didn't expect / haven't expected

[astepforward]

Yes, good example. The present is an ideal tense to use here.

Isn't the action of breaking the leg located in the past the same as the action of not expecting? I know what we actually convey is that the leg is in a bad condition at the current moment, but this is the result/relevance of breaking the leg. The action described with the present perfect doesn't extend to the present as well as not expecting action which lasts until person A turns up.

 

[Piscean]

Isn't the action of breaking the leg located in the past the same as the action of not expecting?

No.
Breaking a leg is a punctual action. (Not) expecting to see someone is a durative state.

 

[jutfrank]

Isn't the action of breaking the leg located in the past the same as the action of not expecting?

No.

At least, in I didn't expect you to visit, the verb expect isn't an action at all. Mental verbs are tricky. If you replace 'expect' with the verb 'think', for instance, you might be able to see that better:

I didn't think you would visit.

Hopefully, it's more obvious that think is not an action here.

 

[emsr2d2]

Imagine your doorbell rings and you have no idea who might be at the door. You open the door and outside is your best friend from school, whom you haven't seen for 40 years and who lives in Australia. You might say: Wow! I did not expect it to be you! (Stress on "not".)

"Expect" is a perfectly good choice there even though, in fact, you weren't expecting anyone at all. You were enjoying a quiet afternoon on the sofa catching up with some Netflix shows and, as far as you were aware, had no planned visitors. The whole thing was a surprise. The period of expectation referred to in your exclamation at the door is simply the time between the doorbell ringing and you opening the door.

 

[astepforward]

I think it might be these mental and physical stative verbs (e.g. know, think, expect, love, live, etc.) that cause the problem. What I have come up with is that these stative verbs are treated as durative. When using them with the perfect aspect, in such cases as provided in the examples above, there appears an ambiguity (for me personally) which is - if the state described by the verb lasted for a period of time in the past and that is somehow influential on the present or the state extends to the current moment of speaking.

I believe this is a good example to illustrate what I mean:

Adam: How do you know so much about Chicago?
a) Finn: You know, I've lived in Chicago for 10 years.
b) Finn: You know, I lived in Chicago for 10 years.

To say that Finn's knowledge about Chicago derives from his living experience in the city, but he lives now somewhere else I need to choose the past simple tense. When using the present perfect it actually means that he still lives in Chicago. In such cases, I cannot use the present perfect for explanatory purposes, which is one of the main usages for the perfect aspect.

Can you agree with my point of view on the matter or not?

 

[Piscean]

To say that Finn's knowledge about Chicago derives from his living experience in the city, but he lives now somewhere else I need to choose the past simple tense. When using the present perfect it actually means that he still lives in Chicago. In such cases, I cannot use the present perfect for explanatory purposes, which is one of the main usages for the perfect aspect.

I don't understand what you mean. in one way, both the past simple tense and the present perfect form 'explain' why they know so much about Chicago. I really don't know what the last sentence means. I would certainly not say that 'for explanatory purposes' was one of the main usages of the present perfect - or of any other tense or aspect.

 

[emsr2d2]

To say that Finn's knowledge about Chicago derives from his living experience in the city, but he lives now somewhere else I need to choose the past simple tense. When using the present perfect it actually means that he still lives in Chicago. In such cases, I cannot use the present perfect for explanatory purposes, which is one of the main usages for the perfect aspect.

Can you agree with my point of view on the matter or not?

Like Piscean, I don't know what "explanatory purposes" means here.

The present perfect ("I have lived ...") is appropriate in this context simply because he still lives there.
The past simple ("I lived ...") is appropriate in this context simply because he doesn't live there anymore.

 

[astepforward]

Like Piscean, I don't know what "explanatory purposes" means here.

Maybe I put it in the wrong words. By 'explanatory purposes' I mean the perfect aspect is used to show the relevance between the past action/state/event and the present moment. But in the example from post #25, the relevance is also shown by the past simple.
In post #17, the 'breaking leg' example shows that both tenses are possible with no difference in meaning.

Then I think sometimes the past simple and the present perfect can be used interchangeably and with some verbs, there is a difference in meaning as it is stated in post #27. Am I right?

 

[Piscean]

In post #17, the 'breaking leg' example shows that both tenses are possible with no difference in meaning.

There is a difference.

A: Why isn't Jake at the party?
B: He is not here because he broke his leg.

Here the focus is on the past-time breaking of the leg.

A: Why isn't Jake at the party?
B: He is not here because he has broken his leg.

Here the focus is on his present state of having a broken leg.

There is little difference between the two sentences in practical terms, but we simply cannot say there is no difference in meaning.

To show the similarity between example given above and that from post #1, let's rephrase B's utterance as "I am surprised because I haven't expected you."

I hope you understand what my doubts are about.

 

[jutfrank]

I think it might be these mental and physical stative verbs (e.g. know, think, expect, love, live, etc.) that cause the problem.

Partly, yes. Another complicating factor related to your original context is the fact that person B is uttering a surprised reaction. In such a situation, you wouldn't need to 'explain' anything, just react. You wouldn't typically use the present perfect in a reaction of this kind.

What I have come up with is that these stative verbs are treated as durative. When using them with the perfect aspect, in such cases as provided in the examples above, there appears an ambiguity (for me personally) which is - if the state described by the verb lasted for a period of time in the past and that is somehow influential on the present or the state extends to the current moment of speaking.

I don't follow what you mean. Which stative verbs exactly are treated as durative?

When using the present perfect it actually means that he still lives in Chicago.

That's not strictly true. It doesn't actually 'mean' that, though that would be a likely interpretation. In other words, his still living in Chicago would be a good reason to relate the past to the present and thus choose the present perfect. But Finn could have reason to use the present perfect even if he no longer lives there.

But in the example from post #25, the relevance is also shown by the past simple.

No. That's not what we mean by 'present relevance'.

In post #17, the 'breaking leg' example shows that both tenses are possible with no difference in meaning.

No, there is a difference in meaning, which is the difference in aspect.

Then I think sometimes the past simple and the present perfect can be used interchangeably

They're never fully interchangeable, because the present perfect always carries an aspect that the past simple doesn't carry.

and with some verbs, there is a difference in meaning as it is stated in post #27. Am I right?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I don't think so, no.

Can we please stick to just one specific context at a time, otherwise things are going to get too complicated to answer usefully.