0
Petusek Posted 10 years ago
Science & IT
Tenses when referring to literature
Hello,
Trying to help out friends with their research paper (just proof-reading), I've come across a lot of references that seem to use verb tenses rather inconsistently, oscillating between the present simple, present perfect and past simple. I've been looking for some rules on the Internet, but they seem to differ. The journal the article is going to be published in doesn't seem to have any prescribed rules either, I'm afraid.
Let me list a few typical examples, each using the three tenses. Could you possibly choose the right ones and, perhaps, briefly explain your choice? I'll give my own opinions below.
A:
(1) Smith (1958) suggests the structure is rather different.
(2) Smith (1958) has suggested the structure is rather different.
(3) Smith (1958) suggested the structure is rather different.
My opinion: I suppose (1) would be correct if we considered published works as something fixed and unchangeable, thus permanent. I've seen the simple past tense used a lot, though, so I'm far from sure.
B:
(1) Similar observations are already reported in/by, e. g., Smith (1958), Smithson (1969) and Smitherson et al. (1980).
(2) Similar observations have already been reported in/by, e. g., Smith (1958), Smithson (1969) and Smitherson et al. (1980).
(3) Similar observations were already reported in/by, e. g., Smith (1958), Smithson (1969) and Smitherson et al. (1980).
My opinion: I guess the word already makes us choose (2). Am I wrong? Would (1) be acceptable too? Again, I can imagine (3) too, mainly because I've looked at so many papers (often written by non-natives), that I no longer know what's right or wrong.
C:
(1) While some authors claim A (e.g. Smith 1958, Smithson 1969, Smitherson et al. 1980), others claim B (e.g. David 1947, Davidson 1991 and Davenport 2002). Our results suggest that the...
(2) While some authors have claimed A (e.g. Smith 1958, Smithson 1969, Smitherson et al. 1980), others have claimed B (e.g. David 1947, Davidson 1991 and Davenport 2002). Our results suggest that the...
(3) While some authors claimed A (e.g. Smith 1958, Smithson 1969, Smitherson et al. 1980), others claimed B (e.g. David 1947, Davidson 1991 and Davenport 2002). Our results suggest that the...
My opinion: I assume (3) might only be acceptable if our results resolved the issue once and for all, perhaps. (2) seems to imply more strongly there has been an disagreement, while (1) merely reports what can be found in the literature. But, frankly, now I feel like I no longer know anything about English grammar.
Many thanks for any help or advice!
P.
Trying to help out friends with their research paper (just proof-reading), I've come across a lot of references that seem to use verb tenses rather inconsistently, oscillating between the present simple, present perfect and past simple. I've been looking for some rules on the Internet, but they seem to differ. The journal the article is going to be published in doesn't seem to have any prescribed rules either, I'm afraid.
Let me list a few typical examples, each using the three tenses. Could you possibly choose the right ones and, perhaps, briefly explain your choice? I'll give my own opinions below.
A:
(1) Smith (1958) suggests the structure is rather different.
(2) Smith (1958) has suggested the structure is rather different.
(3) Smith (1958) suggested the structure is rather different.
My opinion: I suppose (1) would be correct if we considered published works as something fixed and unchangeable, thus permanent. I've seen the simple past tense used a lot, though, so I'm far from sure.
B:
(1) Similar observations are already reported in/by, e. g., Smith (1958), Smithson (1969) and Smitherson et al. (1980).
(2) Similar observations have already been reported in/by, e. g., Smith (1958), Smithson (1969) and Smitherson et al. (1980).
(3) Similar observations were already reported in/by, e. g., Smith (1958), Smithson (1969) and Smitherson et al. (1980).
My opinion: I guess the word already makes us choose (2). Am I wrong? Would (1) be acceptable too? Again, I can imagine (3) too, mainly because I've looked at so many papers (often written by non-natives), that I no longer know what's right or wrong.
C:
(1) While some authors claim A (e.g. Smith 1958, Smithson 1969, Smitherson et al. 1980), others claim B (e.g. David 1947, Davidson 1991 and Davenport 2002). Our results suggest that the...
(2) While some authors have claimed A (e.g. Smith 1958, Smithson 1969, Smitherson et al. 1980), others have claimed B (e.g. David 1947, Davidson 1991 and Davenport 2002). Our results suggest that the...
(3) While some authors claimed A (e.g. Smith 1958, Smithson 1969, Smitherson et al. 1980), others claimed B (e.g. David 1947, Davidson 1991 and Davenport 2002). Our results suggest that the...
My opinion: I assume (3) might only be acceptable if our results resolved the issue once and for all, perhaps. (2) seems to imply more strongly there has been an disagreement, while (1) merely reports what can be found in the literature. But, frankly, now I feel like I no longer know anything about English grammar.
Many thanks for any help or advice!
P.
Top answer
I agree that there is sometimes simply inconsistency, with no clear differences intended. However, here are a few comments on slight implications I feel in the A section. A: (1) Smith (1958) suggests the structure is rather different.
- I agree that there is sometimes simply inconsistency, with no clear differences intended.
- However, here are a few comments on slight implications I feel in the A section.
- A: (1) Smith (1958) suggests the structure is rather different.
- Implies to me that his idea is still accepted.
- (2) Smith (1958) has suggested the structure is rather different.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
I agree that there is sometimes simply inconsistency, with no clear differences intended.
However, here are a few comments on slight implications I feel in the A section.
A:
(1) Smith (1958) suggests the structure is rather different. Implies to me that his idea is still accepted.
However, here are a few comments on slight implications I feel in the A section.
A:
(1) Smith (1958) suggests the structure is rather different. Implies to me that his idea is still accepted.
00
Many thanks, Clive!
That's how I perceive them too. So, in fact, there is no such thing as a fixed or prescribed tense in scientific papers, right? If I understand correctly, the individual choices simply depend on the usual functions and properties of the particular tenses: simple past? not valid anymore
That's how I perceive them too. So, in fact, there is no such thing as a fixed or prescribed tense in scientific papers, right? If I understand correctly, the individual choices simply depend on the usual functions and properties of the particular tenses: simple past? not valid anymore
0
Related Questions