Problem with tense

English translation: not wrong, but unnatural; better to use the past

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:problem with tense
Selected answer:not wrong, but unnatural; better to use the past
Entered by: Charles Davis

12:52 Mar 8, 2016
English language (monolingual) [Non-PRO]
Social Sciences - Linguistics
English term or phrase: Problem with tense
The author uses present simple to talk about the past. The article is about the novellas, the plot is summarized - present simple used, then theory follows in which the author uses present simple instead of the past. Is it acceptable?
After the French Revolution the self-creation of the nation state grows increasingly important.
The literature of Central Europe experiences rapid growth in the 19th century. The 19th-century literature plays an important role in shaping national identities.
izabela28
Local time: 10:36
not wrong, but unnatural; better to use the past
Explanation:
Summarising the plot of a work of literature in the present tense is perfectly normal in English. But for historical events or situations, it is not normal to use the present tense, at least in a formal style. It is sometimes done to lend immediacy and impact, but tends to sound journalistic and sensationalistic. In some other languages, such as Spanish, for example, it is quite normal, even in academic writing, but this is not really the case in English. When translating this sort of writing from Spanish to English I nearly always find myself turning it from the Spanish present to the English past (I'm not suggesting Spanish is involved here; I just give it as an example from my own experience).

So in the passage you have quoted it would be much better, in my view, to use past verbs:

"The literature of Central Europe experienced rapid growth in the nineteenth century. Nineteenth-century literature played an important role in shaping national identities"

Note, by the way, the "19th century literature" should not have an article.

Putting it in the present sounds unnatural to me and I would advise against it.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 44 mins (2016-03-08 13:37:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I missed out the first sentence, which would similarly be better, in my opinion, with "grew" (or "became").

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2016-03-09 05:25:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

This use of the present tense to refer to the past, often called the "historic present", certainly is used in English. My point is simply that it is less often used (in my experience) than in some other languages. It can be appropriate if you want to create a sense of immediacy and dramatise an account, but it is not generally appropriate in ordinary writing about history. It would certainly be used, for example, in a timeline, like the following:

1939: Britain declares war on Germany
1940: Germany invades France

So I stress the "not wrong" part of my answer, and also emphasise again that whether it is appropriate depends very much on the kind of writing. But as a general rule I think it's better to avoid it, and to use it sparingly if you do use it, since it can easily sound wrong.
Selected response from:

Charles Davis
Spain
Local time: 10:36
Grading comment
thanks
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
4 +10not wrong, but unnatural; better to use the past
Charles Davis
4 +4No problem
B D Finch


Discussion entries: 2





  

Answers


27 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +4
problem with tense
No problem


Explanation:
It's fine. However, this question is really more suitable for ProZ forums than KudoZ, which is meant to be for questions about terminology.

B D Finch
France
Local time: 10:36
Works in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 40

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Charles Davis: I think a question about the tenses of three verbs is specific enough for KudoZ. But as for the answer, I find the present very awkward here.
16 mins
  -> I think it is a fairly common device used to appeal to a (non-academic) reader by walking them through the story. Also, it is, perhaps, relating to the book under review, not to the writer's own historical account.

agree  David Hollywood: not wrong to use the present but a past tense more usual ... but the present isn't wrong....
1 hr
  -> I think it depends on the context of why the device of using the present tense has been adopted.

agree  Tina Vonhof (X): The present tense is often used to make historical events seem more 'alive', as if they are happening today.
2 hrs
  -> Thanks Tina. Yes, that's right, it gives the reader or listener a feeling of immediacy.

agree  Yvonne Gallagher: I've seen it quite commonly used in texts I proof. Personally, I prefer the past but am asked sometimes to keep the present and/or a mix (And I got dissed a few days ago when I suggested putting something into the past.)
5 hrs
  -> Thanks Gallagy. It's very much a question of personal preference and style. However, using the present tense does serve a purpose of immediacy and reader involvement.

agree  Cilian O'Tuama: Absolutely fine, IMO.
8 hrs
  -> Thanks Cilian
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

41 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +10
problem with tense
not wrong, but unnatural; better to use the past


Explanation:
Summarising the plot of a work of literature in the present tense is perfectly normal in English. But for historical events or situations, it is not normal to use the present tense, at least in a formal style. It is sometimes done to lend immediacy and impact, but tends to sound journalistic and sensationalistic. In some other languages, such as Spanish, for example, it is quite normal, even in academic writing, but this is not really the case in English. When translating this sort of writing from Spanish to English I nearly always find myself turning it from the Spanish present to the English past (I'm not suggesting Spanish is involved here; I just give it as an example from my own experience).

So in the passage you have quoted it would be much better, in my view, to use past verbs:

"The literature of Central Europe experienced rapid growth in the nineteenth century. Nineteenth-century literature played an important role in shaping national identities"

Note, by the way, the "19th century literature" should not have an article.

Putting it in the present sounds unnatural to me and I would advise against it.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 44 mins (2016-03-08 13:37:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I missed out the first sentence, which would similarly be better, in my opinion, with "grew" (or "became").

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2016-03-09 05:25:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

This use of the present tense to refer to the past, often called the "historic present", certainly is used in English. My point is simply that it is less often used (in my experience) than in some other languages. It can be appropriate if you want to create a sense of immediacy and dramatise an account, but it is not generally appropriate in ordinary writing about history. It would certainly be used, for example, in a timeline, like the following:

1939: Britain declares war on Germany
1940: Germany invades France

So I stress the "not wrong" part of my answer, and also emphasise again that whether it is appropriate depends very much on the kind of writing. But as a general rule I think it's better to avoid it, and to use it sparingly if you do use it, since it can easily sound wrong.

Charles Davis
Spain
Local time: 10:36
Works in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 72
Grading comment
thanks

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Sheila Wilson: "not wrong, but unnatural; better to use the past" - exactly
7 mins
  -> Thanks, Sheila

agree  Robert Forstag: Agree completely.
9 mins
  -> Thanks, Robert

agree  Edith Kelly: but that's non-pro
33 mins
  -> Thanks, Edith. Yes, you're probably right.

agree  Tony M: Yes, I totally agree: 'present-for-past' is fine WITHIN a narrative, but sounds awkward otherwise.
41 mins
  -> Thanks, Tony!

agree  Christine Andersen: Another totally agree - I think English takes the present more literally as 'actually going on' than many other languages, and in a written text the past tense sounds a lot better.
1 hr
  -> Thanks, Christine. As I say, in my work this issue comes up regularly (I translate quite a lot of academic history).

agree  David Hollywood
1 hr
  -> Thanks, David

agree  katsy
1 hr
  -> Thanks, katsy

agree  Yasutomo Kanazawa
2 hrs
  -> Thanks, Yasutomo-san :)

agree  philgoddard: Historians often do this, especially on TV, and it grates on me. The past is the past!
3 hrs
  -> Thanks, Phil. Me too. You might get away with it in a popular genre and in small doses, but it needs very careful handling. Better not to encourage it, I feel.

agree  Cilian O'Tuama: I can't not agree with this standpoint too. Well said, as always! And you qualify it with e.g. "at least in a formal style" and "journalistic" etc. (However, I can imagine scenarios where present would not seem at all unnatural to me....
8 hrs
  -> It is a matter of taste, no doubt, and certainly a matter of context and genre. Perhaps I was a shade too dismissive, but since non-native writers tend to overuse the historic present in English I think it's wise to urge caution.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search