"The police arrested the criminal." versus "The police have arrested the criminal." Difference in meaning?

Question

1-"The police arrested the criminal."2-"The police have arrested the criminal."What is the difference in meaning? When do we use one over the other? Does it depend on the surrounding sentences or what?Thanks!

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

Here's the broad idea.

1-"The police arrested the criminal."

Just states a simpe fact about a past event. Maybe it happened 20 minutes ago. Maybe it happened 20 years ago.

This would normally be said in a context that tells the listener when the event happened.

2-"The police have arrested the criminal."

This talks about a past event in a way that shows it has some kind of importance to the present situation,

eg The police have arrested a criminal. He is my friend's brother. My friend is very upset.

Note that the exact time when the arrest happened is not important im this example..

This is the Present Perfect tense. Have you studied it yet? I've just given you the basic idea. There are lots of other details about its use.

Clive

CalifJim · Answer

nerdikarpDoes it depend on the surrounding sentences or what?

It does depend on the surrounding sentences and on the thoughts in the mind of the speaker.

I like to think of it like this. Statements in the first form (your first sentence) are behind a wall of time. The time of the event is far enough in the past that the speaker considers it a 'historical fact', completely separated from present time, completely 'behind the wall'. There is a gap of time about which nothing is said. We don't know what happened during the time gap. During the time gap, the police may even have released the criminal. We don't know how the situation stands now, in present time. The statement is entirely disconnected from the present moment.

past < .......................................[present]........................> future

< time gap >

past < ..!....||..............................[present]........................> future

^ ^ ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

'arrested' "the wall"

_____________________

Statements in the second form (your second sentence) are not about situations behind this 'time wall'. The time of the event is thought to be nearly inseparable from present time. The speaker considers the information an important part of the situation now going on in present time. Of course there is a time gap, but it is considered unimportant. It is like saying that the criminal is now in the custody of the police. The statement is connected to the present moment.

past < .||...............!....................[present]........................> future

"wall" 'have - - - - - - - - - - -

arrested'

_____________________

If this explanation confuses you, just ignore it.

CJ

Nerdikarp · Answer

Does this mean: The context of the first sentence is in the past, and the context of the second is in the present??

CalifJim · Answer

nerdikarpDoes this mean: The context of the first sentence is in the past, and the context of the second is in the present??

That's another way to explain it. Yes. The tenses are on two different axes, representing two points of view or "contexts", if you want to say it that way.

______present perfect______________present_______"will" - - - ______

/

/

/

/

_past perfect___________________past_________"would" - - - ____

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

nerdikarpDoes this mean: The context of the first sentence is in the past, and the context of the second is in the present??

Hi,

My understanding of CJ's explanation is that the event described in the first sentence is buried in the past ; it has nothing to do with the present situation, it gives some piece of information about an event in the closed "behind-the-time-wall" past. The event occured in the point of time which is now terminated, closed and completed in the past. On the other hand the second sentence hasn't got this time marker, i.e. 'time wall'. The verb 'have arrested' doesn't introduce any time marker as the simple past 'arrested' does. It simply says about the arresting of the criminal and implies some (as I understand it) strong connection with the present: I can expect additional information about the event; the arresting, for example, may have something to do with a crime which is now commenting on tv, radio, in papers and the criminal investigation is still in progress.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousMy understanding of CJ's explanation is that ...

Yes. Your understanding is correct. Your rephrasing of the concepts is correct.

CJ

"The police arrested the criminal." versus "The police have arrested the criminal." Difference in meaning?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions