For 2 years

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

Without 'for' does my sentence suggest that the person doesn't live and teach in Paris anymore?
1. 'She has lived and taught English in France for two years.'
2. 'She has lived and taught English in France.'

 

[Rachel Adams]

Probably, but context is important is establish real meaning.

If I use the simple past tense in #2 'She lived and taught English in France' what would be the difference between them? Can I say that in 'she has lived and taught English in France' I am focused on the recent past and in the 'she lived and taught English' on the distant past?

 

[GoesStation]

The past simple tells us she no longer lives in France. It wouldn't be appropriate without context if she had just left the country last week, but "distant past" means only "not extremely recently" in this case. Sentence two doesn't say for sure whether she's currently living in France. Without context, that's the implication.

 

[Rachel Adams]

The past simple tells us she no longer lives in France. It wouldn't be appropriate without context if she had just left the country last week, but "distant past" means only "not extremely recently" in this case. Sentence two doesn't say for sure whether she's currently living in France. Without context, that's the implication.

I understand that without context it is difficult to say anything but this sentence 'She has lived and taught English in France for two years' can also mean that the person doesn't live and teach in France anymore, I mean in the right context. Right? For example, if I am reading a teacher's application and say 'oh, she has taught English abroad for two years'. Do you think it is possible?

 

[Rachel Adams]

Yes, it's possible.

Also Macmillan says 'I have left my books at home' means the speaker thinks the event is recent while in 'I left my books at home' it is distant. In its next examples 'she has painted some of the best portraits of recent years' and 'she painted some of the best portraits of recent years' it says with the present perfect the action may continue but in the second with the simple past the artist may be dead. The action is finished. While reading this I remembered what was written in Swan. According to Swan native speakers choose to focus on either the present result or on the moment in the past. So in the example with the simple past the artist may be still alive. He or she may continue painting. Am I right?

 

[GoesStation]

So in the example with the simple past the artist may be still alive. He or she may [STRIKE]continue[/STRIKE] still be painting. Am I right?

In isolation, the reader will understand the simple past sentence to mean the artist can no longer paint, probably because she's dead. It requires a specific context to overcome this assumption.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Probably, but context is important is establish real meaning.

Do you mean 'she has lived and taught English in France' without 'for' could also mean that she still lives and teaches there? Even this idea is not impossible in the right context, is it?

 

[jutfrank]

Do you mean 'she has lived and taught English in France' without 'for' could also mean that she still lives and teaches there? Even this idea is not impossible in the right context, is it?

It would be extremely likely that this sentence would be about someone who does not live in France at the time of utterance.

You must understand, though, that the sentence itself doesn't 'mean' that. The kind of meaning that is relevant here comes from the whole context. So no, it's not right to say that it's 'impossible'.