Present Simple or Hard Present ?

'The sun rises in the east' -
a commonly used example of the Present Simple
Photo by @CliveSir via ELTpics on Flickr

In a recent discussion in one of the Facebook groups (this is what seems to prompt my occasional posts these days), the Present Simple was referred to as 'one of the hardest tenses for students to get'. This made me wonder whether the Present Simple, contrary to what its name suggests, is indeed not so simple, or it is just another one of those teacher-induced neuroses. Let's see why there's so much ado about the most common, unmarked English tense.

Form and Function

Structurally, the Present Simple is indeed simple: Subject + Verb. Granted, there is that annoying little 3rd person singular -s ending that complicates the matters, but research has convincingly shown that it's acquired invariably late - both in L1 and L2 speakers (see Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001 for meta-analysis).

As far as the function is concerned, things are less straightforward. Pedagogical grammars list the  following cases when the Present Simple is used:

• for habits
• for repeated actions
• for present states
• for instructions / directions
• for fixed arrangements

Two uses that often come up in grammar books are particularly dubious:

• with time clauses (which is not even a use, but rather a grammatical pattern or colligation)
• with Stative verbs (this was discussed in my earlier post)

"Puppies are cute"
another common example of the Present Simple
Photo by Daria Breus-Samolada via ELTpics on Flickr

Grammar books that offer more in-depth analyses (those for advanced levels) or the ones written for teachers break it down even further. For example, Martin Parrot's Grammar for Language Teachers suggests the following additional uses:

• with Perception verbs
• running commentary (e.g. football matches)
• past narratives (aka Historic Present)
• with Declarative verbs

He does acknowledge, however, that the main uses are for repeated events and general / timeless facts. In contrast to this 'itemised' approach, Michael Lewis in The English Verb claims that there is no need to posit separate uses or functions of the Present Simple: it has essentially one defining characteristic.

In search of primary characteristics

Lewis's The English Verb (1986) is based on the contention that all verb forms in English have clearly identifiable semantic features, i.e. they have a meaning. The book sets out to establish a unifying meaning for each verb form which covers all uses. Lewis treats the Present Simple as a pure tense in which a speaker is not interested in the temporal quality of the event: "Not only is the present simple not about Present Time, but it is not about time at all." (p. 66). The action or event in the Present Simple is conceptualized as a simple, objective fact or universal truth.

He admits that it is not easy to find one word to describe or capture the primary semantic characteristics of the Present Simple and suggests the following descriptions "single undivided entity",  "a simple whole", "totality".

As esoteric as this explanation may sound, it is helpful because it shows why in English we wouldn't normally say *How long do you know him? It's not a pure fact; it encodes temporal reference. Or, to take Lewis's own example (p. 67), it is not possible to say *If she marries him I eat my hat. The second part of the statement is the conclusion or consequence, and not a statement of objective fact. A pure tense form is therefore not possible.

A matter of fact

Lewis's all-encompassing explanation also subsumes Present Simple for timetabled events - a use that is often presented as a separate entry. For example, in Murphy's classic English Grammar in Use, after being dealt with in the first  section (Past and Present), Present Simple makes a reappearance in the Future section where it is dealt with as follows:

"We use the present simple when we talk about timetables, programmes etc" (p. 38) as well as for people if their plans are "fixed like a timetable" (ibid.).

The flight leaves at 7 pm and lands in Paris at 8 am local time.

He retires at the end of the year. 

What time do you get off work tomorrow? 

Explaining this use, Leech and Svartvik in A Communicative Grammar of English (2013) state that these events are seen as absolutely certain and unalterable so that the speaker "puts aside the doubt one naturally feels about the future" (p. 79). Compare, for example:

What time do we land? (e.g. according to the timetable - objective)
What time will we land? (e.g. now that they've announced a delay - what's your subjective opinion/prediction?)

In other words, we see the first instance as a matter of fact. Lewis's explanation suffices, and no special provision for a separate future use is necessary.

Misleading label 

So why is there so much fuss about Present Simple that it has to make an appearance in Unit 1 of every coursebook at any level? One the one hand, it's the simplest in terms of structure (S + V) and it's the most commonly used, 'default' tense in English. On the other hand, the label 'Present Simple' might be a bit of a misnomer because the 'true' present tense is, in fact, the Present Progressive/Continuous. I'm writing this blog. You're reading it now. Should the Present Simple be relabelled as 'Hard Present' then, but not because it's supposedly hard for learners but because it refers to hard, solid and timeless facts?

References

Goldschneider, J. M. & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the ‘‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51(1): 1–50

Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2013). A communicative grammar of English. London: Routledge.

Lewis, M. (1986). The English verb: An exploration of structure and meaning. Hove: Language teaching publications.

Murphy, R. (2003). English grammar in use: A self-study reference and practice book for intermediate students (with answers). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.