Present Perfect vs. Simple Past in AE

[Jens]

Hi native speakers of AE,

I've been following the discussions on "present perfect vs. simple past"
for some time, but I'm still having my problems.

Most of the grammar books I've read seem to focus on how the British
would use it, and I feel that Americans, especially in informal situations,
tend to use simple past much more often than the British do.

It seems to me that many Americans try to avoid the "present perfect"
whereever possible, at least in informal situations.

I mean, there are pretty obvious cases where you have to use "present perfect",
like when talking about "durations or repetitions up to the present",
but when it comes to talking about the "indefinite past" it becomes less clear.

Many books say that you would tend to use the "present perfect"
if the event or action that you're talking about is to emphasize
the "consequences" of this event or action for the present or future.
But in practice I don't know.

E.g. to me "I already ate lunch." sounds OK,
while "I've already eaten lunch." sounds pretty British,
even though in both cases I would assume that we're talking about
the "consequences" here and not the action itself.

Similar:
"Did you bring the money?"
"Did you talk to XY yet?"
"Did you ever hear that?"
"I forgot my password."
"I never said that."
"I told you."

On the other hand, in some cases I would prefer the "present perfect",
but I don't really know why, e.g. "I've decided to ...".

Can anybody out there help me solve this big mystery
and help me sound a little more American?

Are there any good books/articles out there on questions like that?

Thanks a lot.

[Rusty]

Let's ask Pete for his input on this too. He'll be more able than I am to differentiate between British and American Engish. My background is a mix of British and American English, so that both sound natural to me. In general, the simple past indicates something that happened and is finished.

E.g. to me "I already ate lunch." sounds OK, (This sounds OK to me too. It happened. It has no relation to the present. However, if it has a relation to the present, i.e. somebody is asking if I would like to have lunch now, I would use the present perfect).
while "I've already eaten lunch." sounds pretty British, (It sounds less abrupt that the simple past, I think).
even though in both cases I would assume that we're talking about
the "consequences" here and not the action itself.

Similar:
"Did you bring the money?" (This sounds natural).
"Did you talk to XY yet?" ("Yet" tells me that the period of time started in the past and leads up to the present, so I'd use the present perfect).
"Did you ever hear that?" (This sounds natural).
"I forgot my password." (Natural).
"I never said that." (Natural).
"I told you." (Natural)

[Jens]

Let's ask Pete for his input on this too. He'll be more able than I am to differentiate between British and American Engish. My background is a mix of British and American English, so that both sound natural to me. In general, the simple past indicates something that happened and is finished.

E.g. to me "I already ate lunch." sounds OK, (This sounds OK to me too. It happened. It has no relation to the present. However, if it has a relation to the present, i.e. somebody is asking if I would like to have lunch now, I would use the present perfect).
while "I've already eaten lunch." sounds pretty British, (It sounds less abrupt that the simple past, I think).
even though in both cases I would assume that we're talking about
the "consequences" here and not the action itself.

Similar:
"Did you bring the money?" (This sounds natural).
"Did you talk to XY yet?" ("Yet" tells me that the period of time started in the past and leads up to the present, so I'd use the present perfect).
"Did you ever hear that?" (This sounds natural).
"I forgot my password." (Natural).
"I never said that." (Natural).
"I told you." (Natural)

Thank you very much for your feedback.

I'm having trouble to grasp concept of "relation to the present".

These simple past phrases sound natural to me too,
on the other hand I think that each of them has a relation to the present.

Here is the way I understand these sentences:

"Did you bring the money?":
I'm not really interested in what you did in the past,
but rather whether you have the money on you now.

"Did you ever hear that?":
I'm interested whether you('ve) heard this
in a time period up to now.

"I forgot my password.":
My problem is that I don't have my password now.

"I never said that.":
I haven't said this in a time period up to now.

"I told you.":
You should know what I told you now.

Even though these sound natural to you,
would you in any of these cases consider to use present perfect instead?

Could it be that in some of these cases simple past is prefered, because
gives you a little more distance to or a little less emotional involvement in
the action or event, maybe out of politeness or whatever?

Could it be that sometimes the "'ve" is just omitted out of "convenience"
and this has become so common that it sounds natural?

[Rusty]

Here is the way I understand these sentences:
My understanding is in blue

"Did you bring the money?":
I'm not really interested in what you did in the past,
but rather whether you have the money on you now.
I agree, what you did is done and finished. Simple past is OK. "Have you brought the money?" would be OK. It shows more empathy.

"Did you ever hear that?":
I'm interested whether you('ve) heard this
in a time period up to now.
For your meaning you should say, "Have you ever heard that?" The simple past puts it further into the past. However, the word ever covers the time up to now, so you can get away with the simple past.

"I forgot my password.":
My problem is that I don't have my password now.
"I've forgotten my passport" is best because you don't have it now. Reporting the incident later you would say, "I forgot my passport." If you are standing in line at the airport and say, "I forgot my passport" you are taking a short-cut with the language.

"I never said that.":
I haven't said this in a time period up to now.
The word never covers the time period up to now, so it isn't essential to use the present perfect. You could say, "I've never said that," but "I never said that" is natural.
"I told you.":
You should know what I told you now. It's a simple past fact. If you use the present perfect it gives the impression that I've told you a few times before now.

[Rusty]

If you are standing in line at the airport and say, "I forgot my passport" you are taking a short-cut with the language.

I don't think anybody would notice, especially in AE.

[Jens]

Thanks again.

So this may also have something to do with "taking short-cuts with the language"
and the adverbials like "already", "yet", "ever", "never" etc. having some sort of correcting function,
thus transporting the idea of "time period up to the present"?

Are there cases where you have to use the present perfect, and these short-cuts wouldn't work?

So is this really just a matter of "convenience" or, what I'm really after is,
has this also something to do with the "attitude" of the speaker?
I mean, in one of the examples you said that the present perfect shows more "empathy". Is this true in general?
Could this be the reason for a speaker to prefer simple past to present perfect?

Is there a difference in the usage in formal vs. informal situations?

[Rusty]

and the adverbials like "already", "yet", "ever", "never" etc. having some sort of correcting function,
thus transporting the idea of "time period up to the present"?
I'm no authority, but that sounds sensible.

Are there cases where you have to use the present perfect, and these short-cuts wouldn't work? Probably, though nothing particular comes to mind at the moment. In general, I wouldn't hesitate to use the present perfect when it is called for. Contractions such as: 've (have), 'd (had) (would)", 'll (will) are used all the time and tend to make speech less formal.

So is this really just a matter of "convenience" or, what I'm really after is,
has this also something to do with the "attitude" of the speaker?
I think the speaker's attitude has a bearing on which he chooses.
Example: (At a picnic)
"Have we brought enough sandwiches?" (The speaker is involved).
"Did Jackie bring the ice?" (the speaker is not involved).

I mean, in one of the examples you said that the present perfect shows more "empathy". Is this true in general? Not only does the simple past put the event in the past, but (I think) it sometimes puts emotional distance between the speaker and the listener.
Example: (At a picnic)
"Did you make the tea yet?" ("Yet" substitutes for the present perfect and the speaker just wants to know the facts).
"Have you made the tea yet?" (The speaker feels involved and may be willing to help).

Could this be the reason for a speaker to prefer simple past to present perfect? As you suggested earlier, it may be that American usage tends to be straightforward, while British English has developed nuances. That is just a guess.

Is there a difference in the usage in formal vs. informal situations? In formal situations the rules are followed more closely.

[Pete]

Rusty suggested that I give my thoughts on this, since all my language experience is American English.

"Did you bring the money?" Yes, this sounds right to me as simple past, even though you are interested in effect on the present. You have in mind one specific act of bringing money, and implicitly the time of the act is when you arrived here.
"Did you talk to XY yet?" This sounds ok to me, but I'd expect to hear "Have you talked to ..." more often.
"Did you ever hear that?" I'd say this is possible, but "Have you ever heard that?" would be more natural and common.
"I forgot my password." Both sound natural to me. "I've forgotten" emphasizes that it happened any time in the past and that is why you don't know it now. "I forgot" emphasizes that it happened one specific time, which is of course sufficient explanation for your inability to log in. I think "I forgot" has become almost an idiomatic equivalent for "I don't remember."
"I never said that." This could be used either way, but the meanings would be slightly different, or at least the contexts would be. Use the simple past to discuss a single action:
- I heard that you didn't like the movie. / I never said that; I said that I thought the book was better.
Use the present perfect to speak of something you might have said at any time.
- Some people are always saying "Shut up!" I've never said that to anyone.
"I told you." You have one specific incident in mind. But, "I've told you a hundred times, I don't know how to play bridge."

On the other hand, in some cases I would prefer the "present perfect",
but I don't really know why, e.g. "I've decided to ...".
Here the time you made the decision, the specific event, isn't what matters; what you are doing is explaining what you are going to do now. Of course, you could refer to a specific past decision that had a past result, and then you would use the simple past:
- I decided to attend Harvard, so I turned Yale down.

You asked about an on-line reference. The first of the following links is a table of contents for a grammar site I found. It includes the subsequent 4 links to discussions of present perfect, which cover a number of cases. This does seem to be a part of English usage that probably can't be reduced perfectly to a finite number of rules, but the rules you see are a good starting point.

http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/toc.cfm


http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Tenses4.cfm

http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Tenses5.cfm

http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Tenses6.cfm

http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Tenses7.cfm

[Anonymous]

I have an example:

Enforcement of any new law will be hard - the islands of the Torres Strait are among the remotest parts of Australia.

I think "are" is better than "have been". In fact, I don't think that "have been" is correct at all. But, the remoteness of the islands does have an effect on the present enforcement of the law. (It makes it harder.)

Can anyone help explain why "have been" is not correct in this sentence?

Thanks.

[Rusty]

I have an example:

Enforcement of any new law will be hard - the islands of the Torres Strait are among the remotest parts of Australia.

I think "are" is better than "have been". In fact, I don't think that "have been" is correct at all. But, the remoteness of the islands does have an effect on the present enforcement of the law. (It makes it harder.)

Can anyone help explain why "have been" is not correct in this sentence?

Thanks.

Enforcement of any new law will be hard - the islands of the Torres Strait are among the remotest parts of Australia.
The islands are, at present, remote.
You can use the present perfect in the following sentence:
The islands have been the most difficult to reach since Australia began law enforcement there.