[Grammar] "He was ordered by the judge to..."

[Milana1]

Hello.

I'm taking a English test on Sunday and was doing a past paper. It had an exercise where you fill the blanks with a correct form of a given verb. One sentence was "Mr Newberry ___(order) by the judge to pay 4,000 pounds damages to Mr. Revill." I wrote "has been ordered" as it sounded logical to me because the order kind of continues into the present (especially if he didn't pay it off yet). The key said that the answer is "was ordered". Why is "has been ordered" incorrect?

In case the context is important here is the whole exercise:

One night a month ago Ted Newberry, 82, ____ (shoot) a burglar who (together with another man) ____ (try) to break into his allotment shed. Mr. Newberry had been sleeping in the shed to try to stop vandals ____ (destroy) his allotment. That night he heard a loud banging on the door and a voice _____ (say) “If the old man ____(be) in here, we ____ (do) him.” Mr. Newberry ____(fire) through a hole in the door. Mark Revill, 28, ____ (hit) in the arm by 50 shotgun pellets. As a result of the incident, Mr Revill ____ (lose) (partially) the use of one arm. Mr Newberry _____(order) by the judge to pay 4,000 pounds damages to Mr. Revill. The judge ruled that Mr. Newberry had acted out of all proportion to the threat.

Thank you in advance.

 

[teechar]

Hi Milana1, and welcome to the forum.
You're right that "has been" is also possible. This is especially true if it's, for example, being reported as a news item.

 

[jutfrank]

The past simple fits the narrative better but it's hard to describe the present perfect as incorrect. With this kind of exercise, the idea is to select the most suitable form, not the 'correct' one.

The use of past simple in the final sentence shows the narrative context of the preceding sentence. That is, both of the final two sentences have the same aspect (or lack of aspect)—they're both treated by the writer as past events in that they are describing what happened during the hearing. That's why the past simple fits better.

 

[teechar]

The use of past simple in the final sentence shows the narrative context of the preceding sentence.

Not necessarily. Quite often, when adding detail to a present perfect sentence, the past simple is used in subsequent sentences.

 

[jutfrank]

Not necessarily. Quite often, when adding detail to a present perfect sentence, the past simple is used in subsequent sentences.

I wasn't clear—I was talking about this specific context.

 

[teechar]

I was also talking about this specific context.

 

[jutfrank]

I was also talking about this specific context.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, then. Which form would you choose in this exercise, and why?

 

[teechar]

I think either is possible.
If this is being reported in a local newspaper, and the trial was a couple of days before, or for example if the sentence can still be appealed, the present perfect would apt.
Otherwise, if for instance, the case is not going to an appeals court, and/or the above passage is not fresh news, the past simple might work better.

 

[jutfrank]

I think either is possible.

Yes, but the question is which is more suitable for the narrative context as you read it?

If this is being reported in a local newspaper, and the trial was a couple of days before, or for example if the sentence can still be appealed, the present perfect would apt.
Otherwise, if for instance, the case is not going to an appeals court, and/or the above passage is not fresh news, the past simple might work better.

But it isn't being reported in a local newspaper. It's just been made up as an exercise. It has few features of authentic news reports.

Since it is an inauthentic text, and there are two different ways to read it, I don't think there's too much value in discussing the matter much further. My suspicion, though, is that the majority of native speakers would prefer the past simple there, for the reason I've given.

The different ways to read the sentence in question are hinged upon whether the reader connects it aspectually to the preceding sentence (present perfect) or the subsequent one (past simple). I don't disagree that both readings are valid, but I do think that, given the overall context, the latter makes more sense. The fact that the answer key supports this is evidence that whoever made the text up was thinking in the same way.

 

[teechar]

given the overall context

What context? You just said that it's "an inauthentic text". You can't have it both ways!
In any case, it's important to emphasize that either tense can work, which means that it's basically not a great exercise.

And you're right. Let's leave it at that.