[Grammar] Present perfect v. present perfect continuous

[hhtt21]

the present perfect v. the present perfect continuous

Is this use and its explanation the same for both the present perfect and the present perfect continuous tenses?

Actions which started in the past and are still continuing

https://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/330/grammar/upperf.htm

Thus are these sentences interchangeable, keeping each other's meaning?

1. He has lived in Canada for five years
2. He has been living in Canada for five years.

 

[jutfrank]

Both of those sentences could mean the same thing, where the action continues up to the present moment, but not necessarily. Meaning comes from context.

In 2, we know that the action (living in Canada) continues up to at least the very recent past.

Twenty years after the incident, police are still searching for Dr. Wallace. They believe he has been living in Canada for the past five years, and that now he may have fled across the border to the US.

In 1, we could encounter a context with the action having taken place in the distant past.

Wallace has had a rich and full life, having lived and worked all around the world. As well as spending long periods living in Brazil and Ethiopia, he has also lived in Canada for five years.

 

[hhtt21]

Very few words/phrases/sentences are 'interchangeable' in English. If we use word/phrase/sentence A instead of B, then we change the meaning in some way.

Even for the same context? I don't see any difference for a and b if they are correct sentences.

a. I have lived in Melborne and I am still here.
b. I have been living in Melborne and I am still here.

 

[tzfujimino]

Melbourne?

 

[hhtt21]

Both of those sentences could mean the same thing, where the action continues up to the present moment, but not necessarily. Meaning comes from context.

In 2, we know that the action (living in Canada) continues up to at least the very recent past.

Twenty years after the incident, police are still searching for Dr. Wallace. They believe he has been living in Canada for the past five years, and that now he may have fled across the border to the US.

If the police have been searching for twenty years, why is the present continuous prefered over the present perfect continuous here? How do you understand the tense should be the present continuous?

 

[Raymott]

Are you denying that "the police are still searching for Dr Wallace" in this scenario? If you don't deny it, why would you object to saying it (or seeing it written)?
The use of 'still' also requires the simple continuous.

 

[hhtt21]

Are you denying that "the police are still searching for Dr Wallace" in this scenario? If you don't deny it, why would you object to saying it (or seeing it written)?
The use of 'still' also requires the simple continuous.

No, I don't deny anything because this is too much above my level; nor do I object to saying it. But the scenerio makes me think the tense should have been "the present perfect continuous" because of my knowing tenses wrongly. So I am inquiring why the tense is the present continuous but not the present perfect continuous. Is it O.K now, and now I would like to ask my question again.
The event is police's looking for a criminal 20 years past to the present or to a very recent past. This means the action occurs through a time interval. Does this not mean the tense is "the present perfect continuous"?

We use the Present Perfect Continuous tense to talk about action that started in the past and stopped recently. There is usually a result now

We use the Present Perfect Continuous tense to talk about action that started in the past and is continuing now. This is often used with for or since.

https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verb-tenses_present-perfect-continuous.htm

 

[hhtt21]

Very difficult, confusing but also very interesting, too. Now I considered the situation again. This is how I interpret it. Would you please control?

Twenty years after the incident, police are still searching for Dr. Wallace. They believe he has been living in Canada for the past five years, and that now he may have fled across the border to the US

By using the present continuous, the narrator focuses on the present time and suggests that the action is of continuous. The sentence in which the present continuous used ignores the past. Is this a true interpretation?

 

[probus]

"... had been living in Canada is logical and correct..."

"Has been living in Canada" is wrong if he has fled, whether to the USA or elsewhere.

 

[jutfrank]

"Has been living in Canada" is wrong if he has fled

I disagree too (obviously, since I created the scenario).

See Piscean's post #13 for why. The Goldilocks example is a great one.

 

[hhtt21]

Re: Present perfect continuous v. past continuuos

I don't agree. The present perfect continuous is sometimes possible if the time period referred to, or the present consequence of the action/state referred to is still relevant.

Mummy Bear: Who's been sleeping in my bed?

Bill: Hi Ben. I haven't seen you for a long time. Where have you been?
Ben. I've been working in China. I got back only last week.

For the above, what is the difference between:

1. Who has been sleeping in my bed?

2. Who was sleeping in my bed?

 

[hhtt21]

Re: Present perfect continuous v. past continuuos

1. The consequences of someone sleeping in the bed, for example, the disturbed state of the linen, are clear at the moment of speaking.
2. The reference is to someone sleeping in the speaker's bed at some past time. The sleeping has no relevance to the moment of speaking.

Can we say in 2, the effect of the action disappeared, but 1 focuses on the effect of an action which is finished at the time of the speaking?

 

[TheParser]

Re: the present perfect v. the present perfect continuous

1. He has lived in Canada for five years
2. He has been living in Canada for five years.

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, HHTT:

Have you had a chance to read the opinion of Michael Swan in his much respected Practical English Usage?

He believes that we often prefer the present perfect progressive for more temporary actions; we often prefer the present perfect for permanent situations.

His examples are:

1. "I've been living in Sue's flat for the last month."
2. "My parents have lived in Bristol all their lives."

(Personally, I prefer to tell people that I have lived in Los Angeles, California, since the 1940s.)

Source: I used the 1995 edition of his book, item 420.6 on page 426.

 

[hhtt21]

Re: the present perfect v. the present perfect continuous

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, HHTT:

Have you had a chance to read the opinion of Michael Swan in his much respected Practical English Usage?

He believes that we often prefer the present perfect progressive for more temporary actions; we often prefer the present perfect for permanent situations.

His examples are:

1. "I've been living in Sue's flat for the last month."
2. "My parents have lived in Bristol all their lives."

(Personally, I prefer to tell people that I have lived in Los Angeles, California, since the 1940s.)

Source: I used the 1995 edition of his book, item 420.6 on page 426.

I believe these uses are idiomatic based on becoming familiar with. The natives learn them automatically and know them by heart without the reasons. But it seems that this is very difficult or a non-native speaker.