[Grammar] Past Tense vs. Past Perfect Tense

[Aracan]

Good morning,
my daughter came home from school with the following question about the correct use of Past Tense vs. Past Perfect Tense. The sentence in question is:

In 1990, Tina __________ (lose) her job and so she _______________ (begin) looking for work in London.

We both agree that Tina "began" looking for work. But we are unsure whether she "lost" her job or "had lost" it. I should be grateful for any pointers and explanations.

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum, Aracan.

We don't provide answers to students' homework questions, but as far as I know, the German Präteritum and Plusquamperfekt equate to our simple past and past perfect tenses (which we don't capitalise).

If I'm wrong, feel free to discuss the question in our Other Languages forum.

 

[Aracan]

Thank you for your reply. My daughter has already done her homework. She filled in that Tina "lost" her job and "began" looking for work.

Like you, I was of the opinion that past tense and past perfect tense correspond to German Präteritum and Plusquamperfekt respectively. Consequently, I would also have put "lost", because Präteritum is the usual choice for a series of events in the past ("veni, vidi, vici").
German Plusquamperfekt, on the other hand, is normally used when anteriority needs to be clearly expressed. An example would be:

Because Tina had lost her job, she began looking for work.

However, her teacher is of the opinion that "had lost" is the only correct answer.
I was not hoping for someone else to do her homework (which, as mentioned, she has already done herself) but rather for a qualified opinion on the subject.
To put it differently: What is the reasoning for past perfect being a correct answer, but not past tense? Thanks in advance.

 

[slevlife]

Her teacher is fixating on the anteriority, as you already explained. Because of the “and so” in the sentence, there’s a clear sequence and cause and effect relationship between the two events. It’s very similar to your example starting with “Because Tina had lost her job” which you yourself said would justify “had lost.”

But although “had lost” might be more appropriate, it sounds natural to say “in 1990, Tina lost her job and so…”, at least if you are just laying out some facts about what happened.

Using “had lost” would be especially helpful if you are focused less on the facts and more on telling a story where you want people to understand the sequence and relationship between events.

 

[Aracan]

Thank you. So both would be acceptable to native speakers. Or, to put it differently: Caesar did say "veni, vidi, vici" and not "veniveram, vidi, vici" :-D

 

[slevlife]

Yes, but it's probably worth noting again that the past perfect "had lost" really is appropriate here and makes the sequence and relationship between the events clearer and more specific. My point is diluted by the "and so" in the sentence which is already doing this labor, but nevertheless, using past perfect adds a hint that the events of 1990 are going to be part of the background to additional events that happen later.

(Unfortunately, I can't comment on how closely these tenses match German usage.)

 

[Aracan]

Thank you for clarifying that. In German it would be a matter of deciding whether one was relating a series of events - "Tina did A, then she did B, then she did C", which would mean the Präteritum. Or if one event is meant to set the stage for the later events ("going to be part of the background", as you said), in which case one would use the German Plusquamperfekt as well.

 

[slevlife]

Yes, it works the same in English for relating a series of events, and using past perfect for such cases sounds unnatural/wrong. But of course you could say "Tina had already done A when she did B," which emphasizes the sequence and the completion of the first action before starting on the second. Or you could say "I was shocked to learn Tina had done A," and here past perfect is appropriate because you're talking about something that occurred before something else (that isn't part of a list of Tina's actions).

I think the point you're making is solid, that the teacher was wrong to reject simple past unless the sentence was understood to be setting a stage.

 

[Tarheel]

I have read everything up to this point, and my opinion hasn't changed. Either past tense or past perfect is possible depending on what the speaker wants to emphasize. (In spoken English the decision which to use is made instantly.) Obviously, I disagree with the teacher, and I wouldn't say either is wrong.

 

[5jj]

As I have said in more than one thread over the years, many native speakers use the past perfect far less often than some teachers, course books and student grammars suggest they should. This can be confusing for learners. However, there are two pieces of good news:

1. If you stick to to what you have been taught when doing school tests or examinations or public examinations, then you will not be penalised (though some native speakers who don't follow the rules might be!)

2. If you make a mistake in real-life conversations, few native speakers will even notice, so don't worry about it.

 

[Glizdka]

Hello, Aracan! Welcome to the forum.

I think it should be pointed out that trying to compare English grammar to German grammar (or any other language's grammar for that matter) is not the way to go when trying to understand the intricacies of English. While it is fascinating to compare how English works with other languages—and the very reason I got interested in linguistics in the first place by the way—it may make you fall into the false belief that you know how English works because you're putting an equal sign between a grammatical structure used in English and a grammatical structure you already know from German, which may or may not correspond to each other exactly.

I agree with 5jj. Textbooks and many English teachers recommend using the past perfect far more often than it is actually used on a daily basis by regular everyday native speakers. I think their point is that they want to teach you when using the past perfect is possible, but they accidentally make it seem like they're telling you that it's mandatory to use that structure in these contexts. From my own experience—for what little it's worth—the past perfect is used far less than textbooks make it seem it actually is. If the sequence of events is already obvious from the context, or words that clearly signal what the sequence is are used, the past perfect is not necessary and can be freely replaced with a non-perfect past tense.

"In 1990, Tina lost her job and so she began looking for work in London" looks like something I'd expect to hear from a native speaker. I might even argue it would be more common to hear that than "...Tina had lost...", but that's not the point of the exercise your daughter was given. The point is that she should understand when the past perfect can be used, and that in such exercises she should use it whenever it's possible, even if it's not strictly necessary. It's very difficult to make exercises where the past perfect must be used instead of the past simple, indisputably, so they usually just give those where it can be used.

While it's tempting to disagree with your English teacher, it's advisable to try and understand the reasons behind their choices and comply with their requests. They're usually on to something after all. ;-)