1

In one of my very reputable grammar sources (Concept Questions and Timelines by Graham Workman, a big name in EFL/ESL teaching circles), I came across a list of verbs that can be used with the present perfect (unfinished) and present perfect continuous with no difference in meaning.

I am not talking about the present perfect for completed actions with a result, just to clarify. I am talking about the use that started in the past and is still true now, which is used with "for" and "since" as duration markers.

In the book (screenshot attached), the author says "work", "live", "study" and "learn" can be used with no difference in meaning between the two tenses when the action is unfinished. Normally, present perfect sentences with unfinished meanings have stative verbs, but there are some exceptions: enter image description here

Now, my question is, are there any other verbs that fall into this category? I don't recall seeing a list (other than "work and live") in any of my other grammar sources. A quick Google search shows that everybody seems to universally agree on "work", "live", and "study", but apparently not everyone agrees that "learn" belongs to this list (which I'm still trying to process and think about). Some other people also include "play" and "wear".

Is there a reputable source with another list that I can cross-reference my book with? What are your opinions on "learn" being included on this list? I would like sources if you can provide them.

meepyer
  • 698
  • 4
  • 10
  • I’ve been going/I’ve gone to the same doctor/gym/bookstore for 10 years. – Xanne Nov 11 '22 at 05:25
  • I’ve played the piano since I was five/I have been playing the piano since . . .? – Xanne Nov 11 '22 at 05:27
  • I’ve beaten my brother at gin rummy for years/I have been beating my brother at gin rummy for years. – Xanne Nov 11 '22 at 05:42
  • Is something about my examples different from those in your question? – Xanne Nov 11 '22 at 05:48
  • Those all sound fine to me. I don’t think so. – meepyer Nov 11 '22 at 05:56
  • 1
    I think it’s not the verbs, but the indicators of continuing action. I can say “I have been writing poetry since I graduated from college,” and “I have written poetry since . . .”, but not “I have written a book since . . .”. But I can say “I have written one book since . . .” – Xanne Nov 11 '22 at 06:12
  • Interesting; does Present Perfect Simple not leave more room for interpretation even in this very example? Say, in 2 it is clear I am still living in London whereas in 1 this part of my life may now be well in the past. – Lodinn Nov 11 '22 at 06:21
  • There’s a good answer to a similar question here. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/225404/present-perfect-vs-present-perfect-continuous – Xanne Nov 11 '22 at 06:30
  • Many other verbs work—have taken vitamins, have made cookies every Christmas, have scored under par, have painted on canvas. So I think your ESL book is too simple. – Xanne Nov 11 '22 at 06:34
  • It definitely depends on the rest of the sentence. "I've lived in London for 10 years, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s" is fine but "I've been living in London for 10 years, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s" is wrong. – Stuart F Nov 11 '22 at 09:33
  • 1
    I think it would be more appropriate to use past simple ( I lived in London for ten years, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s) because the period is finished. – meepyer Nov 11 '22 at 15:32
  • Not sure what you're asking but... I have been learning French for two years is correct. **I have learned French for two years* is not. – Tinfoil Hat Nov 11 '22 at 22:19
  • Also, none of those are stative verbs. – Tinfoil Hat Nov 11 '22 at 22:30
  • I am aware, but like I said above there are exceptions. So then you think the grammar book above is wrong? Because according to the book there should be no difference between your two sentences. – meepyer Nov 12 '22 at 03:06
  • If my two sentences reflect what the book believes to be acceptable, then, yes, the book would be wrong. And I still don't understand what you mean by exceptions. Almost all dynamic verbs can be used interchangeably like that. Learn is an exception. – Tinfoil Hat Nov 12 '22 at 04:34
  • OK thanks. I need to think more about this. – meepyer Nov 12 '22 at 06:10
  • @TinfoilHat Do you have any good sources that explain why "learn" is an exception? I have my own thoughts, but I want to see what an expert in this subject would say. And I'm hoping that it could also shed some insight as to why - though grammatical and technically interchangeable - some dynamic verbs like "work" or "play" sound natural in simple present perfect, while others like "eat" or "run" do not without further clarification. – Hayli Feb 22 '24 at 02:54

0 Answers0