences between the PP and the SP used for describing past actions

“He noticed that the leaves of the chestnut were already beginning to turn yellow and brown” (Krylova & Gordon, 2003, p. 32). The speaker used the continuous aspect despite the time marker `already'. It must have been done deliberately since the speaker's intention was to stress the duration of the action;

“I'm sure I've had the pleasure somewhere” (“Pygmalion Script”). At first sight it may seem that `somewhere' refers to the markers of place implying the SP and hence places the sentence in the past. It is crucial, however, to understand the intention of the speaker in order to interpret the employment of the PP: “I'm sure I've had the pleasure [of meeting you] somewhere”. In this situation `somewhere' might bear a different meaning and be close to the word `before' displaying the idea of knowing the person now.

“My perceptions of Japan changed/have changed a lot during my stay in Tokyo” (Coghill & Magedanz, p. 96). In this sentence it is impossible to advocate the use of either of the tenses without knowing the context. As the authors outline, if the person is still in Japan, the PP should be picked to stress the relevance of the idea and the opportunity for it [perceptions] to change in the future. In case the speaker now lives in a different country, the SP is more appropriate as the action occurred in the past.

“ `[...] you've been known to lose your temper from time to time, as all great leaders do.' - 'When have I lost my temper?' ” (Benieff & Weiss, 2017). The extract was taken from the conversation between Tyrion and Daenerys (season 7, episode 6, 22:00). Despite the fact the utterance of Daenerys tends to be related to the past due to the question word `when', the PP was picked. It might be so that the speaker intended to maintain the tense of her interlocutor. Furthermore, the PP usage can be viewed similarly to the above example as Daenerys may also have wanted to emphasize that it was not the last time she lost her temper and it may happen again in the future.

The PP and the SP in interrogative sentences

As may be noticed from the previous section (the study of Riou et al. (2017) in particular), interrogative sentences in terms of the PP and the SP constitute an additional obstacle. Hence, this section will investigate this matter in more detail.

According to the rules, the PP is unlikely to be used in questions beginning with `what time' or `when' as they relate the situation precisely to the sphere of past (Thomson & Martinet, 1986). Additionally, the SP is also commonly employed with such words as `how' and `where' for they imply the focus on the details of the situation rather than the case itself (Krylova & Gordon, 2003; Saakyan, 2013).

It is essential to discern that lingual reality tends to be more intricate. The following example requires some consideration. Both phrases `When have you ever … ?' and `When did you ever … ?' occur in speech and comprise as the marker of the PP (`ever') as that of the SP (`when'). Little research into British National Corpus (BNS) and Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) demonstrates that the two variants can be found. What is interesting is that the examples with the PP prevail in the American corpora roughly in proportion 2:1. Nevertheless, in BNS more examples with the version in the SP are observed. Thus, the conclusions are not in compliance with the main hypothesis.

In the book The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase Declerck (2006) notes that the decision between the PP and the SP is motivated by how the speaker focuses on the past situation - through the prism of `then' or `now'. Since the examples contradicting the rules of using the PP in wh-questions are present, this idea seems to be applicable to them as well.

In yes-no questions the choice between the two competing tenses is mostly contingent on the speaker's evaluation of the situation. If the person views the event as “a time period which includes the present moment”, it is likely that the PP will be used (Hewings, 2013, p. 6). The following examples can be shown in this regard:

“Did you see the letter in the “Times” this morning?” (it is no longer morning)”. (Krylova & Gordon, 2003, p. 30).

“Did you receive my fax? (the speaker is looking back to the point of time when he sent the fax as separated in his mind from the present; compare `Have you received my fax?', where the speaker is considering the event in terms of the present moment)” (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 610).

“Have you phoned your sister? (from the point when you said you were going to do it up to this moment in time; if the speaker had said `Did you phone your sister?', there is a greater expectation from the speaker that the phone call should have taken place or did take place)” (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 614).

The examples above contribute to the idea of the complex nature of the PP tense revealing its subjectivity. While in special questions the SP is commonly used, both the SP and the PP are popular in general questions.

The main factors determining the employment of the PP are as follows: relevance to the moment of speech and indefinite time frame.

The difficulties in choosing between the PP and the SP merely exist owing to the slight subjectivity of phase as one of the categories of the verb. As it might be seen, the grammar rules in this regard do not have a predominant impact on the speaker and their choice between the two tenses. What comes to the forefront is how the speaker perceives a certain situation. Such issues as how far the speaker separates the past occurrence from the current moment and whether the relevance of that event is present vary individually and therefore the PP usage may not stay inside the paradigm of the grammar rules.

1.3 The PP in BrE and AmE

The major difference in the use of the PP

Along with the perception of a situation by the speaker and the context, the variety of English the person speaks plays a significant role.

A substantial number of studies have investigated the differences in the use of the PP in AmE and BrE (Baker, 2017; Darragh, 2000; Davies, 2011). Many researchers suggest that Britons, unlike Americans, are inclined to use the PP more frequently than the SP for describing past situations (Algeo, 2006; Greenbaum, 1996; Yao & Collins, 2012).

Some scholars have made a few attempts in order to detect how adverbials of time may influence the choice between the PP in BrE and AmE. In the grammar manual by Murphy (2012) it is stated that the use of the SP is more widespread with such markers as `already', `just', and `yet' in AmE. His premise corresponds with Darragh's (2000) who relates the adverbials `yet', `already', `ever', `just', and `never' identically to both the SP and the PP in AmE. It is also advanced, however, that the time markers `recently' and `just' are employed by natives with no difference between the tenses and it is applicable to both varieties of English (Declerck, 2006).

The scholar Davydova (2011) asserts that such adverbials of time as `ever', `always', `never', etc. may be associated with past and present depending on the type of English utilized. The following extract is worth attention:

“American English (From Vanneck, 1958): I live in New York. But I never saw St. Patrick's Day parade.

Standard British English: I have never been to New York” (Davydova, 2011, p. 53).

Overall, it is still unclear which adverbials of time encourage American and British people to pick the PP and to what extent this influence is observed. As may be concluded, in BrE the division between the usage of the PP and the SP is clearer than in AmE. It is discernible, however, that in situations requiring the PP there can be a shift to the SP regardless of the typical markers of the PP.

The PP puzzle

In grammar of English a substantial interest has been given to the PP and its combinability with adverbials of time. Hence, the section will attempt to explore this matter in more detail.

As has been discussed in the Introduction, the function of the PP varies crosslinguistically. While it is treated as a regular tense to describe past events in some other European languages, the PP Resultative is used in English only to refer to the past situations that are considered important for the current moment by the speaker (Meyer, 1992). We have also outlined in the previous sections that the relevance and some novelty of the event may be emphasized with special time markers such as `recently', `just', `already', etc. As most grammar manuals state, the PP cannot be used with the adverbials of time denoting an exact point in the past, e.g., `yesterday', `last week', etc (Davydova, 2011; Kaushanskaya, 2008). On the contrary, temporal adverbials may serve as the core indicators of the choice between the PP and the past tenses (Biber et al., 1999; Quirk et al., 1985). The concept of the constraint on combinability of the PP with the definite markers of time received the name of the PP puzzle (Klein, 1992; Portner, 2003).

It is worth attention that although the shift from the PP to the SP in the situations where the PP would be preferable is common, the reverse tendency remains debatable among grammarians. Many of them consider such utterances grammatically incorrect (Davydova, 2011, Murphy, 2013). For example, Davydova (2011, p. 54) supports the idea that in Standard English it is incorrect to use the PP with the adverbials of time denoting definitiveness: “I bought it years ago (ungrammatical: I have bought it years ago)”. As Hundt & Smith (2009, p. 57) propose, the use of the PP with past tense adverbials is usually “ `locally' triggered”.

In his research Klein (1992) criticized the conventional approach to the PP and the restrictions on the use of this tense with the markers of the SP. His main argument is that some relevance of the event may remain present for the speaker despite the fact that the adverbial markers of the PP are used in an utterance. The author claims that if the speaker says “John has left his wife”, it is obvious that it happened in the past and thus the PP can be used regardless of the marker added to the sentence in case the relevance of the event is emphasized: “John has left his wife yesterday. John has left his wife last year” (Klein, 1992, p. 1). It is mentioned that such combinability is common “in quite related languages, like German, Dutch” and French (Klein, 1992, p. 3). Thus, Klein (1992) raised an important problem of inability to treat a sentence made in the PP as either correct or incorrect. Based on his assumptions, the choice of the tense between the PP and the SP should be motivated by whether the event is particularly relevant to the present moment rather than by the presence of certain time markers. The stance of the author on the PP also implies the impossibility to check students on the knowledge of this tense by means of traditional tests.

The problem of the PP puzzle was also covered in the recent article by Hundt & Smith (2009) in which the authors demonstrated some examples of the use of the PP with the conventional markers of the SP obtained through the corpora:

“Well it's worked yesterday (LCSAE)” (Hundt & Smith, 2009, p. 56).

“…I mean, I've, I've had a <pause> long chat with Ann, we've had a long, erm meeting with Anne <name> yesterday about it, and she's gonna start pushing <pause> (BNC, KBD 6028) …” (Hundt & Smith, 2009, p. 57).

As the authors suggest, in order to grasp the intention of the speakers towards the PP in the above examples, it is important to be aware of the full contexts. It may be that in these utterances the information referring to the past was regarded as pivotal by the speakers and thus was emphasized with the PP structure. The authors highlight that despite the fact that the PP inserted in the typical contexts requiring the SP would be considered ungrammatical by native speakers, the trend continues to spread in the English language and such utterances are found more often (Hundt & Smith, 2009).

The following sentence should also be mentioned: “And Robert has played for us last season (implying that he did so without any kind of break)” (Hundt & Smith, 2009, p. 46). Therefore, not only the subjective estimation of the relevance of the event does influence the shift to the PP, but also the absence of any break (it may be applicable to the utterances with the verbs implying processes). Nevertheless, it needs to be noted that since the examples mentioned above are detected mostly in spoken language (in both varieties of English), the hesitation phenomena have their impact; thus, selected grammar structures might have been poorly considered. Although it is unclear whether the PP was used in the above examples deliberately or not, occurrences from different corpora which violate the definite temporal adverbial constraint raise some concerns.

In his study Werner (2013) investigated the cases of the PP with definite temporal adverbials in International Corpus of English (ICE). His study verified the idea of the frequent use of such combinability in spoken English proposed in the previous research (Hundt & Smith, 2009). The author addressed the problem in different dialects of English and found out that such examples are present in the speech of not only well educated L2 speakers (for instance, Indian English and Hong Kong English) but also of L1 speakers (for instance, New Zealand English and Australian English).

It remains speculative whether or not the frequency of such cases in the language will increase in the future and start to be viewed as acceptable at some point of time. It is assumed that this trend might blur the boundaries between the SP and PP to a larger extent. We should add that in the English language the concept of the past tenses referring to the present time is common in other structures. The aim of the shift is usually to express politeness and indirectness (Carter & McCarthy, 2006; Swan, 2005). For example, “[on the phone to train timetable enquiries] Actually I wanted to check if there's a twenty-five-past train” (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 605).

Statistics on the use of the PP

Several attempts have been made by linguists in order to obtain data concerning the employment of the PP in the main varieties of English. In one of the books by Algeo (2006, p. 26) it is stated: “According to a corpus-based study (LGSWE 462), British uses the perfect aspect more than does American by a ratio of approximately 4:3”.

More attention should be paid to some corpus-based studies analyzing the PP usage from a diachronic perspective. Amongst the grammarians who first acknowledged a decreasing tendency in this tense was Elsness (1997). More recent research papers proved that the PP is losing its popularity in both standards of English, although the trend is more discernible in AmE (Darragh, 2000; Elsness, 2009). Hundt & Smith (2009) made use of the Brown corpus and found out that there had been only a slight decline in the twentieth century concerning the PP usage. Nevertheless, Yao & Collins (2012) stressed a substantial decrease in the PP employment during the twentieth сentury, which goes against the previous research. At the same time, the study conducted by Bowie et al. (2013) pinpointed no change in the use of the PP, though a decrease in the use of other perfect constructions was noticed.

Table 2. The usage of the SP and the PP in AmE and BrE from 1750 to 1999 (Yao, 2014, p. 313)

Yao (2014) carried out productive research with respect to the statistics on the use of the PP over the course of time (the data had been retrieved from the ARCHER in the drama section). The researcher deduced that in both BrE and AmE the PP usage is becoming less frequent. The speed of this decline, however, varies significantly. The findings of Yao's study (2014) reveal new details that are rather different from the findings of the previous studies. Some results of the paper are outlined in the table below:

As could be observed in the table, only a marginal 3% decrease in the PP usage in the course of time is found in BrE. Contrastingly, in AmE the percentage has diminished to less than half of the prior use of the PP, whereas the opposite is true for the SP. The scholar acknowledges that the PP used for describing situations from the past is being gradually replaced by its counterpart SP and refers to the PP Resultative as to “vulnerable to losing ground to SP” (Yao, 2014, p. 324). The statement that the SP occurs in English more frequently than the PP was also given by other grammarians (Greenbaum, 1996). Overall, some contradiction in the results of the above studies is present.

The idea of language varying across genres, or registers, was suggested by different researchers (Biber & Clark, 2002; Halliday et al., 1964). In his study Schaden (2012) analysed an Iterated Learning Model and proved that the PP is sensitive to genres. Some research has been conducted with regard to the PP in various registers. For example, the study by Hundt & Smith (2009) reveals that the employment of the PP has substantially reduced in American prose of a general character and British newspaper writing. At the same time, a growth in fiction writing was noticed. In the study of Bao et al. (2018) perfect constructions were investigated by means of COCA. The results of the research stress a significant decrease in the employment of the PP in academic, magazine and spoken subcorpora. At the same time, the findings show the reverse trend in fiction writing, which correlates with the previous research. However, no change is noticed in newspaper register. As a whole, little agreement was reached in the genre-based studies.

As it is suggested, a different function of the PP may become more popular over time. For example, referring to the states or actions that began in the past but continue in the present moment, the PP Inclusive may come to be more popular: The question has been discussed for two hours (Wynne, 2000). Nevertheless, it may result in a new overlap regarding the English grammar as the Present Perfect Continuous is traditionally employed in such sentences.

Causes of the difference in the use of the PP and the SP

In English grammar it tends to be complicated to advance any arguments with regard to the distinctions in the employment of the PP in BrE and AmE. Although many studies have examined the changes of this tense in BrE and AmE over time, the question of why it has been so has not been sufficiently covered by researchers so far. Some linguists, however, offer their explanations that are worth special attention.

The first possible reason for the decreasing tendency in the PP usage is reflected in the research paper by Yao (2014) in which the scholar puts forward the following idea. It may be considered superfluous to insert the PP tense in a daily conversation since the presence of the result of the past occurrence or its relevance is already understood for both interlocutors (Yao, 2014). This idea is in accordance with that suggested by Biber & Clark (2002). In their research the authors contend that informational explosion occurring in language causes it to convey a message in the most efficient and simple way. Since language is the reflection of the social paradigm to some extent, communication technology may produce changes in it (Hopper, 1988; Ochs et al., 1996). From the perspective of cultural dimensions, the ideas mentioned above can be supported since both the UK and the US are regarded as low-context countries for which it is important to speak explicitly, briefly, and concisely (Hall, 1989).

Furthermore, a similar idea might be implied in the principle of language economy (Vicentini, 2003; Zhou, 2012; Zykova, 2008). As the PP and the SP are synonymous in referring to the situations in the past, it is reasonable to pick the SP for the sake of time. Overall, a decline in the use of the PP due to some general simplification of English and the notion of language economy at the level of syntax might be possible reasons for this trend (Bowie et al., 2013).

In their study Yao & Collins (2012) suggest that the general process of colloquialization may serve as a cause of the decreasing popularity of the PP. This statement correlates with Yao's observations (2014) and the general idea of many grammarians who associate the switch to the SP with informal English (Kaushanskaya, 2008; Wynne, 2000). For example, in the book by Kaushanskaya (2008, p. 119) it is pointed out that in informal AmE and increasingly in informal BrE the SP instead of the PP is widely used in the principal clause combined with the adverbial clause starting with the word `since': “I lost six pounds since I started jogging”. Based on the author's opinion, the shift from the PP to the SP is also taking place in BrE. It is possible that this tendency will start to emerge in formal English after some time.

Another possible explanation is suggested by Yao (2014) who posits that the growth in the PP usage in AmE may be attributed to phonological reduction processes taking place in spoken language. The idea is that sounds in speech are affected by each other rather than serve as isolated units. For example, some sounds in speech can become reduced, which is called `ellipsis' in phonetics. Sokolova et al. (2010) explain this concept with the lack of mobility of some speech organs. Moreover, in fast speech sounds might be reduced in order to economize efforts. As the auxiliary to have is usually contracted to 've or 's in spoken English, this syllable often appears to be below the audible level. Furthermore, regular verbs in English have the same variant for both the SP (preterite) and the PP (past participle), which is comprised with the root form of the verb and -ed ending. Hence, in spoken English the auxiliary to have might have been lost to some extent. However, it is unclear whether the switch to the SP in the utterances with regular verbs is more significant than in those with irregular verbs.

In their paper Bao et al. (2018) consider the theory put forward by Schaden's (2009) as one of the possible explanations. Schaden (2009) noted that semantics of the PP is heavier than that of the SP since people utilize the PP based on pragmatic grounds, i.e., the presence or absence of the relevance of the bygone occurrence to the moment of speech. He also calls the PP a marked tense since it contains both auxiliary and participle. A similar parallel of a marked (strong) and unmarked (weak) member has been outlined by Blokh (1983) within a model of binary privative oppositions. As Blokh suggested, marked members are usually employed less frequently than strong ones since their semantics is more limited, which is in line with Schaden's conclusions (2009). Both a heavier semantics and complex morphology of the PP therefore might result in the decreasing trend in the use of the PP tense.

Some researchers explain the decreasing popularity of the PP use in BrE with the notion of `Americanisation'. In their paper Yao & Collins (2013, p. 130) describe it as “the tendency for AmE to `lead the way' in diachronic change”. The main idea is that BrE might be changing under the impact of AmE (Bowie et al., 2013; Leech et al., 2009; Yao & Collins, 2013). Overall, despite the fact that some explanations regarding the reduction in the PP employment in general were suggested, it remains rather uncertain why the trend is more notable in AmE.

American people have a tendency to pick the SP instead of the PP. For AmE it seems to be common to neglect the time markers implying the PP, such as `already', `just', `yet', and opt for the SP. Moreover, it is proposed that in BrE the frequency of the PP use is in decline as well. The modern tendency in research to study the use of the PP in different registers may bring more refined results. Among possible causes of the expansion of the SP linguists mention the reduction of the contracted form of the auxiliary to have ('ve or's), the processes of colloquialization, the simplification of language, and informational technologies.

2. Methods of research

This chapter is concerned with the methods of the research done within this thesis, namely their format, procedure, etc. This paper is the result of two years' investigation into the status of the PP in the English language. Last year a questionnaire among native speakers living in the UK and the USA was conducted with the aim to pinpoint new tendencies in the use of the PP (Trublovskaya, 2019). This year we have modified the structure of the questionnaire and undertaken a new one among native speakers of BrE and AmE. Hence, this chapter starts with the section describing the methods and the results gathered under last year's research. For more details concerning last year's questionnaire it is necessary to address the relevant paper (Trublovskaya, 2019). The structure of the modified study done this year is thoroughly discussed in this chapter as well.

2.1 The outline of last year's survey

Methodology and procedure

The method of the research was a questionnaire among native British and American speakers. The aim of it was to obtain more details in terms of the use of the PP and its counterpart SP in day-to-day speech. The questionnaire was conducted online via Google Forms. The respondents were selected randomly via the Tandem application.

The questionnaire comprised formal questions regarding the country of origin, age, and occupation. Other questions were of a multiple choice type with the options of the PP and the SP. We compiled five situations with the focus on various aspects. The questionnaire explored the correlation between certain variables. The first variable constituted a particular situation, whereas the second one represented the inclination of the participant towards either of the tenses. The variables comprised in the situations were as follows: the relevance of the past event to the present moment implied (situation 1 and situation 5), special markers of time such as `today', `just', `when', and `ever' (situation 2, situation 3, and situation 4), and interrogative sentences (situation 1, situation 2, and situation 4). The full format of the questionnaire is presented in the original paper in Table 4 (Trublovskaya, 2019).

Main conclusions

Overall, 50 people filled in the questionnaire: 25 from the UK and the US respectively. The majority of the respondents appeared to be young people of the age group of 21-30 years old (56%). Among the occupations of the participants such jobs as architect, solicitor, administrator, and others were found. It should be pointed out that 18% of the respondents constituted students. Hence, it was expected that the English of the participants is rather influenced by the new technologies, YouTube, etc. The full results of the questionnaire are demonstrated in the original paper in Table 6 (Trublovskaya, 2019).

The results of the questionnaire reinforced the hypothesis formulated by many researchers that the SP appears more frequently in AmE (Algeo, 2006; Darragh, 2000; Davydova, 2011). In the survey 77% of the British participants selected the PP, whereas the number of the Americans constituted 57%. It was revealed that British people do not always use the PP in compliance with the rules. Moreover, viewing the connection of the past action with the moment of speech tends to be lower in negative sentences.

As far as the time markers are concerned, the majority of Britons and Americans associate the word `today' with the PP. The word `just' appeared to be lessening its influence on Britons as the marker of the PP since 32% of them opted for the SP. Furthermore, the marker seems not to produce any effects on Americans as 84% of them employed the SP. It goes against the rules attributing `just' to the marker of the PP (Davydova, 2011; Kaushanskaya, 2008; Murphy, 2013). In controversial questions uniting the markers of both tenses (starting with `When have you ever') the choice was mostly given to the PP among both Britons and Americans. It is in line with other examples discussed in this paper in which the PP is used regardless of the word `when' (pp. 12-13). However, it goes against the grammar references that view the word `when' as the indicator of the SP (Thomson & Martinet, 1986).