Pedagogic Grammar essay

Title: How long, for and since - an exploration of the present perfect tenses with
reference to challenges associated with German native speakers.

  

Most learners of English have some kind of concept for past, present and future. The
present perfect tenses, however, seem to be somewhere in between the past and
the present and may cause difficulties for a great variety of learners, especially due
to their rather complex perception and use. This paper examines the perfect tenses
and the particular aspect of how long, for and since with reference to challenges
associated with German native speakers learning English.
Firstly I will discuss the term grammar and provide a brief theoretical framework for
pedagogical grammar, including the three dimensions of language and some criteria
of rules. Secondly, some grammar rules from two well-known grammarians will be
presented and analysed for their accuracy and simplicity. The following section aims
to explain the difficulties in form, meaning and use which German speakers may
encounter when learning this particular grammar point. Finally, I will look at some
grammar exercises and evaluate their usefulness for Germans, followed by the
conclusion.



 

 

There seem to be a variety of different concepts of what grammar is, including
various terms, such as functional grammar, universal grammar or theoretical
grammar (Odlin, 1994). Within the context of foreign language learning and teaching
there is descriptive grammar which describes, in a systematic way, the rules that
govern how words are combined and sequenced in order to form sentences and
pedagogical grammar, which explores grammar more from a teaching/learning point
of view (Thornbury, 2006:92). Thornbury (op.cit) adds the term mental grammar and
describes it as an internalized knowledge about language and part of the learners
competence. In addition, Larsen-Freeman coined the term grammaring which refers
to grammar as a skill or a dynamic process (2003:24). For the purpose of this
paper grammar will be referred to mostly from a pedagogical point of view dealing
with a particular grammar point from a teachers / foreign language students
perspective.
Westney (in Odlin, 1994) states that formulating rules is the most important task of
pedagogic grammar. He defines rules informally as observed regularities with
predictive value (1994:74). The author distinguishes between rules of formation,
low-level rules, and rules of use, higher-level rules. He further points out that these
rules need to be evaluated according to certain criteria. Different authors create
different criteria, such as Swan (1994:45) who formulates six different criteria for




 




pedagogical rules: truth, demarcation, clarity, simplicity, conceptual parsimony and

relevance, admitting certain overlaps between those categories. Westney (op.cit)
summarises several criteria from Swan (1980 cited in Westney, 1994) and Hammerly
(1982 cited in Westney, 1994) into the two points accuracy and simplicity accounting
for most of the criteria named by the other two authors. These two criteria will be
discussed later when evaluating some relevant rules within the specific context of
present perfect tenses.
Language is a complex thing. In order to structure language and make teaching and
learning easier, Larsen-Freeman (2003:35) outlines three dimensions of language,
which are form, meaning and use. She further establishes subcategories of each unit
and points out that they all need to be taken into account when teaching a specific
grammar point.
Larsen-Freeman (2003) does not organise language according to a hierarchical
system as she sees a strong interrelationship between the three dimensions with no
part being more important than another. The following chart illustrates this nicely:

from Larsen-Freeman (2003:35)

To exemplify this with the present perfect continuous the difference between the
three dimensions could be differentiated (simplified) as follows:
Form: auxiliary have/has/ s/ + been + verb+ing
Meaning: something that started in the past and is still continuing or just stopped
(Murphy, 1994). The notion of a certain period of time or repeated action is important
here. In my opinion, this dimension deals more with the actual concept of the tense
while the following one gives guidance for appropriate use in form of functions.
Use: several functions are suggested by Aitken (2002:29-30) such as





an explanation for the present situation or appearance

make an excuse for failure in doing something expected by expressing a
period of time now finishing
to express new, temporary habits
to describe new and developing symptoms with regard to health.




 




However, the Larsen-Freeman (2003) states that some teachers may see overlaps
between the dimensions of meaning and use or have difficulty in making a clear
distinction. Other authors, such as Ur (1996) focus on the general difference
between form and meaning and seem to include use in the latter. For the chosen
grammar point I regard it as more practical to deal with meaning and use together,
rather than separately in order to establish a better overview of the challenges
German speakers may find.







 
 
 

 
 
 

Relevant rules taken from Murphy (1994:24) English Grammar in Use Intermediate
1.
2.
3.
4.

How long...? + present perfect (as opposed to When...? + past simple)

We use both for and since to say how long something has been happening.
We use for when we say a period of time.
We use since when we say the start of a period.

Relevant rules taken from Swan & Walter (2003:162) How English works
A) Sentences with since usually have a perfect tense, but past tenses are
possible in the time expression after since.
B) Sentences with for have a perfect tense when the meaning is time up to
now.
C) With since a present tense is sometimes used in the main clause to talk
about changes.
Criteria for pedagogical rules as describes above:
The above rules are taken from well-known pedagogic grammars and are designed
for a great variety of students and levels. Most language learners and teachers will
probably find them useful. Their general validity is not questioned here. They are
merely being explored with reference to two criteria categories.
Truth
The above rules (1-4 & A-C) can be categorized as general rules or rules of thumb
since they concern the need for rules to be a) accurate, b) usable and c) capable of
gradual integration (Westney, 1994:76-77). Due to their simple language they are
easily usable by learners and teachers.
It can be assumed that learners who are presented with those rules are already
familiar with the general concept (including form, meaning and use) of the present
perfect. The above rules for how long, since and for could be rather seen as an
extension which may not be presented immediately when first teaching the present
perfect. However, with regard to the present perfect continuous, rules 1, 2, 3 and B
might be covered straight away in order to explain the concept of the tense.





 




Although the rules can be considered true for lower levels they seem not entirely
accurate. For example, rule 1 would not explain the question How long did you live
in Spain? (if talking about a finished life experience in the past). Yet if this rule is
combined with the second part of rule B it could be regarded as accurate, for
example:
How long + a present perfect tense if it refers to time up to now. (How long have
you been living in Spain?  the speaker still lives in Spain)
This rule would permit the extension to
How long + past tense if talking about a finished period of time (How long did you
live in Spain?  the speaker lived there in the past but does not anymore). The
teacher would have to decide at which point to introduce this extension.
Rule 2 may also need to be slightly amended to make it more accurate, for example
For and since + present perfect tenses to say how long something has been
happening if it refers to time up to now
Rules 3 and 4 seem accurate as they refer to their specific lexical meaning rather
than to the correct use of tenses.
I consider rules A, B and C as accurate. Rule A uses the word usually which leaves
room for the possibility of using other tenses. Rule C is a useful extension which
makes learners aware of a different tense use and avoids over-simplification of
previously given rules. Rules A-C can be integrated gradually or together yet the
teacher may decide to focus on one aspect at a time. Yet rule C could be slightly
confusing particularly for German learners due to first language (L1) interference as
will be explained in the next section.
Simplicity
In my opinion, Murphys rules (1-4) fulfil the criteria of simplicity because they are
expressed in a simple and accessible way which is easy to understand for learners.
This is important because the truth is of no value if it cannot be understood (Swan,
1994:49). However, as they do not entirely fulfil the criteria of accuracy they could be
seen as over-simplified as they do not make learners aware of other possible tenses
that could be used with since and for. For lower levels these rules may be
acceptable, yet they seem not gradable for later extension, e.g. for and since for
finished time periods.
Swan & Walters rules (A-C) are slightly more complex compared to Murphys ones
but they are still simple, understandable and are already graded providing
awareness of extensions of use. However, they contain some terminology, e.g. time
expression or main clause which may not be suitable for low-level learners.





 




Truth and simplicity in grammar rules are both important but not always achievable.
The author Penny Ur explores difficulties when teaching grammar and points out that
there is often a conflict between simple and accurate as simplified rules are not
necessarily true (1996:81). She advocates finding an appropriate balance (Ur,
op.cit.) which I feel may be different in every teaching situation and has to be
evaluated according to the students needs.

 

 









The main difficulty for German speakers is the different use of the present perfect as
such. This tense has a very different concept in German compared to English.
Especially when the question how long is used as well as the respective answer
with since and for, the German native speaker might be tempted to use the present
simple which would be perfectly fine in German but obviously not in English.
Furthermore, the lack of continuous tenses in German (continuous actions are
expressed with signal word or phrases such as right now or at the/that moment)
could cause many German learners to avoid this tense entirely due to the
unfamiliarity with the concept of the tense.
The particular aspect of using since and for might not be regarded entirely as
grammar but may be treated as lexis by some teachers. In combination with the
perfect tenses they will be treated as grammar in this paper. I will now discuss the
perfect tenses and since and for separately for the dimensions form and
meaning/use.
Form
Present Perfect:
Form:
+
?

- auxiliary have + past participle

have/ve / has/s + past participle
have not/ havent / has not / hasnt + past participle
Have/Has/Havent/Hasnt (+subject) + past participle?

In order to form the present perfect in German the equivalent of the auxiliary have is
used which should therefore be easy to transfer into English. However, certain verbs
which refer to movement or a change of state form the present perfect with the
auxiliary be in German (Schenke & Seago, 2004) which might then be mistranslated
into English, e.g. *He is driven the car. (Swan & Smith, 2001:41). As German has
different types of participles, strong, weak and mixed verbs (Schenke & Seago,
2004), the German learner of English will, in my opinion, not be surprised by the long
list of irregular past participles, yet students might struggle with memorising the
irregular verbs and may still create erroneous forms by guessing the form or overgeneralising rules (Parrot, 2000:192). Furthermore, phonetic issues, such as wrong
pronunciation of regular ed endings may arise.





 




Two words that are often mixed up due to their similarity is the German word hat
(=has) and had especially considering that certain voiced final sounds such as /d/
are rare in German and would be pronounced like their unvoiced equivalent /t/ (Swan
& Smith, 2001). The misuse of had instead of has can lead to confusions and
misunderstandings.
Another significant difference regarding form, which may interfere with forming
accurate sentences in English, is word order. According to the German syntax the
auxiliary have (or be) takes the second position in a sentence which sometimes
requires inversion of subject and verb (Schenke & Seago, 2004). For example,
*Yesterday have I danced. In addition, in German, the past participle goes to the end
of the sentence or close (Schenke, op.cit.) which is especially problematic in more
complex sentences, e.g. *I have this week three times with James Salsa danced.
(Ive danced Salsa with James three times this week.) Therefore, the German
learner will need to get used to the rather fixed syntax in the present perfect in
English. Once the student has interiorised that auxiliary and past participle normally
go together, they should be able to form sentences according to the English word
order.
Present Perfect Continuous:
Form:
+
?

- auxiliary have + been + verb+ing

have/ve / has/s + been + verb+ing
have not/ havent / has not / hasnt + been + verb+ing
Have/Has/Havent/Hasnt (+subject) + been + verb+ing?

The form of the present perfect is rather easy to grasp for German speakers. On the
other hand the present perfect continuous might cause more problems as there are
no continuous tenses in the German language. It can be assumed rather difficult to
understand a tense that does not exist in the learners native language. The form of
the present perfect continuous is relatively complex and with no existing reference
framework it may appear quite a challenge for students to master this tense. The
basic rule of formation (as above) might remind learners of a complicated
mathematical sum and could therefore appear more complicated than it actually is,
resulting in loss of motivation and interest which are essential factors for learning a
foreign language (Ellis, 1997; Harmer, 2001, Thornbury, 2006). Confusion may arise
with this particular tense because of the little similarity to the present perfect as the
past participle been is fixed and the main verb is used in the continuous form.
Aitken states that the passive form could be produced by learners instead, e.g. *I
have been walked (2002:31). Furthermore, the contracted s for has can be
mistaken for is resulting in erroneous forms such as *He is been writing a letter
(Aitken, op.cit.). The author identifies another common error regarding phonetics: the
contracted auxiliary might be overheard e.g. *I been reading.* In addition, the fact
that two auxiliary verbs are needed for this form may also confuse learners as this is
not required for any German tense.




 




How long, since and for

These are individual lexical items and should not cause any major issues with form.
With regard to pronunciation some phonetic overlaps occur between German and
English that might interfere. This issue is partly related to form (pronunciation) but
also to meaning. The word for is phonetically identical to the German word vor
which as a time marker means ago. Notice the difference:
vor drei Wochen = three weeks ago
seit drei Wochen = for three weeks
The German learner should therefore be careful and be made aware of the
difference in order not to use for in the sense of ago.
Since might be pronounced as /zins/ instead of /sins/ as the s at the beginning of a
word is much softer in German compared to English.

Meaning/Use
Present Perfect
The German form which resembles the present perfect is not used in exactly the
same way: it often functions just as a conversational past tense (Swan & Smith,
1994:42). This means that the present perfect is mainly used to express most past
events in spoken German while the past simple is used more for the written form
(Schenke & Seago, 2004). It is therefore not surprising that many German speakers
struggle with the correct use of this tense which I found when I was teaching
Germans myself.
Moreover, unlike English, German does not make a clear distinction in use between
the past simple and present perfect. The concept of a certain relation to the present
or recent action with the present perfect is not given when using the equivalent tense
in German as it would be perfectly fine to say in German I have worked a lot today
and *I have worked a lot yesterday/last week*. Also, the fact that the form of the
present perfect exists in German but is used in a different way in English with fixed
rules, might not be easy to grasp for students and lead to incorrect use. Besides, the
tense is used widely in Britain but less so in American English which may mislead
learners and could even result in avoidance of the tense and over-use of the past
simple (Aitken, 2002: 32).
Present Perfect Continuous
As mentioned above there is no continuous form in the German language. The
concept of an unfinished period of time that started in the past is mostly expressed




 




with present simple in German which often leads to confusion. This will be discussed
in the following section.
How long, since and for
Although there is a literal translation of the question phrase how long (wie lange),
the concept is more similar to the German equivalent since when (seit wann) which
might be overused in English. Since when is often not appropriate or does not
sound natural in English the same way it does in German. With regard to since and
for the German native speaker may find great difficulties in distinguishing both in
English as there is only one German word which combines both meanings (seit).
For a German learner it is therefore crucial to fully understand Murphys rules 3 and
4 above. Nevertheless, the latter might interfere with the general concept of the
present perfect tenses as a starting point in the past is normally used with the past
simple. Swan & Walters rule A is particularly useful to overcome this possible
confusion. Yet rule C can confuse learners or could lead to the assumption that
since can be used with the present simple the same way as in German. The
German learner of English may need to rely heavily on rules for the use of tenses in
order to reach accuracy. The German tense system is much more flexible with no
strict rules.
As mentioned above, referring to an unfinished period of time that started in the past
is normally expressed with the present simple in German, e.g.*I live in Brighton for
ten years. However, using the present perfect in German for the same sentence (*I
have lived in Brighton for ten years) would imply that the period of time is finished,
meaning that the speaker lived in Brighton for ten years but does not anymore. The
significant change in meaning between both tenses in German renders the correct
use of the present perfect tenses in English even more complicated. The listener, on
the other hand, exposed to the first erroneous sentence above, might think they
simply overheard the final ed and could assume the speaker does not live there
anymore. Yet, depending on the situation the possible misunderstandings can be
overcome if the context is clear enough.




 





After having looked at the above rules from Swan & Walter and Murphy and the
potential challenges German speakers face when learning this particular grammar
point, the following section will look at some examples of grammar exercises and
explore them with regard to their usefulness.
The meaning and use of the perfect tenses should in my opinion be especially
focussed on when teaching these structures to Germans because of the substantial
differences as discussed above. It is no good knowing how to...construct a new
tense...if you dont know exactly what difference it makes to meaning when it is
used (Ur, 1996:76).




 




The first two examples are taken from Murphy (1994:25) see Appendix one. In
exercise 12.1 students are asked to form two questions one with when? and one
with how long? from a given sentence. The aim seems to be to draw the learners
attention to the two different tenses used with the particular structures, namely past
simple with the first and present perfect with the latter. However, as both questions
are formed from the same given sentence the difference in meaning might not be
clear enough for students who encounter this structure for the first time as the focus
is more on keywords plus a specific tense rather than the difference in use which the
learners might ignore. Furthermore, as discussed above, the German language
would require using present perfect with when and present simple with how long.
Once the student is perfectly clear about relevant rules for those structures and the
differences in meaning and use, especially compared to the German language, this
form-focussed exercise may be helpful. Yet considering the given rules on page 24
of Murphys grammar this might not be the case.
Murphys task 12.3 is a gap-fill activity to practise for and since. This again is a
controlled exercise which aims to help learners practise the difference in meaning
and use of both lexical items with regard to the present perfect. As the German
language does not make this distinction, I feel this task is useful for Germans to raise
their awareness about the existence of two different words and their respective
meanings as explained on Murphys previous page.
Both exercises are rather controlled but I generally see them as a useful practice tool
for getting used to the form as well as differentiating differences in meaning. Formfocussed exercises are valuable when studying a new structure because the learner
still depends on a measure of conscious monitoring in order to produce them
correctly (Ur, 1996:83).
The main purpose of grammars is self-study without a teacher. The types of
exercises are normally limited to form-focussed activities with a given key. Controlled
practice is seen as important for interiorising grammatical points as students get the
chance to notice the structure in the activities and pay attention to syntax (Hedge,
2000). On the other hand, Ur (1996) suggests providing students with practice tasks
that lead them gradually from accuracy to fluency. However, Ellis (1993) argues that
during fluency activities with focus on communication students may not pay attention
to the correct use of previously practised structures. In my opinion, a self-study
grammar such as Murphys is not necessarily a good example to explore grammar
tasks as it provides mostly form-focussed exercises which do not fit into this
grammar discussion. Therefore it will now briefly be examined how a relatively recent
coursebook deals with the grammar point since and for (see Appendix two) and
how useful this approach would be for German speakers.
The language focus in this coursebook Move Pre-Intermediate (Maggs, 2006) is
presented inductively which means that learners themselves generalize the rule
from examples before practising (Thornbury, 2006:61). It is beyond the scope of this




 




paper to discuss if this is an adequate approach as there are many different theories
relating to second language acquisition some of which promote this inductive
grammar teaching, while others advocate the opposite, namely deductive approach.
Although the exercises in this book are presented within a unit specific context/topic,
the tasks consist of controlled gap-fills or sentence/questions formation tasks. Only
the last one involves communication but still does not require free discourse and
therefore does not promote fluency of the form as suggested by Ur (1996). Task 5
promotes noticing as the correct form is given and the learner is asked to fill in the
appropriate time references rather than the correct form. This is useful for German
speakers (and probably any other nationalities) as a whole context is given which
can then be easily transferred to the students own life, which seems to be the aim of
tasks 6-8. Furthermore by providing students with grammar in texts learners are
taken from a sentence level... to a broader perspective... [where students] begin to
see patterns in texts (Larsen-Freeman, 2003:67).
The tasks in Move are just one example and do not permit generalisations about
how coursebooks deal with grammar practice. As mentioned above there are
different approaches to grammar teaching based on various theories. It is very often
the meanings of the structures which create difficulties for foreign learners (Ur,
1996:76). Therefore I agree with Ur to find the right balance between form-focussed
and meaning-focussed grammar practice activities designed and adapted specifically
for the particular learners needs. Furthermore, the teachers language awareness as
well as awareness of differences between L1 and L2 can be regarded as crucial
when it comes to grammar teaching (Andrews, 2007) especially for the grammar
point discussed in this paper. The debate about the best possible way of teaching
grammar has been going on for decades with many different theories promoting
various ways of teaching. Yet when it comes to teaching there are so many things to
take into account and there will never be enough time to do all that could be/ should
be done (Larsen-Freeman, 2003:78).

 

This paper examined pedagogical grammar issues from various perspectives by
means of a particular grammar point with reference to German native speakers. First
a brief theoretical framework for grammar was established. Then specific rules for
the use of how long, for and since with perfect tenses were presented and
evaluated for the criteria truth and simplicity, finding that it may be difficult to achieve
both. The following section examined the chosen grammar point from the three
dimensions form, meaning and use with particular focus on potential problems for
Germans. Great differences between English and German were found especially
with regard to meaning and use. The present perfect is used widely, almost
exclusively, in spoken German while past tenses mainly appear in written German.
Furthermore the German language requires the present simple with the use of how
long, for and since while making no distinction between the last two.




 




In addition, the lack of continuous forms in German renders the perfect continuous
tense particularly difficult. The last section contained a brief discussion about
grammar teaching contrasting examples taken from a pedagogical grammar and a
coursebook.
Despite the close family relationship between English and German... [and the] many
similarities between the two languages (Swan & Smith, 2001:37), the chosen
grammar point discussed in this paper is an example of an extensive linguistic
diversification which requires extra attention from both, students and teachers.





 




 


Aitken, R. (2002) Teaching Tenses Brighton: ELB Publishing

Andrews, S. (2007) Teacher Language Awareness Cambridge: CUP
Ellis, R. (1993) Talking shop: second language acquisition research ELT Journal
47/1, pp. 3-11
Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition Oxford: OUP
Harmer, J. (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.) Harlow:
Longman.
Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom Oxford: OUP
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Teaching Language - From Grammar to Grammaring
Boston: Heinle
Maggs, P. (2006) Move Pre-Intermediate Oxford: Macmillan Education
Murphy, R. (1994) English Grammar in Use Intermediate Cambridge: CUP
Odlin, T. (ed.) 1994 Perspectives in Pedagogical Grammar Cambridge: CUP
Parrot, M. (2000) Grammar for English Language Teachers Cambridge: CUP
Schenke, H. A& K. Seago (2004) Basic German A Grammar and Workbook
London: Routledge
Swan, M. (1994) Design criteria for pedagogic grammar rules in Bygate M.,
Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. (eds.) Grammar and the Language Teacher Longman:
45-55
Swan, M. & Walter (2003) How English Works, Oxford: OUP
Swan, M. & Smith, B. (2001) Learner English (2nd. ed.) Cambridge: CUP
Thornbury, S. (2006) An A-Z of ELT Oxford: Macmillan Education
Ur, P. (1996) A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory, Cambridge:
CUP
Westney, P. (1994) Rules and Pedagogical Grammar in Odlin, T. (ed.) 1994:72-96





 








 







from Murphy, R. (1994:25) English Grammar in Use Intermediate Cambridge, CUP





 








Maggs, P. (2006:68) Move Pre-Intermediate Oxford, Macmillan Education