She [has spoken] [has been speaking] Italian since she was five.

[Marika33]

This man claims to be a retired professor of linguistics from Cambridge and he claims that verbs like, "live", "work", "teach", "study", "speak" and so on can be used in both the simple and the continuous forms with very little apparent difference in meaning.

Is he wrong, or is there really hardly any apparent difference in meaning between each one in each pair?

She's spoken Italian since she was five.
She's been speaking Italian since she was five.

He's taught English all his life.
He's been teaching English all his life.

I've studied German for three years now.
I've been studying German for three years now.

 

[Piscean]

This man claims to be a retired professor of linguistics from Cambridge and he claims that verbs like, "live", "work", "teach", "study", "speak" and so on can be used in both the simple and the continuous forms with very little apparent difference in meaning.

Does he make this claim for all forms of the verb or simply for the present perfect? Can you give us a link to the page or video where he says this?

(Later. sorry; I missed the second link in your post.)

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, he's right that there is a difference in meaning. Precisely, the difference is in the aspect, and what that brings to the verb phrase.

 

[Piscean]

Is he wrong, or is there really hardly any apparent difference in meaning between each one in each pair?

She's spoken Italian since she was five.
She's been speaking Italian since she was five.

He's taught English all his life.
He's been teaching English all his life.

I've studied German for three years now.
I've been studying German for three years now.

There is very little difference in meaning between those pairs, as he says.

However, he goes on to say that there is a difference sometimes. for example, in the sentences below (mine), the form I have underlined is more natural than the alternative:;

a. Bill: Hi, Ben. I haven't seen you for years. Where have you been?
Ben: I have been teaching English in Czechia for twenty years now.

b. I have travelled quite a bit in my career. I have taught French and German in England, and English in China, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Lebanon and Oman.

 

[jutfrank]

There's one very important point that he hints at but for some reason doesn't develop, which is the idea that verbs such as live, work, study, teach, speak can be used with a stative sense as well as an active sense. He does say that "there is a small group of words ... which can be used in both the simple and continuous forms with very little apparent difference in meaning" but he doesn't say in what way they constitute a group.

I live in Amsterdam.
He works for the government.

In my view, the verbs in these sentences are best understood as a stative verbs rather than active ones. They don't really relate to what a person does rather than relate to a person's status—as (semi-)permanent facts about someone rather than descriptions of their behaviour. You can express this stative meaning with the present perfect simple, like this:

I've lived in Amsterdam.
He's worked for the government.

Now, since stative verbs cannot be used with a continuous aspect, adding a progressive aspect to these sentences yields a different meaning:

I've been living in Amsterdam.
He's been working for the government.

These sentences now, since they focus on progressive activity, are not in fact stative but should rather be understood as active verbs.

That's quite an important difference, I think. Admittedly not much of a communicative difference, but a key conceptual difference nonetheless.

 

[Piscean]

An interesting idea, but I can't really see that I've lived here for five years expresses a stative meaning while I've been living here for five years focuses on progressive activity.

 

[jutfrank]

An interesting idea, but I can't really see that I've lived here for five years expresses a stative meaning while I've been living here for five years focuses on progressive activity.

To be honest, I'm not absolutely convinced of what I've said above. But I do think it makes good sense and explains a thing or two.

Can I ask you for your opinion? In I've lived here for five years, do you think this is most likely expressing an stative or active meaning?

 

[Piscean]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go for stative. However, I am not a great fan of the stative/dynamic distinction.

 

[Marika33]

I got quite lucky to have just found this video. This man uses the present perfect (simple) with duration (with an action verb) instead of the present perfect continuous. To me, it actually makes sense (to some extent) because when native speakers say how long one's journey of learning a language lasted they use the simple aspect, e.g., "My grandma learned French for over thirty years".

There's one very important point that he hints at but for some reason doesn't develop, which is the idea that verbs such as live, work, study, teach, speak can be used with a stative sense as well as an active sense.

I don't quite understand this, to be honest. I mean, native speakers mostly use the past simple when talking about duration in the past, but at the same time, although they do sometimes use the past continuous with duration, their choice of the aspect, simple or continuous, does not depend on the type of verb, active or stative. For example, "wait" is an action verb, but even English Grammar in Use says that in the past it could be either, "We waited for an hour" or "We were waiting for an hour", making simple the default option.


Unit 14, B.

So why necessarily use the continuous when it's perfect, but at the same time use the simple when it's in the past (even with action verbs)?

I would say that it's different with the perfect tenses because the action is still going on, but you, members of this forum, yourselves have said that no matter if it's the present perfect (simple) or the present perfect continuous, as long as we add a duration phrase (for [an amount of time]) or (since [a point in time]), whether the action is finished or still going on is clear only by the context, not by the choice of the aspect (simple or continuous). So for me, it's either use the continuous with action verbs (and duration) even in the past, or just don't say that with action verbs (and duration), we need the perfect continuous, not the perfect simple.

I'll try to explain what I mean in simplier words. Let's say I told my friend that it's more common to say "We've been waiting for an hour" than "We've waited for an hour" since "wait" is an action verb. She understood and then only used, "We were waiting for an hour" when talking about the past. I asked her, "Why did you use the past continuous?" and she said, "Because it's an action verb, and you, yourself, taught me this way".

 

[Piscean]

when native speakers say how long one's journey of learning a language lasted they use the simple aspect, e.g., "My grandma learned French for over thirty years".

They can, and sometimes do, use the simple past, but they can, and sometime do, use the progressive form.

So why necessarily use the continuous when it's perfect, but at the same time use the simple when it's in the past (even with action verbs)?

We don't necessarily use these forms.

s. Let's say I told my friend that it's more common to say "We've been waiting for an hour" than "We've waited for an hour" since "wait" is an action verb. She understood and then only used, "We were waiting for an hour" when talking about the past. I asked her, "Why did you use the past continuous?" and she said, "Because it's an action verb, and you, yourself, taught me this way".

I don't understand the point of that at all. Either you told your friend one thing and she did another, or you told her two contradictory things. Either way, it doesn't forward the discussion in this thread.

 

[Marika33]

I don't understand the point of that at all. Either you told your friend one thing and she did another, or you told her two contradictory things. Either way, it doesn't forward the discussion in this thread.

OK, I see. I'm failing to explain to you what I mean over and over again. I'll try it another way.

Which of these is correct if you started learning Enlgish six years ago and you're still learning it (or have just stopped)?
Does either of these sound unnatural/odd?

• I've been learining English for six years. (the continuous aspect)
  or
• I've learned for six years. (the simple aspect)

 

[Piscean]

• I've been learning English for six years. (the continuous aspect)
  or
• I've learned for six years. (the simple aspect)

I take it that you meant to include 'English' in the second.

Which of these is correct if you started learning English six years ago and you're still learning it (or have just stopped)?

In that context, the first is what I think most native speakers would use.

 

[Marika33]

I take it that you meant to include 'English' in the second.

Right, thank you.

Which of these is correct if you started learning Enlgish six years ago and you're still learning it (or have just stopped)?
Does either of these sound unnatural/odd?

• I've been learining English for six years. (the continuous aspect)
  or
• I've learned English for six years. (the simple aspect)

In that context, the first is what I think most native speakers would use.

So if the continuous aspect "I've been learining English for six years" is the only one natural here, why is the simple aspect "My grandma learned French for over thirty years" among possible ones in the past?

I can ask this question exactly the other way around, and it still leads to the same confusion.

If it is as possible to use the simple aspect "My grandma learned French for over thirty years" as the continuous one in the past, why is it that the continuous one "I've been learining English for six years" is the only one most native speakers would use?

I would say that this is because, "My grandma has been learining English for over thirty years" means that the action is still going on, but as I understand this is not necessarily the case, as the action might have as well recently ended.

 

[Piscean]

Right, thank you.



So if the continuous aspect "I've been learining English for six years" is the only one natural here,

I didn't say that

If it is as possible to use the simple aspect "My grandma learned French for over thirty years" as the continuous one in the past, why is it that the continuous one "I've been learning English for six years" is the only one most native speakers would use?

It places more emphasis on the ongoing duration of the learning.

 

[Marika33]

I didn't say that

So is it natural to say, "I've learned English for six years", if we don't want to place more emphasis on the ongoing duration of the learning?

why is it that the continuous one "I've been learining English for six years" is the only one most native speakers would use?

It places more emphasis on the ongoing duration of the learning.

Yes, but why not place more emphasis on the ongoing duration of the learning in the past? Out of 100 times I hear native speakers talk about duraiton in the past (with action verbs), 95 of them they use the simple tense.

• My grandma was learning French for over thirty years. (to place more emphasis on the ongoing duration of the learning)
  instead of
• My grandma learned French for over thirty years.

 

[Piscean]

Out of 100 times I hear native speakers talk about duraiton in the past (with action verbs), 95 of them they use the simple tense.

• My grandma was learning French for over thirty years. (to place more emphasis on the ongoing duration of the learning)
  instead of
• My grandma learned French for over thirty years.

... for over thirty years makes the duration clear.
... was learning ...places more emphasis on the ongoing duration of the learning.

 

[emsr2d2]

@Marika33 You currently have 7 consecutive open/active threads on page 1 of Ask A Teacher. Please don't flood the forum with your own topics. Other people deserve a chance.
Pick one thread and concentrate on it for a few days, rather than discussing 7 threads at the same time.