Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

21.3: Case study- English simple present tense

  • Page ID
    138747
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    The simple present tense in English is notoriously puzzling, as Langacker (2001) observes:

    [T]he English present is notorious for the descriptive problems it poses. Some would even refer to it as “the so-called present tense in English”, so called because a characterization in terms of present time seems hopelessly unworkable. On the one hand, it typically cannot be used for events occurring at the time of speaking. To describe what I am doing right now, I cannot felicitously use sentence [7a], with the simple present, but have to resort to the progressive, as in [7b]. On the other hand, many uses of the so-called present do not refer to present time at all, but to the future [8a], to the past [8b], or to transcendent situations where time seems irrelevant [8c]. It appears, in fact, that the present tense can be used for anything but the present time.

    (7)    a. * I write this paper right now.

            b. I am writing this paper right now.

    (8)    a. My brother leaves for China next month.

            b. I’m eating dinner last night when the phone rings. I answer it but there’s no response. Then I hear this buzzing sound.

            c. The area of a circle equals pi times the square of its radius.

    The concept of aspectual sensitivity (the potential for tense forms to select specific situation types or Aktionsart), which we introduced in Chapter 20, can help us to explain at least some of these puzzles.2 Suppose that the basic meaning of the English simple present tense is, in fact, present tense: it indicates that TU is contained within TT. In addition, suppose that the simple present imposes a selectional restriction on the described situation: only states may be described using this form of the verb. This would immediately explain why eventive (nonstative) situations that are happening at the time of speaking cannot normally be expressed in the simple present but require the progressive, as illustrated in (7).

    What happens when an event-type predicate is expressed in the simple present? Eventive predicates in the progressive can be interpreted as referring to specific events occurring at the time of speaking, as seen in (9a) and (10a), but this interpretation is not available for the simple present because of the aspectual sensitivity described in the preceding paragraph. For this reason, an event-type predicate in the simple present frequently gets a habitual interpretation, as seen in examples (9b) and (10b).3

    (9)    a. Mary is playing tennis.

            b. Mary plays tennis.

    (10)  a. Sam is feeding the cat.

            b. Sam feeds the cat.

    As discussed in Chapter 20, habitual aspect describes a recurring event or ongoing state which is a characteristic property of a certain period of time.4 Examples (9b) and (10b) describe not what Mary and Sam are doing at the time of speaking, but characteristic properties of Mary and Sam; thus these sentences actually refer to states, not events. This is an example of coercion: since the aspectual sensitivity of the simple present blocks the normal eventive sense of these predicates, they take on a stative meaning in this context. The fact that the habitual readings encode states rather than events can be seen in the fact that (9b) and (10b) cannot be appropriately used to answer the question, “What is happening?”

    A very similar use of the simple present is for gnomic (or universal) statements, like those in (11); see also (8c). Again, even though the verbs used in (11) are eventive, these sentences do not refer to specific events but to general properties.

    (11)    a. Pandas eat bamboo shoots.
              b. Water boils at 100℃.
              c. Work expands to fill the time available.
              d. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    As Langacker illustrated in (8a), the simple present can also be used to refer to events in the future. Additional examples are provided in (12). This “futurate present” usage presents two puzzles. First, we need to explain the shift in time reference. Second, we would like to account for the apparent violation of the aspectual restriction noted above: the simple present can be used to refer to specific events in the future, whereas this is normally impossible for events in the present.

    (12)    a. The Foreign Minister flies to Paris on Tuesday (but you could see him on Monday).

              b. Brazil hosts the World Cup next year.

              c. This offer ends at midnight tonight, and will not be repeated.

    Comrie (1976: 47) notes that “there is a heavy constraint on the use of the present tense with future reference, namely that the situation referred to must be one that is scheduled.” He illustrates this constraint with the examples in (13). Comrie notes that (13b) would only be acceptable if God is talking, or if humans develop new technology that allows them to schedule rain.

    (13)    a. The train departs at five o’clock tomorrow morning.

              b. ?#It rains tomorrow.

    Note also that the future interpretation of the simple present is not available within the scope of a conditional or temporal adverbial clause, as seen in (14b), since these seem to block the inference that the event is independently scheduled.

    (14)    a. If/When you touch me, I will scream.                (main clause refers to specific event)

      b. If/When you touch me, I scream.                     (only gnomic/universal interpretation is possible)

    We might explain these facts by suggesting that the futurate present is not a description of a future event, but rather an assertion that a particular event is “on the schedule” at the moment of speaking. It describes a state, specifically a property of events: the property of being scheduled. This represents another pattern of coercion. The habitual reading discussed above is unavailable because of the adverbial expressions which specify a definite future time. The scheduled future reading allows these sentences to be interpreted in a way which does not violate the aspectual sensitivity of the simple present.

    There are other eventive uses of the simple present, however, which are not so easy to explain. The “historical present” illustrated in (8b) seems to be allowed primarily in a specific genre of discourse, namely informal narrative. This usage seems to involve a shift in the deictic reference point, from the current time of speaking to the time line of the narrative. We need to recognize that such shifts are possible in order to deal with examples like (15), which should be a contradiction but is often heard on telephone answering machines.

    (15)    I’m not here right now.

    In this example the identity of the speaker and location of the speech event are interpreted in the normal way, but the hearer is expected to interpret the deictic right now as referring to the time when the recording is played, the time of hearing, rather than the original time of speaking. More study is needed to understand why this shift should license an apparent violation of the aspectual restrictions discussed above.

    Other eventive uses of the simple present include explicit performatives, playby-play reports by sportscasters, stage directions in the scripts of plays, etc.5 For now, we will simply consider these to be idiosyncratic exceptions to the general rule; that is, idiomatic uses of the simple present form.


    2 Much of the discussion in this section is based on Michaelis (2006).

    3 Examples (9b) and (10b) are taken from C. Smith (1997: 185).

    4 Comrie (1976: 27–28).

    5 See Klein (2009) for a discussion of other special uses of the present.


    21.3: Case study- English simple present tense is shared under a not declared license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

    • Was this article helpful?