This study is oriented on the comparison of the usage of Present Perfect Tense and Past Simple Tense. It is a commonly acknowledged fact that these types of tenses belong to the most spread tenses of the English language. Quite a big deal of researches was carried out on this topic, so the results of these researches will be summarized and used as additional information about the subject stated.
Due to this fact, the Aims and Objectives of the research are in finding contrast in the usage of Past Simple Tense and Present Perfect Tense. Also, both types of tenses will be compared accordingly to the terms of usage.
Methodology
The study was carried out in the form of analyzing two newspaper articles. (“The Sun” and “The Guardian” Appendices 1 and 2 accordingly). The terms and reasons for the usage of above stated tense forms were explained. The analyzing process was followed by the Results and Conclusion sections where the findings and processes which lead to the findings are discovered and identified.
Theory
Simple Past Tense
The following statements summarize the main terms of usage of Past Simple tense:
- Permanent habits/states in the past. There should be a gap between them and the present moment (Allsop, 1992).
- Completed events in the past. There is a gap between the time referred to and the present moment (Leech, 1975).
- Single events in the past. The duration of events is not important. There is a gap between the time referred to and the present moment (Elbaum, 1986).
Present Perfect Tense
The following statements summarize the main terms of usage of Present Perfect tense:
- States/habits leading up to the present time, there is no gap between them and the present moment (Quirk, 1973).
- A completed event in the past in a period leading up to the present time (Shepherd, 1993). There is no gap between the time referred to and the present moment.
- Completed events in the past with results in the present time. The speaker focuses on the result rather than on the action (Chalker, 1990). There is no time gap between the time referred to and the present moment.
Analysis
Findings
The articles analyzed comprise 12 examples of Present Perfect tense applications and 30 examples of Past Simple tense applications. The total number of sample sentences is 39. The correlation of tense applications is:
- Past Simple tense – 77%.
- Present Perfect tense – 23%.
Conclusion
The study conducted shows that Past Simple tense occupies the leading position of the tenses used in the mentioned articles. It should be stated that the current research corresponds only to journalism and that further researches should be conducted to identify the percentage correlation in other styles.
The research conducted found out the main difficulties in the usage of Past Simple tense and Present Perfect tense: in some cases, especially with adverbials which leave the decision open whether there is or there is no gap between the time referred to and the present moment, both types of tenses might be possible with a very little (if any) difference in the meaning (Gramley and Pätzold, 2003). It could be stated that in such cases the choice depends upon the speaker. If the speaker regards the situation as such where there is no gap between the time referred and the present moment of speech, then he/she uses Present Perfect tense. (See examples in Appendix No. 1). However, if the speaker decides that there is already a gap between the time referred to and the present moment, he/she might use Past Simple (See examples in Appendix No. 2).
Works Cited
Allsop, James. Student’s English Grammar. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1992.
Chalker, Steven. Current English Grammar. London: Macmillan, 1990.
Elbaum, Steven. Grammar in Context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1986.
Gramley, Stephan, and Kurt-Michael Pätzold. A Survey of Modern English. London: Routledge, 2003.
Kroto, Harry. “The Wrecking of British Science”. The Guardian. 2007. Web.
Leech, Joan. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman, 1975.
Quirk, Roger. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman, 1972.
Quirk, Roger. A University Grammar of English. London: Longman, 1973.
Shepherd, John. Ways to Grammar. London: Macmillan, 1993.
Iggulden, Caroline. “Stars Salute Our National Heroes.” The Sun. 2007. Web.
Appendix 1
The wrecking of British science
If the world’s future lies in scientists’ hands, the answers are unlikely to come from the UK unless we reverse decades of political neglect, argues Nobel laureate Harry Kroto.
There is food for thought in the fact that, after a decade of Labour government and at the same moment that the prime minister was making a speech about how important he considered science, the University of Reading announced the closure of its physics department.
Thirty percent of physics departments have either been closed or merged in the past five years. What is one to make of the deafening silence of ministers when, last year, the small Sussex chemistry department – a fantastic department to work in, where I stayed for some 37 years and which has housed some 12 fellows of the Royal Society, three Nobel laureates and a Wolf prize winner since it was created in 1962 – was under threat of closure? It was only through the concerted efforts of staff and students that a U-turn occurred.
Does no one in the government care, or is there a hidden agenda? Some government measures, such as those aimed at improving technology transfer and the encouragement of start-ups, have been successful. However, nothing effective has been done by this government, or for that matter the previous one, to improve the situation on the science education front. Indeed, several new measures have exacerbated the problem. The laissez-faire attitude to science education has resulted in a disaster exemplified by the fact that more young people are opting for media studies than physics.
As a new five-story chemistry building nears completion here at Florida State University (where I was wanted!), the jaws of American colleagues drop with incredulity at the news of each successive UK science department closure.
All of this matters because the need for a general population with a satisfactory understanding of science and technology has never been greater. We live in a world economically, socially, and culturally dependent on science not only functioning well but being wisely applied.
Dwindling numbers
Unfortunately, the number of young people opting for scientific training has dwindled frighteningly all over the developed world, not just in the UK. It is worth noting that, over decades, the US has been spectacularly successful in making up its homegrown science and technology shortfall by draining first western European scientists, and now eastern European and Asian scientists.
As well as trained engineers and scientists, we desperately need a scientifically literate general population, capable of thinking rationally – and that includes lawyers, business people, farmers, politicians, journalists, and athletes. This is vital if we are to secure a sustainable world for our grandchildren.
The facts that a) we use in one year an amount of fossil fuel that took a million years to accumulate, b) we may be on the verge of a climate change catastrophe of global proportions, and c) powerful technologies may soon fall into the hands of disturbed individuals with minds riven with those twin cancers of nationalism and religious fanaticism, seem to concern the scientific community a lot more than they do politicians or the media. As my Sussex colleague, the Nobel laureate Sir John Cornforth has written: “If you are a scientist, you realize before long that if the world is in anyone’s hands, it is in yours.”
The failure of our general science education policy is manifest in the fact that so few are aware of the true level of our dependence on science and technology, or the truly humanitarian contributions that science and technology have made to society: from raising the health of the population (half of all 18th-century children died by the age of eight) to the advanced technologies that pervade our everyday lives (the internet and mobile phones being archetypal examples).
The personal reasons for choosing a science education are also overwhelming. A Royal Society of Chemistry/Institute of Physics study found that graduates with chemistry and physics degrees earn, for the most productive 15-20 years of their working lives, some ÂŁ15,000 more annually than most other graduates. They earn thousands more than those studying psychology, that seductively popular subject diverting a large proportion of our best young people into a dead-end, uncreative career. It is a triple whammy, as the government gets greater investment return in tax from this better-paid workforce, and there are science and technology industries for graduates to enter. The chemical industry posts a ÂŁ50bn annual turnover with a ÂŁ5bn profit. Which is more than can be said for law.
At a time when China and India are producing the hordes of scientists and engineers upon which they know their futures depend, all we hear from our government is that it is not its job to interfere with a secondary or tertiary education system that is graduating 10 times as many psychologists, linguists, historians and media people than there are jobs for. Too bad if young people are not going to be qualified for the careers available and commensurate with their abilities, forcing many to settle for poorly paid, uncreative jobs.
Many think of the sciences as merely a fund of knowledge. Journalists never ask scientists anything other than what the applications are of scientific breakthroughs. Interestingly, I doubt they ever ask a musician, writer, or actor the same question. I wonder why.
Inquiring mindset
The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew “belief”, the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment, and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit.
Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence. Without it, we have no instinctive ability to assess the importance of the technical issues that impinge on our everyday lives. We are unable to gauge accurately the validity of fears over such issues as climate change and the looming energy crisis or grasp the socio-economic and humanitarian importance of new genetic technologies.
Scientific education is by far the best training for all walks of life because it teaches us how to assess situations critically and react accordingly. It gives us an understanding based on reverence for life-enhancing technologies as well as for life itself. If we do not know how things work, how can we fix things? And how are we going to use these powerful technologies wisely?
The situation in universities is exacerbated by present policy, which actively encourages vice-chancellors who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing to eliminate science departments in favor of trendy, cheap courses. These VCs bleat about how important their freedom is to do whatever they wish with taxpayers’ money, and steer funds earmarked for the sciences into softer areas that students prefer.
Just as cheap fast food has resulted in unprecedented levels of obesity, so this McDonald’s approach to cheap, trendy, seductively soft courses designed for mass consumption in tertiary education has resulted in a plethora of students trained for non-existent jobs.
Another major factor, encouraging VCs to close science departments – even if, as at Exeter University, they have plenty of students – is the inadequate provision made by the government to cover the real cost of science education. The unit of resource ratio for an arts graduate versus a science graduate is 1:2 when a more realistic ratio is at least 1:4. It is no wonder that VCs who fail in their primary role – to bring in outside funds – are encouraged by such manifest governmental disdain for science education to eliminate science departments.
Divisive dogma
Do I think there is any hope for the UK? I am not sure. It is beyond belief that in the 21st century, our prime minister and the Department for Education and Skills are diverting taxpayers’ money to faith-based groups intent on propagating culturally divisive dogma that is antagonistic to the secular, enlightened philosophy that created the modern world.
It is a scandal that the present system is enabling a car salesman to divert significant government funds to propagate dogma such as “intelligent design” in our schools. State funds are also being used to support some schools that abuse impressionable young people by brainwashing them into believing that non-believers will burn for all eternity in the fires of hell. This policy is a perfect recipe for the creation of the next generation of homegrown and state-educated suicide bombers.
I think there is every likelihood that the lack of scientifically educated and aware young people in the UK will result in ever poorer performance on a global scale, and a takeover by the next generation of young Chinese and Indians, ravenous for the scientific knowledge that will free them from the shackles of present poverty levels. They are being actively encouraged by their governments, who understand that the future lies in a scientific education based on doubt and questioning, rather than on belief.
It is truly disturbing that a well-funded cohort of religious groups – aided, abetted, and condoned by the Labour government – is undermining our science education. If they achieve any more success in their subversion of the intrinsic secular safeguards embodied in our democratic institutions and our educational system, there can be no doubt there is major trouble ahead. So my final message is: “Do Panic!”
· Sir Harry Kroto is Francis Eppes’s professor in the department of chemistry and biochemistry at Florida State University. This is an abridged version of a chapter in Can the Prizes Still Glitter? The Future of British Universities in a Changing World, published by Agora, a higher education think tank, and the University of Buckingham Press, ÂŁ15.99.
Appendix 2
Stars salute our national heroes.
THE Queen was last night named the Greatest Living Briton at a star-studded live TV show backed by The Sun.
The Greatest Britons 2007 ceremony was the finale to weeks of voting by Sun readers.
Prince Edward accepted the award on her behalf by video link. He said: “I am just sorry that my mother can’t be here to receive this in person. She feels very honored to receive this.”
And Helen Mirren, who played Her Majesty in the movie The Queen, said: “She deserves to win. She has dedicated her life to Britain.”
Sun readers had whittled down a list of 50 brilliant Brits to a shortlist of five.
Then ITV viewers picked the Queen ahead of rival finalists Robbie Williams, Sir Paul McCartney, Dame Julie Andrews, and Baroness Thatcher.
Dame Helen, 61, was also a winner — in the awards film category.
She said: “How great to be up there with fish and chips, bangers and mash, and a good old cup of tea.”
David Beckham, 32, was named Britain’s greatest ambassador.
The Real Madrid and former England star jetted into London from Spain to collect the honor from Arsenal’s Thierry Henry.
He said: “This is an honor and a privilege.”
A celebrity panel decided on eight other categories.
Comedian Ricky Gervais, 45, was Greatest Briton in the TV category.
Newlywed Brit singing sensation Amy Winehouse, 23, beat legend, Sir Elton John, in the music category. Judge Kelly Osbourne collected the award on Amy’s behalf.
Gordon Brown made his first big award ceremony appearance since becoming PM-in-waiting. He presented the best British business award to smoothie drinks firm Innocent.
British adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes, 63, beat off competition from Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton and boxer Joe Calzaghe — who arrived with stunning partner Jo-Emma Lavine — to become No 1 Brit in the sports category.
Sir Ranulph collected his award from 1966 England World Cup legend, Sir Geoff Hurst.
Graffiti artist Banksy was named top Brit in the art category. Duncan Goose was the best campaigner.
Celebs at the show, hosted by Kate Thornton, included Sir Bob Geldof, Geri Halliwell, Natasha Bedingfield, and Sophie Ellis-Bextor.
Sir Bob had been rooting for Macca and called him a “copper-bottomed genius.”
Other judges were former Olympic gold medallist Lord Coe, Marks and Spencer chairman Stuart Rose, BBC Dragons’ Den pundit Duncan Bannatyne, T4 presenter June Sarpong, Radio One film critic James King, DJ Trevor Nelson, Four Weddings And A Funeral writer Richard Curtis, designer Kelly Hoppen, hurdler Colin Jackson, ITV newsreader Andrea Catherwood, designer Zandra Rhodes, and eco-campaigner Zac Goldsmith.