0

I've a question about whether to use the present perfect or past simple in the following sentence:

  1. Samantha has lived/lived in Berlin for more than two years.

The above sentence has been obtained from the following webpage (see sentence 8): https://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/verbs29practicetest.htm

The answers from englishpage.com indicate that one should use the past simple tense. Though, I do not necessarily agree, as I think that has lived is a better answer (or both tenses, thus not only the past simple).

As Cambridge Dictionary notes: (1) "We use the past simple to refer to definite time in the past (when we specify the time or how long)..." and (2) "We use the present perfect to talk about time up to now, that is, events that took place in the past but which connect with the present."

So, which tense would you use and why?

Much appreciated!

Jan

Jan
  • 65
  • 1
  • 8
  • 1
    "Has lived" implies that she's still living there (or just recently left). – Hot Licks May 07 '20 at 01:26
  • 2
    And I'm pretty sure this is a dupe -- the question comes up about once a week. – Hot Licks May 07 '20 at 01:28
  • @HotLicks I agree. "Has lived" does imply that she's still living there. Though, the sentence does not indicate otherwise (nor corroborate that she's not living there). Therefore, isn't safe to use the present perfect? – Jan May 07 '20 at 01:33
  • @HotLicks I've seen these type of questions on the forum too. Frankly, I'd think this one is more case specific. – Jan May 07 '20 at 01:36
  • How can it be more "case specific" when you've provided no context or intended meaning? – Hot Licks May 07 '20 at 01:41
  • @HotLicks You're right. I meant to say it's a more interpretation type of question (i.e. can you explicitly infer from the sentence whether she still lives there, and therefore use the present perfect). – Jan May 07 '20 at 01:45
  • "Has lived" implies that the person still lives there or is in the process of moving. But this is English, so there are no strict rules. – Hot Licks May 07 '20 at 01:48
  • 2
  • 2
    There cannot be a "better answer" if we aren't told if she's still living there or not. Context is essential here. If that information isn't given, then either it's impossible to answer, or it simply comes down to a matter of personal opinion as to which makes the sentence as a whole flow better in terms of cadence and pronunciation. That's fine for style, but not for grammar. – Jason Bassford May 07 '20 at 02:54
  • @Jan, the sentence you're asking about does in fact have context; it's provided if one visits the link you included in your question. It would have been helpful for you to have explained that, on the site found at the link, the sentence was, in fact, followed by another sentence that provided the context necessary to answer your question. Knowing that, I would not say that this question is "case specific". – Isabel Archer May 07 '20 at 04:59
  • You can still change your question to clarify that context is available at the link you cited. – Isabel Archer May 07 '20 at 10:43
  • @IsabelArcher I've found a similar sentence in my textbook (only different name and place), referred by my English Professor. They used the present perfect. Therefore, you're right, it's not "case specific", but more of an interpretation type of question. The "context", i.e. by adding the second sentence, therefore, does not change the "context" of the first sentence in this case. Hence, I (and my Professor) agree with JasonBassford's answer: "There cannot be a "better answer" if we aren't told if she's living there or not". – Jan May 07 '20 at 16:36

1 Answers1

2

Both are correct, they just have different meanings: - "she has lived in Berlin for 2 years" means she is still living there, and it's been 2 years since she started living there. - "she lived in Paris for 2 years" means it was in the past, but not in the present any longer. Like "When she was a student she lived in Paris for 2 years, now she lives in Berlin".