She has been taking(1)/has taken(2) care of children since she was young.

[dewedfrost]

She has been taking(1)/has taken(2) care of children since she was young.

Hello! I'd like to ask you for some advice about the difference between the present perfect simple and continuous.
I've been trying to solve my doubts searching somewhere else on the net, but, if you like, you could give me your suggestion.

To me, 1) puts emphasis on the duration of the action, while 2) is more neutral.
Am I totally wrong? Thank you so much!

 

[jutfrank]

No, you're not. You're basically right.

 

[tedmc]

I implies the action is on-going, i.e. she is still taking care of children while 2 implies she could have stopped.

 

[dewedfrost]

What about the following?

She has worked (2)// has been working (3) here for 10 years.

(3) ---> emphasizes the duration = she started 10 years ago and she is still working there;
---> she may be bored or willing to search for another job
---> she may even be proud of her professional position as she has gained a great experience so far.

(2) ---> neutral information
---> stable action; she is not going to change her job.

Do you agree? Thanks a lot in advance!

 

[GoesStation]

What about the following?

She has worked (2)// has been working (3) here since 10 years.

They're both incorrect. You can fix them by adding one word to the end.

 

[dewedfrost]

Sorry! I've just edited my post. There was an error; I meant "...for 10 years".
What would you suggest now? Thanks a lot once again!

 

[GoesStation]

What would you suggest now?

You can't draw the conclusions you suggested from the isolated sentences. Sorry.

 

[dewedfrost]

Yes, there's no context. It's a single sentence and I've tried to imagine what the two tenses could imply according to different possible contexts. I'd like to learn if my reasoning sounds correct, that is, I'd like to know if 2 and 3 could mean what I wrote above.
Have I been clear enough? I hope so...