[Grammar] I have graduated from college since then/2011.

[kadioguy]

a. The city has changed greatly since 2012. ［O］
b. I have changed my address since last year.［O］

[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]c. I have graduated from college since 2011. [/FONT]［×］
[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]d. I have graduated from college since then. [/FONT]［O］

(Quoted from an English grammar book)
---------------
Why is (c) wrong? Do you agree with it? Could you tell me the reason?

 

[jutfrank]

c. is not wrong. It means that the graduation happened some time between 2011 and now.

 

[Phaedrus]

c. is not wrong. It means that the graduation happened some time between 2011 and now.

I think (c) suggests that the speaker's graduating from college happened again and again between 2011 and now.

The issue seems to relate to the fact that "graduate from college" is an achievement in the technical aspectual sense.

Interestingly, the sentence loses that absurd suggestion (at least for me) when the "since"-phrase is relocated:

(c1) I have, since 2011, graduated from college.

There the "since"-phrase is parenthetical -- nonrestrictive, as it were. The following sentence also seems to work:

(c2) Since 2011, I have graduated from college (among other things).

 

[Raymott]

It also gives the correct meaning when the correct intonation and context is taken into account.

 

[jutfrank]

I think (c) suggests that the speaker's graduating from college happened again and again between 2011 and now.

That doesn't occur to me at all and I don't really understand where this repetition comes from, for you. It's a single achievement. If it were repeated, wouldn't we say I've been graduating from college since 2011?

 

[Phaedrus]

It's a single achievement. If it were repeated, wouldn't we say I've been graduating from college since 2011?

With the present perfect progressive, the repetition would be undeniable. I'm not saying that I think your reading of (c) is impossible -- only that there is another, competing reading, with the "since"-phrase in that position, that makes your reading hard to hear. How do you feel about the following sentence?

(e) He has reached the finish line since ten o'clock this morning.

 

[jutfrank]

How do you feel about the following sentence?

(e) He has reached the finish line since ten o'clock this morning.

It's not at all a likely thing to say. Much less so than I've graduated from college since 2011.

I still don't get how you get to the interpretation of a repeated action. Are you suggesting your sentence above could also be interpreted as repeated?

By the way, what do you mean here?:

The issue seems to relate to the fact that "graduate from college" is an achievement in the technical aspectual sense.

 

[Phaedrus]

By the way, what do you mean here?:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

The issue seems to relate to the fact that "graduate from college" is an achievement in the technical aspectual sense.

I mean that it's an "achievement" in the sense of being a verb phrase that represents a situation as dynamic (non-stative) and punctual (non-durative).

Both "graduate from college" and "reach the finish line" are achievements in that sense.

I think your reading requires that "since 2011" be interpreted as already given information, so that the sentence is interpreted like (d), with "since then."

Why would anyone say "I have graduated from college since 2011" if 2011 weren't already given in the context and the graduation occurred, say, in 2014?

 

[jutfrank]

I mean that it's an "achievement" in the sense of being a verb phrase that represents a situation as dynamic (non-stative) and punctual (non-durative).

Sure, but I was wondering how that causes you to arrive at the interpretation of repeatedness. I don't mean to unnecessarily push the point—I'm just curious because I can't get there.

I think your reading requires that "since 2011" be interpreted as already given information, so that the sentence is interpreted like (d), with "since then."

Yes, exactly.

 

[Phaedrus]

I'm just curious because I can't get there.

Yes, exactly.

Can you get there if you force yourself not to assume that "since 2011" is already given information?

Imagine the sentence as if it were just as it appears, a sentence standing all by itself outside of context.

 

[jutfrank]

Can you get there if you force yourself not to assume that "since 2011" is already given information?

Still no.

 

[Phaedrus]

How about this?

"It is 10:05 now. I have knocked on your door since ten o'clock."

Must the second sentence mean that I have knocked on your door only once in that 5-minute interval?

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes. To me, that would mean you've knocked once in that time. If it was more than once, I'd specify how many times. If you've been knocking for the full five minutes, it would be "It's 10.05. I've been knocking on your door since ten o'clock".

 

[jutfrank]

"It is 10:05 now. I have knocked on your door since ten o'clock."

Must the second sentence mean that I have knocked on your door only once in that 5-minute interval?

I don't think anybody would ever say that. We would either use the continuous aspect or specify the number of times, if more than once.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't think anybody would ever say that. We would either use the continuous aspect or specify the number of times, if more than once.

Shall we say, then, that the following sentence is ill-formed?

"I have knocked on your door for the last 5 minutes."

There it is impossible to get an "only once" reading, no matter how hard we try. Either the sentence is bad or we don't absolutely need the continuous for a repetitive meaning with the present perfect.

 

[jutfrank]

Shall we say, then, that the following sentence is ill-formed?

"I have knocked on your door for the last 5 minutes."

There it is impossible to get an "only once" reading, no matter how hard we try. Either the sentence is bad or we don't absolutely need the continuous for a repetitive meaning with the present perfect.

Well, this is not a sentence that one would read. If it were used, it would be spoken, not read, and the listener would almost certainly arrive at the interpretation of a repeated action from the context. But still, it's not a likely or effective way to express this particular meaning.

 

[Phaedrus]

But still, it's not a likely or effective way to express this particular meaning.

In a somewhat analogous way, I think that's why kadioguy's nonnative grammar book deems "I have graduated from college since 2011" incorrect. Outside of context (and certainly if "since 2011" is emphasized), the sentence seems to be equivalent in meaning to "I have graduated from college for the last 7 years."

 

[bubbha]

c. I have graduated from college since 2011. ［×］

This is correct if you mean you graduated between 2012 and now. And yes, it depends on the intonation and the preceding context.

This is wrong if you mean you graduated in 2011. This is because graduation is an instantaneous event: one moment you are not a gradate; the next you are.

 

[Phaedrus]

And yes, it depends on the intonation and the preceding context.

It depends gravely on intonation and preceding context.

Outside of context, and especially if "since 2011" is emphasized, the sentence "I have graduated from college since 2011" is utterly ludicrous.

Consider even a normal case. Would you tell someone "I have lived in London since 2011" if you had lived in London only from 2014 to 2016? No. It would be misleading.

On the other hand, in the very special context of being asked "Have you lived in London since 2011 (for any stretch of time)," you would say "yes."

Could I tell someone outside of context "I have lived in California since World War I"? Would the person not assume that I had been born about 100 years ago?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think (c) suggests that the speaker's graduating from college happened again and again between 2011 and now.

This is correct if you mean you graduated between 2012 and now.

Have I understood correctly that (c) means the speaker graduated repeatedly between 2011 and now?