「簡單過去式」或「過去完成式」? 視乎你是否要強調過去事件的發生時序


在本系列的前兩篇newsletter中,我解釋了我們應按句子想要表達的意思來思考tense的字形。


「現實」中的同一事件或動作,一般都可被多於一種tense(和aspect)的字形所「覆蓋」。


但與此同時,通常會有一種字形似乎特別適合強調那想要表達的意思。(其他情況,則是不同字形間的差異很微,選擇哪種來表達都沒關係。)


換言之,我們應選取一個最合適的字形(如有),以表達想在某句子中傳遞的現實意思。


跟大家分享一個關於選用「簡單過去式」和「過去完成式」的問題,這是一位參加了我們基礎課程的學生提出的。


當時這名學生正處理一份人事報告,裡面詳細描述了公司兩名員工之間的某次衝突。


這是報告中的一句例句節錄(人物名稱已更改):


At the meeting, Mr. Li insisted that Mr. Ngan had received a copy of the document.


第一個出現的限定動詞(finite verb)「insisted」是簡單過去式字形,第二個限定動詞「had received」則是過去完成式字形。學生問我,這裡選擇用過去完成式的字形是否「正確」。


我們先退一步作更有系統的思考。


本系列想要解釋的主要概念,就是我們必需在清楚講者想表達的意思的情況下,才能評論該字形是否「正確」。


現在,母語人士在描述過去事件時,大多都會用「簡單過去式」表達。這從我們的日常生活和語料庫的真實數據中都能觀察出來。


因此,這句子中有兩件過去事件,當然也能使用「簡單過去式」來表達,例如:


At the meeting, Mr. Li insisted that Mr. Ngan received a copy of the document.


這裡用「簡單過去式」的話,講者/作者便會表達出在相對於說話當下的時間點,這兩件是發生在過去(並已結束)的事件,但並不重點標明它們所發生的順序 – 講者/作者沒有強調「received」的動作,是在「Mr. Li insisted」前已發生並完成的。


也就是說,如果作者只是希望透過這句子表達,相對於當下時間點,這兩個動作是發生在過去並已完成,那麼兩個限定動詞都以「簡單過去式」表達是絕對「正確」的。


至於「過去完成式」,則能表達出「過去的過去」的含意。


例如,一件過去事件在某語境中是用「簡單過去式」表達的,「過去完成式」便能強調另一動作是發生在該「簡單過去式」的動作之前。


因此,如作者想要強調「receive a copy of the document」的動作是在「the meeting」前已發生及完成的,選擇「過去完成式」的「had received」字形便比較合適了。


由於這是一份關於兩名同事發生衝突的報告,事件的時間順序或者相對比較重要,所以作者刻意強調「receive a copy of the document」的動作發生在會議前也很合理。


因此寫報告的人使用了「過去完成式」的「had received」,就是為了強調「the meeting」和「the meeting」前的事件。


這樣的話,在這裡使用「過去完成式」是合適的,因為它的確能特顯出兩件過去事件的時序。


無論是「簡單過去式」或「過去完成式」,都足以涵蓋「Mr. Ngan 收到文件」這個過去動作。至於選用哪種,則視乎我們是否想要強調這些過去事件的時序。


這裡,因為強調「had received」在會議前已完成似乎對要表達的意思有一定重要性,說用「過去完成式」來表達比較合適才有意義。


不過,大家別因此認為「過去完成式」必定要用於描述「過去的過去」事件,這還是要根據我們想要表達的意思而判斷的。


就算描述的仍然是那兩個相同事件,但可能在另一次比較隨意的對話中,講者未必想刻意強調事件的順序,因此便選擇兩個動作都以「簡單過去式」表達。


重點是,「過去完成式」讓我們可以強調過去事件的相對事間和順序,但絕非是表達「過去的過去」事件的一個「固定」字形。


 我們可以做一個簡單的思想實驗讓自己更清晰。


「過去完成式」可以強調一些過去事件,是發生在以「簡單過去式」表達的過去事件之前的。但有時候,我們可能要敍述多於兩個過去的時間點:


At lunch, Mr. Li told me that he had an argument with Mr. Ngan at the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Ngan said that he did not receive the document that morning.


以上例子分別出現了三個不同的過去時間點。第一是「at lunch」,第二是「at the meeting」,第三是「that morning(會議前)」。


簡單起見,暫時所有限定動詞我都選用了「簡單過去式」字形。(這是完全可以的,因為「簡單過去式」是用以描述過去事件,而那三件事也是發生在過去的。)


假如「過去完成式」真是根「事實」去掛鉤的,那麼到底哪一個動詞才需要「過去完成式」?


如果我們設定「lunch」是「過去時間點」,「at the meeting」的動作便是發生在「過去的過去」,「應該」使用「過去完成式」。


但第三句又如何處理呢?


在「that morning」進行的動作甚至比「the meeting」更早,但英文已沒有「過去過去完成式」可用了,那我們應用甚麼字形才對?


這也再度顯示出,這些字形全是按照我們想要如何去表達現實而使用的。


如果要表達的只是,在「當下」,它們都是過去事件,我們統一使用「簡單過去式」便足夠了。


如果我們想強調對比「lunch」的時間點發生的事件及所有發生在這時間點前的事件,我們可以把「at lunch」時段的限定動詞套用「簡單過去式」,而「at the meeting」和「before the meeting」的動作則套用「過去完成式」:


(「lunch」vs. 「before lunch」)


I had lunch with Mr. Li. 

At lunch, he told me that he had had an argument with Mr. Ngan at the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Ngan had said that he had not received the document that morning.


又或者,想要刻意區分「before the meeting」與另外兩者的時間點,我們可以把「簡單過去式」套用在「at lunch」和「at the meeting」的限定動詞上,而「before the meeting」時段的動作則使用「過去完成式」:


(「since the meeting」vs. 「before the meeting」 )


I had lunch with Mr. Li. 

At lunch, he told me that he had an argument with Mr. Ngan at the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Ngan said that he had not received the document that morning.



從以上例子可見,我們使用「過去完成式」,與該事件實際上是否發生在「過去的過去」沒有必然的關係,反倒取決於我們是否想要強調那些過去事件發生的順序。


說到底,這些選擇之間的實際意思差未必很大,當在日常生活中遇到它們時,應透過閱讀和分析例句,使自己熟悉這些細微的差異。


但重點是,我們要基於想表達的意思,選擇最合適的字形,而不是誤以為這些字形是跟「現實」直接掛鉤的。都是那一句,文法是讓我們表達現實的方式,並不是現實本身。


*「過去完成式」的字形,其實母語人士甚少使用。它會出現在較正式的語境中,例如上面用作範例的報告。因此雖然它有強調過去事件時序的功能,但實際上仍很少會被用到。這是語料庫中的真實資料顯示的,並不是我個人的感覺。



___________

“Simple Past” or “Past Perfect”?

Well, Do You Want to Highlight the Sequence of Past Events?

(Tense series #3)


In the last two newsletters of this series, I tried to explain that we should always think about tense forms in relation to the intended meaning that needs to be expressed.


More often than not, the same event or action in “reality” can be adequately “covered” by more than one tense (and aspect) form.


But, at the same time, very often, there is one form that is the most appropriate in terms of “highlighting” the particular meaning we would like to express. (In other cases, the difference between forms might be so small that it does not matter which one we choose for that meaning.) 


In other words, we need to pick the most appropriate form (if there is one) that can help us express what we want to express about that reality in any given sentence.


This time, I want to share a question that one student enrolled in our foundational course asked me before, about using “simple past” and “past perfect” to express past events.


This student was dealing with a human resources report at work that detailed a certain confrontation between two employees.


This is an example sentence from the report (the names have been changed, of course): 



At the meeting, Mr. Li insisted that Mr. Ngan had received a copy of the document.



The first finite verb, “insisted,” is in “simple past” form, and the second finite verb, “had received,” is in “past perfect.” My student asked if the “past perfect” form is “correct” here. 


We should step back and think about this systematically.


The main idea I’ve tried to explain in this series is again that we can only judge whether a form is “correct” if we take what the speaker wants to express about reality into consideration. 


By far, most past events are expressed with the “simple past” form by native speakers. We can easily observe this in daily life and also in corpus data of language use.


So, the two past events in this sentence can of course be expressed by “simple past,” like:



At the meeting, Mr. Li insisted that Mr. Ngan received a copy of the document.



The “simple past” forms here allow the speaker to express the meaning that both events took place (and finished) in the past relative to the time of speaking. There is no special differentiation or highlighting of these two past actions in terms of their sequence -- no special emphasis that “received” supposedly took place before “insisted” at an earlier time, and that the action of “receiving” was already complete at an earlier time before “Mr. Li insisted.”


In other words, if the speaker/writer of these sentences simply wants to express that these two actions took place in the past and finished in the past relative to the time of speaking, then the “simple past” form for both finite verbs would be totally “correct.” 


On the other hand, the “past perfect” form allows us to express the meaning of “past of the past” -- as in, when there are events narrated in “simple past” in a particular context, “past perfect” highlights actions “before” the actions narrated in “simple past.”


So, if the speaker/writer of these sentences wants to highlight that the action of “receiving a copy of the document” took place and was already completed before “the meeting,” then the “past perfect” form for “had received” would be more appropriate.


In this case, since this is a report about the confrontation between colleagues, presumably, the “sequence” and “relative time” of the events is important. It is quite important for the speaker to highlight that the “receiving” of the document supposedly took place before the meeting.


As such, the speaker/writer of the report has chosen to use “past perfect” for “had received” in order to highlight that “the meeting” and the “events before the meeting” were distinct points on the “timeline” of this confrontation. 


In this sense, the use of the “past perfect” here is appropriate -- it appropriately highlights the sequence of these two past events.


Both the “simple past” and “past perfect” forms adequately “cover” the same past action of “Mr. Ngan receiving a copy of the document,” but whether we decide to use the “past perfect” form “had received” depends on whether we intend to highlight the “sequence” of these past actions.


In this particular case, since highlighting that “had received” was completed before the meeting seems to be important, we can say that “past perfect” is “more appropriate.” 


However, we should not think that the “past perfect” form is something that is “fixed” to the “past of the past” event in reality -- again, it all depends on what we want to express about this reality. 


For example, in another instance, perhaps in a more casual conversation about the same two events, the speaker/writer might not need to highlight the sequence as much and might casually choose to use “simple past” for both of these finite verbs instead. 


The point  is that the “past perfect” allows us to highlight the sequence and relative time of past events, but it is not a form that is “fixed” to events that are “past of the past” in context.


If we do a simple thought experiment, we would be able to see this clearly. 


“Past perfect” allows us to highlight that certain past events took place before the past events expressed in “simple past,” but in any given narrative, we can of course have more than two past points on a timeline: 



At lunch, Mr. Li told me that he had an argument with Mr. Ngan at the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Ngan said that he did not receive the document that morning.



In this example, there are three different “past points.” One is “at lunch,” the second is “at the meeting,” and the third is “that morning (before the meeting).” 


For simplicity’s sake, I put all the finite verb forms in “simple past” for now (which is completely fine, since “simple past” is used to express past events, and these are all past events.)


If “past perfect” were something that is really about “reality” and not just about what we try to highlight about reality, then which of the finite verbs should we put in “past perfect”? 


If we take “lunch” as the “past point,” then the actions “at the meeting” would be “past of the past,” and “should” be in “past perfect.”


But then, what about the third sentence?


The action “that morning” took place even before “the meeting,” but there is no “past past perfect” form in English to distinguish this “past past past” event, so what form should it be in? 


The point is that it all again depends on how we decide to express this reality. 


If we want to express all of these events as just events in the past relative to “now” -- then we would just use “simple past” for all of them.


If we want to highlight the relative time of “lunch” versus everything “before lunch,” then we can choose “simple past” for all the finite verbs of actions “at lunch” and then “past perfect” for the actions both “at the meeting” and “before the meeting”:


(“lunch” vs. “before lunch”)


I had lunch with Mr. Li. 

At lunch, he told me that he had had an argument with Mr. Ngan at the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Ngan had said that he had not received the document that morning.


Or, if we want to highlight the relative time of “before the meeting” as distinct from “lunch” and the “meeting,” then we would choose “simple past” for both the finite verbs of actions “at lunch” and “at the meeting,” and use “past perfect” only for the action “before the meeting”:


(“since the meeting” vs. “before the meeting” )


I had lunch with Mr. Li. 

At lunch, he told me that he had an argument with Mr. Ngan at the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Ngan said that he had not received the document that morning.


The use of the “past perfect,” as we can see from this example, is not actually tied to which event in reality is considered “past of the past” in some “absolute way” but rather to how we decide to express the sequence of past events in reality.


Ultimately, the difference in actual meaning between these choices might not always be significant, and you have to familiarize yourselves with these nuances by reading and analyzing example sentences when you encounter them in daily life -- but the point is that we should always choose the most appropriate form based on what we want to express about reality. 


*The “past perfect” form in particular is very rarely used by native speakers. When it does appear, it usually appears in formal contexts, like in the reports that my student asked about. So, even though the form allows us to highlight the sequence of past events if we do happen to want to express this, it is not frequently seen in actual usage.



Comments

Popular Posts

及物與不及物動詞對:「Lay」vs.「Lie」(+其他例子)

有被動語態的動名詞組(Gerund Phrases): 「Being Chosen for a Flight Mission」 ✈️

比利時巧克力 - 「Belgian」Chocolate 🍫

2025 New Year's Resolutions?

你有「完善的計劃」(“Robust” Plan)來學習英文嗎?

No Doubt… 不容置疑(?)