Diachrony

Mair, speaking of the use of the past simple over the present perfect in AmE:


Quote:
“its diachrony is unclear.

Is American English more conservative, in having been more resistant to the spread of the present perfect since the Early Modern English period, or is American English more advanced, with the decline of the present perfect representing a recent, and possibly spreading, innovation?”

From: Twentieth Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. By Christian Mair


Any (unbaised) thoughts?

American English does tend to be more conservative in a lot of respects... Most of my linguistics professors in undergrad claimed that American English was more conservative than English English, but I don't have much to back that up...

I'd guess Americans' preference of the simple past is an example of this conservativism, but that's all I've got (aside from rhoticity, obviously).

For American English speakers wanting to express the same meanings as below, is the past simple an option?

I’ve lived here since 2001.
I haven’t seen John for the last two days.
I’ve had a headache all day.
I’ve lived here for 6 years.
The taxi has arrived.
I’ve cut my finger.
I’ve seen three films this week.
Have you ever ridden a camel?
I haven’t prepared the lesson yet.
I’ve never read “War and Peace”

Hmm... I might use "I cut my finger" and "Did you ever ride a camel?" in those situations, and I think it's less likely, but possible, that I would say, "I never read 'War and Peace'".

"I had a headache all day" would have a different meaning. "I've had it all day" means I still have it; "I had it all day" means I don't have it anymore. This is different from "I cut my finger" because cutting one's finger can be seen as an instantaneous event, which goes into the past immediately afterward -- the focus then is on the event rather than the result. "I've cut my finger" is certainly possible, though.

I'd be inclined to say "I've seen three films this week" if I intend to see more films during the week, and "I saw three films this week" if I don't.

For the others, I'd use the perfect.

- Kef

<"I had a headache all day" would have a different meaning. "I've had it all day" means I still have it; "I had it all day" means I don't have it anymore.>

I've had a headache all day, but now it's cleared.

<<I'd be inclined to say "I've seen three films this week" if I intend to see more films during the week, and "I saw three films this week" if I don't. >>


In this, rather graphic, example, it is only the present perfect that really works.

"I've raped three women since then."

<For the others, I'd use the perfect. >

And how do AmE speakers expect ESL students to ever get a grasp of the use of the present perfect and past simple. Surely we must admit that the BrE use is more simple, consistent and easier to grasp.

Just because multiple possibilities exist doesn't mean you have to use them. Native speakers of a language don't use all the possibilities of it, no matter how literate (or literary) they are. You're perfectly fine using the present perfect for all of those and it won't sound at all unnatural. If it's easier to just use the perfect for them all, why not just do so and leave it at that? I can understand wanting to get into the details of when the past simple can and can't be used in American English, but I think doing so has little practical benefit for a language learner. There isn't even a change in nuance in the cases where the simple past can be used... I don't really notice a difference at all; it's just another way to say the same thing.

- Kef