Present perfect vs present perfect continuous

Question

Hello teachers,Aren't both of the sentences correct? I would use the present perfect in the first one because there's a present time marker, so it means that the time period has not finished yet, and I would use the present perfect continuous in the second one for the same reason. Am I right in my assumptions? If not, what's the difference between them?a) Mrs. White is still cooking. She has cooked the whole morning.b) Mrs. White is still cooking. She has been cooking the whole morning.Thanks in advance.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Tenacious Learnerdifference

Because cooking is an activity (rather than a state), the continuous form is more appropriate and idiomatic.

CJ

Tenacious Learner · Answer

CalifJimBecause cooking is an activity (rather than a state)

Hello Jim,
Thanks for your reply.
According to this explanation which I took from another post, 'While the Present Perfect Progressive and the Present Perfect are interchangeable in some cases, the Present Perfect Progressive places emphasis on the duration of an action, and Present Perfect places emphasis on theresult, completion of an action.', both of my sentences could be right, couldn't they?
On the other hand, only the present perfect progressive tells me that the action is going on right now.

Another example:
She has phoned him several times this morning.
(It doesn't mean that she is phoning him right now. It only means that in the course of the specified time period which is considered still to be continuing, actions have occurred.)
She has been phoning him since 9.
(It means that she has been dialing his phone continuously, without a break, doesn't it?)
Am I right in my new examples assumptions?
To me the explanations work in these examples, but not in my original ones.

TL

Fivejedjon · Answer

Tenacious Learner'While the Present Perfect Progressive and the Present Perfect are interchangeable in some cases, the Present Perfect Progressive places emphasis on the duration of an action, and Present Perfect places emphasis on theresult, completion of an action.'

The words used include tends to and result. I agree with CJ that the continuous form is more appropriate and idiomatic. That is not to say that the non-perfect form is not possible.

Tenacious LearnerShe has been phoning him since 9.(It means that she has been dialing his phone continuously, without a break, doesn't it?)

Not necessarily. It places emphasis on the duration of the action - all morning.

Often it is only the context of the whole situation that will indicate whether the action is in progress at the moment of speaking and/or has continued without a break.

Tenacious Learner · Answer

fivejedjonThe words used include tends to and result.

Hello fivejedjon,
Thank you for your reply. I can see in that explanation the word, 'the result', but I can't see 'tends'.

fivejedjonThat is not to say that the non-perfect form is not possible.

Do you mean that even 'She has cooked the whole morning.' is possible even though is not idiomatic?

fivejedjonOften it is only the context of the whole situation that will indicate whether the action is in progress at the moment of speaking and/or has continued without a break.

As always the context is the king, isn't it?

TL

Fivejedjon · Answer

Tenacious Learner I can't see 'tends'.

Sorry. My brain was playing tricks on me.

Tenacious LearnerDo you mean that even 'She has cooked the whole morning.' is possible even though is not idiomatic?

You'll see and hear a lot of things that most speakers would not say or write if given time to think.

Tenacious LearnerAs always the context is the king, isn't it?

Yes. Grammar books often give only a short sentence as an illustration, because they do not have the space to give the full context. One short sentence is rarely sufficient to say that only one tense is always accurate and appropriate and that no other is possible.

CalifJim · Answer

Tenacious Learnerthe Present Perfect Progressive places emphasis on the duration of an action, and Present Perfect places emphasis on the result, completion of an action.

Several remarks may be relevant here. For one thing, this summary of the two tenses is taken from the point of view of someone who is looking at sentences which have already been written by native speakers in an idiomatic way. It is an analysis of sentences which already exist in the English language. As such, it may be risky to take it as advice on how to build a sentence from scratch, imposing in some way these brief summaries on what is written.

Thus, the grammarians who came up with this summary were probably looking at sentences like "She was cooking all day" when they concluded that the progressive places emphasis on the duration of the action. (They were not looking at "She has cooked all day" because these would be harder to find in a list of all English sentences which have been written.) On the other hand, they were probably looking at sentences like "She is an experienced cook. She has cooked beef; she has cooked lamb; she has cooked chicken." From these kinds of sentences they concluded that the non-progressive places emphasis on results. (They were not looking at "She has been cooking beef, lamb, and chicken".) You may be able to see how these summaries are therefore skewed in a way that is very deceptive for the learner. They are based on data (sentences by native speakers) that does not include certain sentences at all because those sentences are not idiomatic in English. It is therefore not possible for learners to write any tense at all and claim that it will automatically signal duration or result on the basis of the tense they have used. Unfortunately, this means that such summaries are often very uninformative in the project of creating new sentences.

I believe that summaries such as those quoted above should be taken as saying that if you have created a sentence, it will probably be idiomatic in either of these cases: It is inherently about duration and you have used the progressive tense to express this. Or: It is inherently about a result, and you have used the non-progressive tense to express this.

Now, to be specific, if you want to say something about cooking all day, and no more, then, if you have analyzed this correctly, you see that "all day" is about duration and you see that there is nothing about that situation that is about a result. Maybe the cooking ended up in a total failure and had to be thrown out. All we know is that the activity of cooking took place. This analysis tells us that a native speaker is much more likely to express this idea with a progressive tense than with a non-progressive one. She has been cooking all day.

Take the reverse situation. If you want to say that a certain project of cooking ended up with a roast leg of lamb, then, if you analyze this correctly, you see that there are no words in the sentence that are the least bit concerned with whether this project took a hour, six hours, or the whole day. Further, you see that "roast leg of lamb" is the final result of this cooking project. This analysis tells us that a native speaker is much more likely to express this idea with a non-progressive tense than with a progressive one. She has cooked a leg of lamb.

In short, both of your sentences are right, in that they both follow the rules of English grammar, but only one expresses what needs to be expressed in an idiomatic way.

I should pause now and let you digest this much.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

Tenacious LearnerShe has phoned him several times this morning.

She has completed the phone call. This is a result. She has even done it several times. Several results.

By the way, mentioning the number of times something was done (or the equivalent) often indicates that a non-progressive form is appropriate. Each of the times indicates another result of the same kind.

Marsha has lied to Bruce three times.
Peter has found three mistakes in the manuscript.
The electricity has been cut off on several occasions this summer because of storms.

Tenacious LearnerShe has been phoning him since 9.

"since 9" indicates a duration from 9 until the moment this sentence is uttered. This means many phone calls, each attempting to reach him by phone. (There may be pauses in between such that only 3 or 4 calls are attempted within each hour, but the idea is that the attempts must be made again and again throughout the stated duration because each attempt is unsuccessful.)

CJ

Tenacious Learner · Answer

fivejedjonGrammar books often give only a short sentence as an illustration, because they do not have the space to give the full context. One short sentence is rarely sufficient to say that only one tense is always accurate and appropriate and that no other is possible.

Hello fivejedjon,
That's true. To write the pros and the cons of each tense in a context would be an endlessly work.

TL

Tenacious Learner · Answer

CalifJimNow, to be specific, if you want to say something about cooking all day, and no more, then, if you have analyzed this correctly, you see that "all day" is about duration and you see that there is nothing about that situation that is about a result.

Hello Jim,
Thanks a lot for your very detailed explanation. I think I have digested it! Of course after reading or better eating it, a few times.

Let's see if I really did it.
So because I'm talking about duration and not the result It's much better to use the present perfect progressive, Like when I use the prepositions 'since' and 'for'.
Eg.
She has been working for the company for many years,
She has been working for the company since 1985.
So, if I wanted to say that someone has spent the morning cooking and is still cooking, I'd say that she 'has been cooking the whole morning'.
Let's see this other example without time marker, Person 'B' is still working now and now he/she looks tired. Right?
A: You looked tired!
B: Yes, I have been working very hard.

CalifJimIf you want to say that a certain project of cooking ended up with a roast leg of lamb, then, if you analyze this correctly, you see that there are no words in the sentence that are the least bit concerned with whether this project took a hour, six hours, or the whole day.

In this case because I'm more interested in the result, the roast leg of lamb is cooked and let's say ready to be eaten. I should use the present perfect.
Am I right with my assumptions?

TL

CalifJim · Answer

Tenacious LearnerAm I right with my assumptions?

Yes.

Activities. (duration)

I've been [cooking / sleeping / waiting / resting / working in the garden / jogging in the park / shopping at the mall / teaching English / memorizing poetry / swimming / watching TV] ( [ all day / for hours / since noon ] ).
__________

Accomplishments. (results)

I've [cooked some pasta for dinner / seen that movie / traveled in Spain / learned all the irregular verbs of English / written a letter / mowed the lawn / eaten all the ice cream that was left / answered your question / lost my keys]
__________

But watch how these can be turned around.

Activities.

I've been cooking this pasta for dinner for 20 minutes (and it's still not done).
I've been learning all the irregular verbs of English (but I'm not finished yet).
I've been writing a letter for hours (but I'm going to take a break now).
I've been traveling in Spain for years. (I go there twice every year.)
I've been mowing the lawn for my neighbor ever since he got sick and couldn't do it himself.
I've been answering your questions for months.

Accomplishments.

I've cooked lasagna for dinner. I hope you like it.
I've jogged in that park. It's a nice park. I may jog there again.
I've shopped there. It's a nice department store. I may shop there again.
I've watched enough TV for one day. It's time to turn off the TV.
I've taught mathematics, and I've taught English, but I didn't like either one.

CJ

Present perfect vs present perfect continuous

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions