Time and Tense - English, what a wonderful language!

The common idea of tense is often used to cover all forms of the verb in relation to both form and function and springs from different basic premises. Firstly most language learners think of verb formation and usage with the obvious relationship between tense and time. In fact in many languages, such as Spanish or French, time and tense are synonymous. Secondly, like many concepts in English grammar – such as avoiding split infinitives for example – the idea of tense develops from the historical approach of trying to harmonise English grammar with Latin grammar. This motivated grammarians to look for corresponding forms between “tenses” and many language learners do the same in an attempt to understand how English works.

In most cases, we would normally represent time by means of a timeline concept marking the past, the present and the future. While time is a universal concept, not all languages express time in the same manner. Linguists now make a distinction between tense and aspect. Tense is defined as the “absolute location of an event or action in time” and is generally marked by inflection in the form, in other words it can be considered as a grammatical form, while aspect “refers to how an event or action is to be viewed with respect to time.” [i]

While we might be accustomed to think of expressing time according to the past, the present and the future, it can be said that English only has two tenses – present tense and past (or non-present) tense since these are the only forms that show inflection:

John walks to work – Mary is ill (Present tense)

John walked to work – Mary was ill (Past tense)

As a general rule the third person singular of the present tense is inflected –s (I sing but she sings) and the past tense is usually formed by the stem + -ed (talk – talk +ed = talked.)  English does not have a future tense in the sense of having an inflected form, equivalent to the French parlerai or Spanish hablaré but expresses the future in a variety of ways, such as by using constructions like will + infinitive or be going to + infinitive.

In the case of aspect, it is generally held that an action can be viewed as progressive (sometimes known as continuous), perfective or perfect progressive. Since this refers to the manner in which the verb is viewed or regarded, the question is how to teach this to an English language student since the differences are often slight, ambiguous or context dependant.

The formation of aspects is as follows:

The progressive aspect is formed by using the construction to be + verb + -ing :                                     He is + sleep + -ing = he is sleeping

The perfective aspect is formed by using the construction to have + past participle :

                                    He has + eaten = he has eaten

The perfect progressive aspect is formed by the construction to have been + verb + -ing :

                                    He has been + sleep + -ing = he has been sleeping

Both tense and aspect can be combined in various ways to form the following paradigm:

	Simple	Progressive	Perfective	Perfect Progressive
Present	walk	am walking is walking are walking	have walked has walked	have been walking has been walking
Past	walked	was walking were walking	had walked	had been walking

From the above we can see the variation in verb forms and contrast their various uses. In general terms, the progressive aspect refers to something which is still in progress during a temporary period, such as a planned action. The perfective aspect links two events at different times, one of which is generally in the past, but the other may still be ongoing. 

Thus:

John sleeps soundly (Present simple – states a general fact, John is not sleeping at this moment in time)

John is sleeping soundly (Present progressive – the action is ongoing, John is sleeping at this moment in time)

They have lived in Spain for five years (Present perfective – action started in the past and they are still living there at the present)

Peter had been walking the dog when he slipped (Past perfect progressive – he was in the process of walking the dog when another event took place, his phone rang)

Some textbooks will make the distinction between the two concepts, tense and aspect, while others will use the general term “tense” to cover all forms of the verb. This former option is chosen by Quirk et al in A Grammar of Contemporary English which differentiates between time, tense and aspect and deals with the simple present and the simple past together as tenses, before moving on to aspect, while Parrott’s Grammar for English Language Teachers follows the latter option.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Parrott, Martin (2000) Grammar for English Language Teachers Cambridge University Press

Quirk et al (1989) A Grammar of Contemporary English Longman, Essex 18^th edition

The Internet Grammar of English

---

[i] Both the definition of tense and aspect are taken from the Internet Grammar of English.

Profit before passion - what the ALS / MOJ fiasco teaches us!

Very often freelance translators and interpreters are accused of being a little bit naïve when it comes to business – after all our passion is all about language and so that’s what we want to concentrate on. Yet it’s easy to forget that we are also in business – taking care of the accounts, advertising, marketing and much more. But what happens when the business becomes more important than the passion? Well the ALS fiasco is what happens.

If you don’t know what that’s about (have you recently been abducted by aliens??) let me explain. Applied Language Solutions (ALS), was a successful translation agency run by Gavin Wheeldon. Gavin, who appeared on Dragon’s Den and has a penchant for expensive cars, sold his company to Capita for megabucks.  (There we have the first clue as to where his passion lies.) Anyway ALS won a contract from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) to provide interpreting services to the police and court system in England.

ALS managed to do this by promising to cut costs while maintaining standards – something they could only hope to achieve by riding roughshod over the national framework arrangements for Public Service Interpreters and slashing rates of pay to such a low level that professional linguists would in some cases earn little more than the national minimum wage. Despite the fact that all the professional translation and interpreting bodies in the UK voiced their concern, and despite the fact that the majority of qualified interpreters refuse to work with ALS, the plan went ahead.

The result? Absolute chaos within the legal system – court cases have been adjourned, people have sat in jail cells waiting for an interpreter that never shows up and in some cases when the interpreter does manage to turn up – they either can’t actually speak English well enough to know what they are supposed to interpret or they have no knowledge of the process they are involved in!

Despite well documented evidence showing the MOJ agreement is a farce, ALS continue to claim that things are “getting better”; the Minister responsible, Crispin Blunt MP, does what a politician does best – stubbornly defend an unworkable policy while quoting incorrect figures about interpreters’ earnings; standards fall because professional interpreters will not work under such atrocious conditions and innocent people are being denied their basic legal right to a fair trial.

The lesson? ALS is a business, and Gavin Wheeldon has shown that his passion is not for language or linguistic excellence. He has made a bucket load of money by cashing in on the translation industry so that he can indulge his passion for fast cars and good luck to him if that’s what he’s worked for.  But why do it on the backs of the very individuals who have helped you become what you are?

Those of us who work as linguists have a true passion for what we do. We know that we need to be good in business, but our main motivation is that we love what we do. Call me naïve but I’d rather put passion before business any day!

Will language skills help you stand out in the job market?

That was the question posed by the Guardian newspaper in a Q & A Discussion that took place on Thursday 29 March. What resulted was a lively discussion that raised a lot of good points and highlighted some great career advice for language graduates. It's well worth a read, but here are a few points that came out:

The idea that the British are rubbish at languages is actually a bit of a myth. True, linguistic ability is not nearly as common as it should be in the population, but these discussions (and lots like them) demonstrate that there are some very capable linguists out there, and we're not just talking about holiday French, we're talking high levels of linguistic ability.

A language degree in itself is not enough for a career using languages. If you want a job where you are using your language skills as an integral part of the job you need other skills to complement your languages. That takes us to another point...

Universities that offer language degrees need to do more. Employers see language ability as an additional skill but still want graduates to be skilled in other areas. This is hugely frustrating for language grads. Maybe universities should offer more elective modules in topics such as marketing, business administration, engineering etc so that graduates can sell themselves more positively to potential employers.

And finally, one of my greatest pet hates - employers need to stop paying rubbish wages for language skills. If an employer truly values the language skills of their workforce they will pay a wage that reflects that. None of this nonsense about advertising for highly qualified staff for little more than the minimum wage. You do not just pick up a foreign language - it is learnt and it requires hard work over a long period of time.

Speak Proper English! - What a wonderful language is English!

There is no doubt that language and language usage is a highly emotive subject which gives rise to many forms of debate. This is especially true when discussing the effect of language policy on the education of our children and whether or not schools should teach Standard English.

Standard English has been defined as the “variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is normally taught in schools and to non-native speakers of the language. It is also the variety spoken by educated people and used in news broadcasts and other similar situations.” (Trudgill 2000:5) Standard English is only one of the many varieties of English found in Britain, and as the above quote suggests, it is the variety which has gained the prestige as being the “best” form of the language.

Although the concepts of “good” and “bad” English are questionable from a linguist’s point of view, for some sections of society they are seen as important markers of “good” and “bad” education and cannot be ignored. Many business leaders, employers and academics openly complain about the falling standards of written and spoken English, and the apparent inability of students, graduates and potential employees to use their own language “properly”. So while a linguist might accept that all forms of language are linguistically equal, that same linguist would not write an academic thesis in anything other than Standard English. Some sections of society are not interested in the linguistic value of such variety within the English language(s) but do want to see an adherence to Standard English.

Professor John Honey argues very passionately that Standard English should be taught by virtue of being the standard against which other varieties can be measured. He disagrees with what he calls the myth of “linguistic equality” (Honey 1997:6, 7) which would place Standard English on an equal footing with other varieties of English and states that students expect to be taught Standard English as the “correct” form of the language. (Honey 1997:199-201) If we accept that educational standards are to be maintained then there must be a means of measuring such standards and Honey’s arguments would seem logical.

Having acquired the status of being the acceptable form of the language within educational and higher social circles, schools should encourage the use of Standard English as a means of helping students achieve their future goals and aspirations by equipping them for greater academic and social mobility. To do any less would be to place an unnecessary obstacle in front of students that might endanger their chances in the future to compete either in the world of academia or employment. As Honey comments Standard English is not so much the possession of the privileged but rather the key to obtaining privilege. (Honey 1997:53) It could be argued that by focusing on the teaching of Standard English as the “best” form of English, we are in fact reinforcing negative stereotypes that promote those who use Standard English as being “educated” and of a better “class” within society. 

The linguist Peter Trudgill claims that 88 percent of students do not use Standard English and by encouraging them to do so we are causing some form of psychological and social distress because we are trying to influence their inherent identity as individuals within a social group. (Trudgill 2000:200,201) In sociolinguistic terms, it is clear that there is a link between social class and language variation; the further up the “social ladder” a person goes the more standard their language, and conversely the further down the “social ladder” the more non-standard their language becomes.(Holmes 2001:133)

If a person is born, educated, lives and works in a geographical area where one of the non-standard varieties of English are used, why (or indeed when) does he or she need to use standard English when the vast majority of his peers, social circle or workmates use the same non-standard variety as he or she does? That person can function normally without having learnt Standard English. Following Trudgill’s previously mentioned argument, that person would be happy with their form of language since it forms part of his or her social and psychological identity.

Thus rather than imposing a standard form of language on the vast majority of the population who have no need for it, would it not be more productive to encourage non-standard forms of English? This would lead to a greater variety of language use, a richer linguistic culture and may even lead to some very exciting literary developments which would add depth to our linguistic and cultural heritage.

However, in the case of schooling can we really apply the same argument? Should education elevate the individual to greater things or bring them down to the lowest common denominator? Firstly, students increasingly desire social and economic mobility rather than feeling bound by social class or geographical location. They require an education that prepares them for that and at the moment that means leaning Standard English. That is what business leaders and employers want. Secondly, the more students learn the standard form the less it becomes associated with a particular social class and the related social stigmas associated with standard and non-standard forms would also change. Thirdly, at the level of school education students need a solid academic base from which they can develop. Only by teaching them a standard form of English can we really equip them for future study, which in some cases could include non-standard forms of English.

In conclusion, whether or not Standard English should be taught in schools depends on whether we examine the issue from an educational or a linguistic viewpoint. Honey, from the viewpoint of an educationalist is correct to expect that Standard English be taught in schools since it allows students to acquire the basic skills required for future success. We cannot escape the widely held perception that Standard English is “correct English”. However, his attacks on ideas such as linguistic equality are harsh and unnecessary. Linguists like Peter Trudgill have, from a linguistic point of view, correctly highlighted many sociolinguistic features of language which have opened up valuable fields of investigation.

Every craftsman begins by learning how to use the tools of their trade before moving on to bigger and better things and language is no different. Schools should teach Standard English as a variety of English suitable for formal situations, academic and economic progress. In doing so students would be equipped to face the realities of the economic and social demands of modern life. They would also have a solid foundation from which they could further explore the linguistic diversities of non-standard varieties.

Bibliography

Honey, J. (1997) Language is Power, The Story of Language and its Enemies. First edition. London, Faber.

Trudgill, P. (2000) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Fourth edition. Harmondsworth, Penguin

Holmes, J. (2001) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Second edition. London, Longman.

Fortis and lenis

Some consonants are perceived as being produced with more force than others. A fortis consonant (p, t, k) is thought to be articulated more strongly than the lenis consonants (b, d, g). 

Minimal pairs

Minimal pairs are pairs of words used to contrast phonemes - they are words where a single phoneme differs and this allows a comparison to be made. This helps establish a set of phonemes for a language.

Shortage of Language Skills - Is it time for employers to pay up or shut up?

It seems that every week we either read a newspaper article or report bemoaning the poor language skills of graduates or the economic  folly of failing to teach languages in schools. Old news I’m afraid - stop telling me what I already know and start telling me what you plan to do about it! Don’t get me wrong - I’m all in favour of businesses employing language graduates but at the end of the day employers need to get real and put their money where their mouth is!

Employers - If you really do value the abilities of linguists, if you pay language graduate a decent wage that reflects their skills you will attract high calibre candidates. Let me give you an example, using a job advert I saw recently:

Senior Payroll Specialist
Assigned for a defined area of responsibility. (France/Italy/Spain/Portugal)
To ensure timely processing of the monthly Payroll to Payment for respective area of responsibility 

Education: Educated to standard grade equivalent
Languages: Good oral and written knowledge of English, Italian, French and Spanish.
Experience: 
Two (2) years related experience in a computerized accounting environment preferably within a payroll function or finance
Solid understanding of and experience with ADP Payroll System and or other Payroll Systems i.e. ADP, VISMA, Datev, SAP
Good attention to detail.
Excellent IT and communication skills.
A willingness to learn and develop.

Here we have a vacancy that expects a candidate who is “educated to standard grade equivalent”, roughly the equivalent of GCSE’s to have a “good oral and written knowledge” of THREE foreign languages! Are you having a laugh?

Firstly, unless you were brought up in a household where those languages are commonly used, no-one educated to GCSE level has that degree of competency.

Secondly, most undergraduate courses teach TWO languages to a high level of competency and perhaps a third language as a minor subject of study. So how many potential applicants will this job have?

But surely the wage must be fantastic? The salary range  is £17k - £20K, so a new start would more than likely start at the lower end of the pay scale - £17K. Shameless. How can this employer claim to offer a career to any of the job applicants? I used to earn £17k working in a call centre!

Part of the problem is that the employer needs to take a reality check. For example, payroll is not rocket science - believe me, if I can do it anyone can (and I have worked in payroll too!). After a month someone who has never done the job would be trained up. Compare that with a month of language instruction - how skilled would you be? It’s a point I’ve made before - it is far more effective to train a linguist to do a job (like payroll) than it is to take the job holder and train them to be a linguist!  So the emphasis needs to move from the job (payroll) to the skills required (the languages) and the wages need to reflect that.

Employers need to drop this fantasy idea that language skills are something that you just “pick up”. To achieve a “good oral and written knowledge” of a foreign language the candidate may well have spent five years at secondary school studying the language to A level or Higher Grade standard; four years at university honing their language skills and cultural knowledge of the societies where those languages are spoken; time spent abroad living in a country where those languages are spoken; and after graduation they will have spent hours maintaining their language skills.

The investment made by a language graduate is just as strong as the dedication of a medical or engineering graduate. Why does the wage not reflect that? When employers start paying decent salaries to language graduates, students will start to see languages as viable subjects to study. Employers: Stop moaning about the lack of language skills and start showing that you value them! Quite frankly: Pay up or shut up!