# He is calling me three times a day.



## Hiden

What does the progressive form in the following sentence mean?

(CELLPHONE RINGING) *He is calling me three times a day. *I hear more from him than I did when we were together. (Scenario in “Source Code”)


----------



## sdgraham

I see nothing here more than "he calls me three times a day" in a rather unnatural form.


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for your insight, sdgraham-san. Can it be regarded that the speaker uses the progressive because she conceives of the habitual situation of his calling her three times a day as a temporary one and as coming to an end very soon?


----------



## Roymalika

sdgraham said:


> he calls me three times a day


What's wrong with it and how would you put it naturally?

Sorry, Hiden, for jumping in to your thread.


----------



## sdgraham

Roymalika said:


> What's wrong with it and how would you put it naturally?


I find it unnatural for native speakers.
See post #2


Hiden said:


> Thank you for your insight, sdgraham-san. Can it be regarded that the speaker uses the progressive because she conceives of the habitual situation of his calling her three times a day as a temporary one and as coming to an end very soon?


I do not play by these so-called "rules" that somebody might have imposed upon you.
I rely on nearly 80 years experience as a native English speaker from the cradle onwards.


----------



## Hiden

sdgraham-san, thank you for your insightful feedback. It helps a lot. I think that it's just recently that this has been happening and that it is basically the same as “He has been calling me three times a day since I broke up with him recently". Does it make sense to you?


----------



## sdgraham

Hiden said:


> I think that it's just recently this has been happening and that it is basically the same as “He has been calling me three times a day since I broke up with him recently".


I don't, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Hiden

sdgraham-san, thank you for your asnwer. You've been helpful. I must think about it in more depth.


----------



## kentix

I think that's the nuance. "Now that we've broken up he has gotten into the habit of calling me frequently. It wasn't like this before." It implies she might not be happy about it.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> What does the progressive form in the following sentence mean?
> 
> (CELLPHONE LINGING) *He is calling me three times a day. *I hear more from him than I did when we were together. (Scenario in “Source Code”)



This is emphatic. Because this is present progressive, we understand that this activity is temporary. It's very unlikely that the speaker means that this person calls him three times a day and that this is the permanent status, or relatively permanent status, of this phone calling activity.

1) He's calling me three times a day. <<

This is emphatic. For some reason, the speaker believes it's necessary to be emphatic. It's not something that the speaker thinks about. The speaker just says it this way. Using present progressive, in this way, to express emphasis does not occur frequently. However, it is possible, and it can occur.

So this could be used for emphasis in place of simple present. Or this could be used for emphasis in place of present perfect progressive.

2) He's been calling me three times a day. <<

If not for using present progressive as an emphatic expression in this context, this is what the speaker could say or would likely say. This is the usual and normal way to express that someone started calling you three times a day in the past and it continues up until now. We understand that this activity is temporary, and we understand that, while this activity can continue into the future, it is going to stop sometime not too long from the present time. Given what we understand to be usual or common contexts, this is what we can infer.

3) He calls me three times a day.<<

Context would have to tell us that this is a regular activity that the speaker views it as relatively permanent. Or, we could say, there is some degree of permanence in the viewpoint of the speaker. It's unlikely that this person will continue calling the speaker three times a day to the extent that we can assign permanent status to this activity. Therefore, this is an unlikely sentence for the context.

4) He calls me three times a day now. <<

With the time marker, "now", the speaker could mean that this phone calling activity is temporary. With simple present, in this way, the speaker could mean, and we could understand, that this phone calling activity is temporary.

____________________

We interpret, and understand, an activity or action as being permanent in context based on the speaker's viewpoint and what we can logically infer from context.

____________________

In this context, the speaker uses present progressive to be emphatic. Normally, we use present perfect progressive to speak of something like strange or unusual phone calling activity: the speaker finds it strange that this person is calling three times a day.

It's possible, as well, that the speaker may not be pleased with this activity, and this could, or would, prompt the speaker to use an emphatic expression, which, in this case, is present progressive.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> This is emphatic. Because this is present progressive, we understand that this activity is temporary. It's very unlikely that the speaker means that this person calls him three times a day and that this is the permanent status, or relatively permanent status, of this phone calling activity.
> 
> 1) He's calling me three times a day. <<
> 
> This is emphatic. For some reason, the speaker believes it's necessary to be emphatic. It's not something that the speaker thinks about. The speaker just says it this way. Using present progressive, in this way, to express emphasis does not occur frequently. However, it is possible, and it can occur.
> 
> So this could be used for emphasis in place of simple present. Or this could be used for emphasis in place of present perfect progressive.
> 
> 2) He's been calling me three times a day. <<
> 
> If not for using present progressive as an emphatic expression in this context, this is what the speaker could say or would likely say. This is the usual and normal way to express that someone started calling you three times a day in the past and it continues up until now. We understand that this activity is temporary, and we understand that, while this activity can continue into the future, it is going to stop sometime not too long from the present time. Given what we understand to be usual or common contexts, this is what we can infer.
> 
> 3) He calls me three times a day.<<
> 
> Context would have to tell us that this is a regular activity that the speaker views as relatively permanent. Or, we could say, there is some degree of permanence in the viewpoint of the speaker. It's unlikely that this person will continue calling the speaker three times a day to the extent that we can assign permanent status to this activity. Therefore, this is an unlikely sentence for the context.
> 
> 4) He calls me three times a day now. <<
> 
> With the time marker, "now", the speaker could mean that this phone calling activity is temporary. With simple present, in this way, the speaker could mean, and we could understand, that this phone calling activity is temporary.
> 
> ____________________
> 
> We interpret, and understand, an activity or action as being permanent in context based on the speaker's viewpoint and what we can logically infer from context.
> 
> ____________________
> 
> In this context, the speaker uses present progressive to be emphatic. Normally, we use present perfect progressive to speak of something like strange or unusual phone calling activity: the speaker finds it strange that this person is calling three times a day.
> 
> It's possible, as well, that the speaker may not be pleased with this activity, and this could, or would, prompt the speaker to use an emphatic expression, which, in this case, is present progressive.


Nice to meet you, Steven David-san. Thank you for explaining it in so detail. It is worth preserving as document. Can I ask you just one more question about this topic? Do you think the same applies to the following case?:

“I’*m working* at the Royal Clifton,” I told him. “You said you *were working* in Salisbury.” “Well, I’m not—not for another month.” “You're a porter at the Royal Clifton?” “No” “Make your mind up.” “I'm not working as a porter, I said, exasperated beyond caution. "I'*m working* as a doctor." (John Collee "_A Paper Mask"_)

I think that in (7), _not for another month _suggests that the habitual situation of the speaker’s working at the Royal Clifton Hospital is conceived of as being temporary and as coming to an end. Does it make sense to you?


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Thank you for explaining it in so detail. It is worth preserving as document. Can I ask you just one more question about this topic? Do you think the same apply to the following case?:
> 
> “I’*m working* at the Royal Clifton,” I told him. “You said you *were working* in Salisbury.” “Well, I’m not—not for another month.” “You're a porter at the Royal Clifton?” “No” “Make your mind up.” “I'm not working as a porter, I said, exasperated beyond caution. "I'*m working* as a doctor." (John Collee "_A Paper Mask"_)
> 
> I think that in (7), _not for another month _suggests that the habitual situation of the speaker’s working at the Royal Clifton Hospital is conceived of as being temporary and as coming to an end. Does it make sense to you?



You're welcome. Yes, you can.

Yes, this makes sense. For him, this location is temporary. It's a temporary work location.

Yes, more or less, the same can apply. However, this requires a separate explanation because these are different sentences in another context.

When speaking of where he's working, he could, or would, use present progressive because these working situations are temporary. In other words, he doesn't work at the same place all the time, and his location changes each month or each week.

I'm working as a doctor. < <

Obviously, this is not temporary work. However, he uses present progressive because he is exasperated. He can't believe that he has to repeat, again, what he does for work. Or he can't believe that the listener does not know this . He believes the listener should know this.

This is, we could say, annoying or irritating to the speaker. This is what could, or would, prompt him to use present progressive.

_________

To summarize, I'll use a technical word.

We should always consider the "durative" quality of simple present and present progressive in context. We must always consider, as well, speaker viewpoint. We consider speaker viewpoint to the extent that we can infer speaker viewpoint in context.

1) In the above examples, we can understand that the speaker does not work in the same place every month.

2) And we can also understand that the speaker is exasperated because he has to say what he does for work, again. In this case, present progressive is used in place of simple present. So we understand that, given context, present progressive takes on the durative quality of simple present. He is permanently a doctor: this is his regular work. However, he uses present progressive to express this because of his viewpoint in context.

These are what prompt the speaker to use present progressive. It's important to remember that a native speaker of English does not think about this. It is not a conscious decision. This is just what the speaker decides to say in the moment.

At first, the choice between simple present and present progressive seems clear when reading about this in English grammar method books. Generally speaking, the way simple present and present progressive are presented in English grammar method books is how this works. However, as we can see here, at more advanced levels, we find that the distinction between simple present and present progressive does not always work the way it is presented in English grammar method books.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> You're welcome. Yes, you can.
> 
> Yes, this makes sense. For him, this location is temporary. It's a temporary work location.
> 
> Yes, more or less, the same can apply. However, this requires a separate explanation because these are different sentences in another context.
> 
> When speaking of where he's working, he could, or would, use present progressive because these working situations are temporary. In other words, maybe, he doesn't work at the same place all the time, and his location changes each month or each week.
> 
> I'm working as a doctor. < <
> 
> Obviously, this is not temporary work. However, he uses present progressive because he is exasperated. He can't believe that he has to repeat, again, what he does for work. This is, we could say, annoying or irritating to the speaker. This is what could, or would, prompt him to use present progressive.
> 
> _________
> 
> To summarize, I'll use a technical word.
> 
> We should always consider the durative quality of simple present and present progressive in context. We must always consider, as well, speaker viewpoint. We consider speaker viewpoint to the extent that we can infer speaker viewpoint in context.
> 
> In the above examples, we can understand that the speaker does not work in the same place every month.
> 
> And we can also understand that the speaker is exasperated because he has to say what he does for work, again.
> 
> These are what prompt the speaker to use present progressive. It's important to remember that a native speaker of English does not think about this. It is not a conscious decision. This is just what the speaker decides to say in the moment.
> 
> At first, the choice between simple present and present progressive seems clear when reading about this in English grammar method books. Generally speaking, the way simple present and present progressive are presented in English grammar method books is how this works. However, as we can see here, at more advanced levels, we find that the distinction between simple present and present progressive does not always work the way it is presented in English grammar method books.


Thank you for your insightful feedback. I assume from your answer that you have studied linguistics before or that you're a researcher of linguistics. I will keep it as document for my reference. Again, than you for taking your time for answerning my questions. You've been helpful.


----------



## Roymalika

sdgraham said:


> I find it unnatural for native speakers.
> See post #2


OK, thanks, but you didn't tell me what teh natural way to put it is.


----------



## sdgraham

Roymalika said:


> OK, thanks, but you didn't tell me what teh natural way to put it is.


I did in post #2
"he calls me three times a day" 
Unfortunately, this thread has gone off-track by a poster who created a context to fit his preconception.


----------



## Hiden

kentix said:


> I think that's the nuance. "Now that we've broken up he has gotten into the habit of calling me frequently. It wasn't like this before." It implies she might not be happy about it.


kentix-san, thank you for your insightful feedback. It helps a lot.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Thank you for your insightful feedback. I assume from your answer that you have studied linguistics before or that you're a researcher of linguistics. I will keep it as document for my reference. Again, than you for taking your time for answerning my questions. You've been helpful.



You're welcome, Hiden-san.

It's very good that you find my replies helpful and useful and can refer to them later on.

Thank you for saying so.


----------



## velisarius

As is often the case with the continuous aspect, it sounds more vivid than a matter-of-fact "He calls me three times a day". For me, it emphasises the drama of the situation.

It also implies that this is a new development.


----------



## bennymix

kentix said:


> I think that's the nuance. "Now that we've broken up he has gotten into the habit of calling me frequently. It wasn't like this before." It implies she might not be happy about it.



Agreed.  The progressive denotes a habit or regular occurrence.    The 'ing' makes it more vivid and 'present'.   "He calls me three times a day" is less immediate.   I see Velisarius has already made a similar point.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David-san.
I checked the scene on DVD. It looks like the speaker is attracted to the listener. Thus, I assume she (i.e. the speaker) believes that it's necessary to emphasis that the situation of her ex-boyfriend calling her three times a day is temporary and that it will come to an end not too long from the present time. Does it make sense?


----------



## Hiden

velisarius said:


> As is often the case with the continuous aspect, it sounds more vivid than a matter-of-fact "He calls me three times a day". For me, it emphasises the drama of the situation.
> 
> It also implies that this is a new development.


Thank you for your insight. It helps.


----------



## Hiden

bennymix said:


> Agreed.  The progressive denotes a habit or regular occurrence.    The 'ing' makes it more vivid and 'present'.   "He calls me three times a day" is less immediate.


Thank you for your insight. It hleps a lot.


----------



## bennymix

sdgraham said:


> I find it unnatural for native speakers.
> See post #2
> 
> I do not play by these so-called "rules" that somebody might have imposed upon you.
> I rely on nearly 80 years experience as a native English speaker from the cradle onwards.



Good points!    But as to your last sentence, how can that be?   You weren't a day over 60 when I last saw you!


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Steven David-san.
> I checked the scene on DVD. It looks like the speaker is attracted to the listener. Thus, I assume she (i.e. the speaker) believes that it's necessary to emphasis that the situation of her ex-boyfriend calling her three times a day is temporary and that it will come to an end not too long from the present time. Does it make sense?




Yes, it makes sense.

It means that the situation is temporary, and it will come to an end.

I would say that the speaker uses present progressive to express some dissatisfaction with these phone calls and to ensure that the listener knows that she's not pleased with these phone calls. There's no way I can really know that without hearing or observing the dialogue. However, this is a reasonable interpretation given the contextual information that you provided.

Using present progressive gives the speaker and the listener a sense that the phone calls are happening at that very (same) moment. However, they, obviously, are not. And this is what makes this sentence emphatic in this particular context.

"He's calling me three times a day."


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> Yes, it makes sense.
> 
> It means that the situation is temporary, and it will come to an end.
> 
> I would say that the speaker uses present progressive to express some dissatisfaction with these phone calls and to ensure that the listener knows that she's not pleased with these phone calls. There's no way I can really know that without hearing or observing the dialogue. However, this is a reasonable interpretation given the contextual information that you provided.
> 
> Using present progressive gives the speaker and the listener a sense that the phone calls are happening at that very (same) moment. However, they, obviously, are not. And this is what makes this sentence emphatic in this particular context.
> 
> "He's calling me three times a day."


Thank you for answerning my constant questions. You've been helpful.


----------



## bennymix

SD (post #10):  We understand that this activity is temporary, and we understand that, while this activity can continue into the future, it is going to stop sometime not too long from the present time. 

I see no evidence that the pattern of calls is temporary.   We don't know if it will go on for a week, a month or a year.   I see no reason to say "not too long from the present time."

I'd say the speaker is not taking any position on 'temporary' or 'long lasting.'

This is not a single instance like "I am typing now."   It more like "I'm calling for my son every day, because it's been weeks since I heard from him."


----------



## Hiden

bennymix said:


> SD (post #10):  We understand that this activity is temporary, and we understand that, while this activity can continue into the future, it is going to stop sometime not too long from the present time.
> 
> I see no evidence that the pattern of calls is temporary.   We don't know if it will go on for a week, a month or a year.   I see no reason to say "not too long from the present time."
> 
> I'd say the speaker is not taking any position on 'temporary' or 'long lasting.'
> 
> This is not a single instance like "I am typing now."   It more like "I'm calling for my son every day, because it's been weeks since I heard from him."



It is often said that the progressive form is used to express that a situation with the initial and final endpoints is still continuing at the time of speaking. Thus, the situation (a single situation or a habitual situation) denoted by the progressive eventually comes to an end sometime in the future. I believe that the existance of this final endpoint gives the impression that the situation in question is temporary associated with the natural thinking pattern of humans. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## cubaMania

Hiden said:
			
		

> "It is often said that the progressive form is used to express that a situation with the initial and final endpoints..."


 ????
What initial and final endpoints?  Said by whom?
I agree with bennymix's assessment.
In my view, the present progressive in your sentence implies a habitual action, but says nothing whatsoever, either for or against, the notion that it is temporary. Maybe it will turn out to be temporary, maybe it won't.  We don't know that from the sentence as it stands.


----------



## Hiden

cubaMania said:


> ????
> What initial and final endpoints?  Said by whom?
> I agree with bennymix's assessment.
> In my view, the present progressive in your sentence implies a habitual action, but says nothing whatsoever, either for or against, the notion that it is temporary. Maybe it will turn out to be temporary, maybe it won't.  We don't know that from the sentence as it stands.


Thank you for your insight. It helps. I wanted to say that the progressive is used to express that a situation that is concieved of as having an  endpoint has not ended, i.e. it is still continuing at the time of speaking.


----------



## cubaMania

The present continuous/progressive will not accomplish that goal.  "A situation that comes to an end has not ended" is not implied by the present continuous/progressive.  It does tell you that "it is still continuing at the time of speaking" but it does not tell you anything about whether (or when) it will end.


----------



## PaulQ

Hiden said:


> What does the progressive form in the following sentence mean?
> 
> (CELLPHONE RINGING) *He is calling me three times a day.*


It means that the speaker knows there is a pattern to his repeated calls and that the series of calls has not finished at the time he said those words.

The -ing form1 always implies that*, at the time referred to,* the action is incomplete. Here, the action is the series of calls.

1 The continuous form used to be known as “the imperfect”: It was called “imperfect” because the action had not been “perfected” i.e. it had not finished.

OED:
*Imperfect: *5. _Grammar_. Applied to a tense which denotes action going on but not completed; usually _[edit PaulQ- but not always]_ to the _past_ tense of incomplete or progressive action.
1871   H. J. Roby _Gram. Latin Lang._ §549   Three [tenses] denoting incomplete action; the Present, Future, and Imperfect (sometimes called respectively, present imperfect, future imperfect, past imperfect).


----------



## Hiden

cubaMania-san, I have edited my last comment. Does it still sound like it does not make sense?


----------



## Hiden

PaulQ said:


> It means that the speaker knows there is a pattern to his repeated calls and that the series of calls has not finished at the time he said those words.
> 
> The -ing form1 always implies that*, at the time referred to,* the action is incomplete. Here, the action is the series of calls.
> 
> 1 The continuous form used to be known as “the imperfect”: It was called “imperfect” because the action had not been “perfected” i.e. it had not finished.
> 
> OED:
> *Imperfect: *5. _Grammar_. Applied to a tense which denotes action going on but not completed; usually _[edit PaulQ- but not always]_ to the _past_ tense of incomplete or progressive action.
> 1871   H. J. Roby _Gram. Latin Lang._ §549   Three [tenses] denoting incomplete action; the Present, Future, and Imperfect (sometimes called respectively, present imperfect, future imperfect, past imperfect).


Langacker (2002: 226) states that the effect of -ing is to imperfectivize the perfective process.... This means the same as what I said in #27 and #29.


----------



## Hiden

cubaMania said:


> The present continuous/progressive will not accomplish that goal.  "A situation that comes to an end has not ended" is not implied by the present continuous/progressive.  It does tell you that "it is still continuing at the time of speaking" but it does not tell you anything about whether (or when) it will end.


Langacker (2002: 226) states that the effect of -ing is to imperfectivize the perfective process.... This means that the progressive form is used to express that a situation that is construed as having an endpoint has not terminated/completed, i.e. it's still continuing. I was saying in #27 and #29 that the existance of this endpoint makes it sound like the situation is temporary, associated with the natural thinking pattern of humans. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## PaulQ

Hiden said:


> imperfectivize


Now there's a good verb...


Hiden said:


> I was saying that the existence of this endpoint makes people feel the situation as if it is temporary,


I think "temporary" - constrained with respect to a limited time -  may not carry the same meaning to our readers as Langacker might intend to a more specialised audience. 

Temporary and incomplete are not synonyms, as, until, or if, something finishes, we do not know if it is temporary.


----------



## Hiden

PaulQ said:


> Now there's a good verb...
> 
> I think "temporary" - constrained with respect to a limited time -  may not carry the same meaning to our readers as Langacker might intend to a more specialised audience.
> 
> Temporary and incomplete are not synonyms, as, until, or if, something finishes, we do not know if it is temporary.



Thank you for your insightful feedback. A situation having an endpoint does not always mean that it is temporary but it tends to be seen as temporary because of the endpoint. I'm thinking that this is the natural thinking pattern of humans. Compare: "Industry is growing in South America." and "I'm living in Japan." Leech (2001: 427) states that the temporary period can be as long as a few years or as short as a few seconds. I’m open to any opinion.


----------



## Steven David

bennymix said:


> SD (post #10):  We understand that this activity is temporary, and we understand that, while this activity can continue into the future, it is going to stop sometime not too long from the present time.
> 
> I see no evidence that the pattern of calls is temporary.   We don't know if it will go on for a week, a month or a year.   I see no reason to say "not too long from the present time."
> 
> I'd say the speaker is not taking any position on 'temporary' or 'long lasting.'
> 
> This is not a single instance like "I am typing now."   It more like "I'm calling for my son every day, because it's been weeks since I heard from him."




The present progressive form itself indicates that the activity is temporary.

_____________________



Hiden said:


> It is often said that the progressive form is used to express that a situation with the initial and final endpoints is still continuing at the time of speaking. Thus, the situation (a single situation or a habitual situation) denoted by the progressive eventually comes to an end sometime in the future. I believe that the existance of this final endpoint gives the impression that the situation in question is temporary associated with the natural thinking pattern of human. Correct me if I'm wrong.




You are correct, Hiden-san.

Your assessment is correct.

Her ex-boyfriend calling three times a day is strange and unusual. It is not the sort of activity anyone should normally expect.

Again, present progressive, in this case, is used in place of present perfect progressive. This is emphatic.

"He's been calling me three times a day."

"He's calling me three times a day."

It is very unreasonable to believe, or think, that her ex-boyfriend continues to call her three times a day with no end in sight to the point that this can be considered a permanent activity.

The speaker does not have to explicitly state, somehow, that this is a temporary activity with some end in sight in order for us to understand this.

The progressive form, contextual information -- and the natural expectation that unusual activity such as calling someone three times a day is not permanent -- are enough to automatically tell us that calling three times a day is temporary, not permanent.

To believe that this is, somehow, an activity with no end in sight, which is to say relatively speaking permanent, is not a logical inference.

Additional statements to reaffirm and assert the above are not necessary. We could look to additional contextual information from the scene in this movie or in the entire movie. The movie itself would be a reflection of what we can normally and reasonably expect of human behavior and thinking.

Or, in other words, we can safely bet that the activity of calling three times a day is not, relatively speaking, permanent and does not become permanent.

Also, again, present progresive sentences, including present perfect progressive sentences, are not expressions of permanence. Present progressive, in the first place, tells us that an activity is, relatively speaking, temporary, which is to say it is not expected to take hold as the normal and usual state of things.

Note: Present perfect progressive can also tell us that an activity or action started, relatively speaking, a very long time ago. However, we also take into consideration context, and the context in this movie is what we normally expect of human behavior and thinking in such relationships as portrayed in the movie. The time frame provided within the context of this movie, and many movies, does not tell us that the activity of calling three times a day started a long time ago. This activity started recently, and we can very reasonably expect that it will not become permanent, which is to say, again, it will not become the normal and usual state of things.

*Reference your quotation from Leech: Yes, that's it.*
_____________________



Hiden said:


> Thank you for answerning my constant questions. You've been helpful.



You're welcome.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> Also, again, present progresive sentences, including present perfect progressive sentences, are not expressions of permanence. Present progressive, in the first place, tells us that an activity is, relatively speaking, temporary, which is to say it is not expected to take hold as the normal and usual state of things.



Thank you for your answer, Steven-san. I completely agree with what you say. Therefore, in a context like (1), the progressive present perfect form tends to be preferred, whereas in a context like (2), the non-progressive present perfect form tends to be preferred:

(1) I'*ve been teaching* English for 22 years. *I can't see myself retiring any time soon. *
(2) I'*ve taught English* for 22 years. *I can't see myself retiring. *

In (1), the situation is seen as having an endpoint (i.e., as an activity / unstable habit / non-permanent habit), whereas in (2), the situation is seen as having no endpoint (i.e., as a stative / stable habit / permanent habit).


----------



## kentix

"He's calling me three times a day" does not imply any _foreseeable_ endpoint. The only definite endpoint is when he's dead. The calls will likely stop at that point. If the calls continue after that, you have a different type of movie. But looking at the IMDb entry, I'm reminded I've seen this movie and that might not be impossible either.

In any event, in normal life, that is a comment on the current situation. The way I look at it, she sees the whole thing as one ongoing process. It consists of multiple phone calls but it's one process. Even when she's not on the phone with him, even between calls, she feels she is caught in that process.

Contrast that with a woman with a child. "My son calls me three times a day. He calls me when he gets to school so I know he made it, he calls me when goes to lunch just to say hi, and he calls me when he is finished with baseball practice and I have to come pick him up." Those are three separate events. They are regular but they are separate. Saying "He's calling me three times a day" would make no sense in that context. "He calls me three times a day" makes perfect sense as a factual description. He calls three times a day because that's the arrangement the mother and son have made.

In the OP, what she is telling the new guy is "I have no control over this and I'm not sure why he's doing it and I'm not happy with it." It's her way of letting the new guy know she does not have a continuing interest in the old guy. His calls are something she is subject to, not something she is happy with or has arranged for. But there is no sign of if and when the calls will end, at this point.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Thank you for your answer, Steven-san. Therefore, in a context like (1), the progressive present perfect form tends to be preferred, whereas in a context like (2), the non-progressive present perfect form tends to be preferred:
> 
> (1) I'*ve been teaching* English for 22 years. *I can't see myself retiring any time soon. *
> (2) I'*ve taught English* for 22 years. *I can't see myself retiring. *
> 
> In (1), the situation is seen as having an endpoint (i.e., as an activity), whereas in (2), the situation is seen as having no endpoint (i.e., as a stative).



You're welcome, hiden-san.

No, with these examples, this would not be the case.

Whether or not a speaker uses present perfect or present perfect progressive has to do with how a speaker views the action or activity: 1) present perfect: the action or activity as a "whole action or activity" over 22 years or 2) present perfect progressive: the "action or activity as ongoing" day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, or year-to-year throughout 22 years.

The result of present perfect and present perfect progressive in the above example sentences is the same. The teacher's total teaching time up until now is 22 years, and the teacher continues teaching after 22 years.

In other words, with the above example sentences, present perfect progressive is not any more likely to be seen as having an endpoint than present perfect. Also, this would not be a factor in a speaker choosing one or the other in the moment or at the time of speaking. Both sentences tell us that the activity started in the past, and we cannot say when the activity will end, especially given that the teacher states that he or she has no intention, at this point, of stopping.

In this case, the choice between present perfect progressive and present perfect is psychological. In other words, it has to do with how the speaker views the action or activity.

I would say that the present perfect progressive sentence is more likely. However, the present perfect sentence is still correct. Someone could say either one of these.

Here's another example in which it's obvious that an activity started a long time ago and there's no end in sight. This is present perfect progressive.

People in the United States have been celebrating Independence Day for over 200 years.

Here's one more example:

When did people start observing Halloween?

I don't know, but it's been going on for a long time. And it doesn't seem that it's going to end any time soon.

_________

Note:

I would not compare present perfect to present perfect progressive in the same way that we compare simple present to present progressive.

The two pairs contrast in different ways.

In any event, there's overlap among the four forms in consideration of speaker viewpoint. We can compare any of these four forms to another of these four forms. We just have to be careful how we do this.

We could say that context provides a window into which we can understand, and see, why a speaker chooses to say something in a particular way. We have to take into account as many aspects of context as we can. This is what we have been doing in this discussion or thread.


----------



## Hiden

kentix said:


> "He's calling me three times a day" does not imply any _foreseeable_ endpoint. The only definite endpoint is when he's dead. The calls will likely stop at that point. If the calls continue after that, you have a different type of movie. But looking at the IMDb entry, I'm reminded I've seen this movie and that might not be impossible either.
> 
> In any event, in normal life, that is a comment on the current situation. The way I look at it, she sees the whole thing as one ongoing process. It consists of multiple phone calls but it's one process. Even when she's not on the phone with him, even between calls, she feels she is caught in that process.
> 
> Contrast that with a woman with a child. "My son calls me three times a day. He calls me when he gets to school so I know he made it, he calls me when goes to lunch just to say hi, and he calls me when he is finished with baseball practice and I have to come pick him up." Those are three separate events. They are regular but they are separate. Saying "He's calling me three times a day" would make no sense in that context. "He calls me three times a day" makes perfect sense as a factual description. He calls three times a day because that's the arrangement the mother and son have made.
> 
> In the OP, what she is telling the new guy is "I have no control over this and I'm not sure why he's doing it and I'm not happy with it." It's her way of letting the new guy know she does not have a continuing interest in the old guy. His calls are something she is subject to, not something she is happy with or has arranged for. But there is no sign of if and when the calls will end, at this point.


Thank you for your feedback. It helps a lot. I must think abut it in more depth.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> You're welcome, hiden - san.
> 
> No, with these examples, this would not be the case.
> 
> Whether or not a speaker uses present perfect or present perfect progressive has to do with how a speaker views the action or activity: 1) present perfect: the action or activity as a "whole action or activity" over 22 years or 2) present perfect progressive: the "action or activity as ongoing" day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, or year-to-year throughout 22 years.
> 
> The result of present perfect and present perfect progressive in the above example sentences is the same. The teacher's total teaching time up until now is 22 years, and the teacher continues teaching after 22 years.
> 
> In other words, with the above example sentences, present perfect progressive is not any more likely to be seen as having an endpoint than present perfect. Also, this would not be a factor in a speaker choosing one or the other in the moment or at the time of speaking. Both sentences tell us that the activity started in the past, and we cannot say when the activity will end, especially given that the teacher states that he or she has no intention, at this point, of stopping.
> 
> In this case, the choice between present perfect progressive and present perfect is psychological. In other words, it has to do with how the speaker views the action or activity.
> 
> I would say that the present perfect progressive sentence is more likely. However, the present perfect sentence is still correct. Someone could say either one of these.
> 
> Here's another example in which it's obvious that an activity started a long time ago and there's no end in sight. This is present perfect progressive.
> 
> People in the United States have been celebrating independence day for over 200 years.
> 
> Here's one more example:
> 
> When did people start observing Halloween?
> 
> I don't know, but it's been going on for a long time. And it doesn't seem that it's going to end anytime soon.
> 
> _________
> 
> Note:
> 
> I would not compare present perfect to present perfect progressive in the same way that we compare simple present to present progressive.
> 
> The two pairs contrast in different ways.
> 
> In any event there's overlap among the four forms in consideration of speaker viewpoint. In other words, we could say that context provides a window into which we can understand, and see, why a speaker chooses to say something in a particular way. We have to take into account as many aspects of context as we can. This is what we have been doing in this discussion or thread.


Thank you for your answer. I'm going to have to think about the difference in more depth.  Again thank you for your insightful feedback. You have been helpful.


----------



## Steven David

> post number 39

> Saying "He's calling me three times a day" would make no sense in that context. "He calls me three times a day" makes perfect sense as a factual description. He calls three times a day because that's the arrangement the mother and son have made. <

Yes, I agree. However, this would not be the case in the original example sentence of this thread.

In the original example sentence, no such arrangement has been made. And, again, in the original example sentence, we can very reasonably expect that calling three times a day will not take hold as the normal state of things. This is why the speaker does not use simple present in the original example sentence.

In the original example sentence, it's really that the speaker is using present progressive in place of present perfect progressive.

_________



Hiden said:


> Thank you for your answer. I'm going to have to think about the difference in more depth.  Again thank you for your insightful feedback. You have been helpful.



You're welcome. I'm glad you find my replies helpful.


----------



## Forero

I see nothing unnatural about any of these sentences:

_He is calling me three times a day. I hear more from him than I did when we were together.

I’m working at the Royal Clifton.
I'm working as a doctor.

I'm living out on Long Island.
She's having hot flashes.
I'm having fewer headaches.
The baby is sleeping all night most nights._

They are all about the current "state of affairs", a normal use of present progressive, and none of these present progressive sentences explicitly says that a change has taken place or that the situation is temporary. (The second sentence in the first example does tell us a change has taken place.)

I also don't see anything being particularly emphasized.


----------



## Hiden

Forero said:


> I see nothing unnatural about any of these sentences:
> 
> _He is calling me three times a day. I hear more from him than I did when we were together.
> 
> I’m working at the Royal Clifton.
> I'm working as a doctor.
> 
> I'm living out on Long Island.
> She's having hot flashes.
> I'm having fewer headaches.
> The baby is sleeping all night most nights._
> 
> They are all about the current "state of affairs", a normal use of present progressive, and none of these present progressive sentences explicitly says that a change has taken place or that the situation is temporary. (The second sentence in the first example does tell us a change has taken place.)
> 
> I also don't see anything being particularly emphasized.


Thank you for sharing your insight. It helps.


----------



## Hiden

Once again, thank you for sharing your insightful feedback, everyone. I will think about the idea (permanent or non-permanent) in more depth in order for it to withstand intense scrutiny.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Once again, thank you for sharing your insightful feedback, everyone. I will think about it in more depth in order for the idea (permanent or non-permanent) to withstand intense scrutiny.



Yes, we are in search of the truth. Every assertion in language, and elsewhere, must withstand scrutiny.


----------



## SevenDays

Hiden said:


> What does the progressive form in the following sentence mean?
> 
> (CELLPHONE RINGING) *He is calling me three times a day. *I hear more from him than I did when we were together. (Scenario in “Source Code”)



Remove all context, so that we end up with:

(a) _He calls me three times a day_
(b) _He is calling me three times d day_

What's the difference between the two? The answer isn't found in syntax (syntax is fine with both); the answer has to do with semantics and pragmatics.

Some make this semantic distinction:
(a) signals "knowledge," an awareness/understanding of a situation based on facts, experience, history, etc.
(b) suggests "evidence," a particular reason for believing something.

Let's say we see a boy walking to school; _the boy walks to school _suggests that, based on what I know of him, the boy _walks everyday to school. _If I don't know anything about the boy, _the boy is walking to school _means that this is a statement based on evidence, and the evidence is what my eyes are showing me at that moment (his "walking" in the direction of school; presumably he is wearing a school uniform too). Or it could be that the boy _regularly_ takes the bus to school, but on this particular day _he is walking to school. _The "walking" is the evidence that on this day the bus is not the means of getting to school.

Accordingly, _He calls me three times a day _means "knowledge" of what he does. _He is calling me three times a day _refers to "evidence;" and the evidence is the fact that the phone _is ringing_ (something that happens three times a day). Since "is calling" refers to the precise moment that this is happening, the statement becomes_ more expressive _than the simple present (as far as the speaker is concerned).

But pragmatics/context always matters. If the phone _is ringing, _then the "evidence" that _he is calling _is obvious, so some speakers don't see a need to use the present progressive construction; _He calls me three times a day _works just fine in that context. 

Semantics/pragmatics is always fluid, and so explanations based on meaning and context can vary, but I hope my take on this can be of some help.


----------



## Forero

I don't think the knowledge/evidence distinction is relevant to the sentence in question, and the sentence is not about a precise moment.

The sentence is not "The phone is ringing" or "He is calling me", but "He is calling me three times a day." It requires either knowledge of a number of days (or knowledge sufficient to predict his calling behavior for at least one day).


----------



## Hiden

This is my conclusion for now but I'm open to any opinions.
Langacker (2002: 226) states “the effect of -ing is to imperfectivize the perfective process...” Also, Smith (1997: 174) states “Imperfective viewpoints focus on part of a situation: they give no information about its endpoints. The main English imperfective is a progressive, available neutrally only for non-stative events (i.e. situations with the initial and final endpoints)”. Following on from their statements, the progressive is used to express that a (single or habitual) situation that is conceived of as having its initial and final endpoints has not terminated/completed, i.e. it's still continuing at the time of speaking. Because of the existence of this final endpoint at the level of construal, people tend to feel that the situation expressed by the progressive is temporary, according to the natural thinking pattern of humans:

(1) (CELLPHONE RINGING) He *is calling* me three times a day. I hear more from him than I did when we were together. (Scenario in “Source Code”)
(2) “I’*m working* at the Royal Clifton,” I told him. “You said you *were working* in Salisbury.” “Well, I’m not—not for another month.” “You're a porter at the Royal Clifton?” “No” “Make your mind up.” “I'm not working as a porter, I said, exasperated beyond caution. "I'*m working *as a doctor." (John Collee "A Paper Mask")
(3) I like that suit. Is that what they’*re wearing* in London? (Scenario in “Time After Time (1979)”)
(4) Dansan: Sadakichi! Sadakichi! Where are you?
      Sadakichi: Heeei, Dansan. May I help you?
      Dansan: Look at this pillar. A nail *is sticking* out here. It’s dangerous. I need a hammer.  Go and borrow one from the neighbor.

However, the situation with the final endpoint can be long-lasting or shorter than a second:

(5) Listen, it’*s raining*. (Leech, 2004)
(6) The universe *is expanding*. (Needs to be confirmed by a native speaker)

What is important is how the conceptualizer construes the situation; it does not matter how long the situation can last. When using the progressive, the conceptualizer construes the situation as having a final endpoint.


----------



## bennymix

Sounds good, Hiden.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> This is my conclusion for now but I'm open to any opinions.
> Langacker (2002: 226) states “the effect of -ing is to imperfectivize the perfective process...” Also, Smith (1997: 174) states “Imperfective viewpoints focus on part of a situation: they give no information about its endpoints. The main English imperfective is a progressive, available neutrally only for non-stative events (i.e. situations with the initial and final endpoints)”. Following on from their statements, the progressive is used to express that a (single or habitual) situation that is conceived of as having its initial and final endpoints has not terminated/completed, i.e. it's still continuing at the time of speaking. Because of the existence of this final endpoint at the level of construal, people tend to feel that the situation expressed by the progressive is temporary, according to the natural thinking pattern of humans:
> 
> (1) (CELLPHONE RINGING) He *is calling* me three times a day. I hear more from him than I did when we were together. (Scenario in “Source Code”)
> (2) “I’*m working* at the Royal Clifton,” I told him. “You said you *were working* in Salisbury.” “Well, I’m not—not for another month.” “You're a porter at the Royal Clifton?” “No” “Make your mind up.” “I'm not working as a porter, I said, exasperated beyond caution. "I'*m working *as a doctor." (John Collee "A Paper Mask")
> (3) I like that suit. Is that what they’*re wearing* in London? (Scenario in “Time After Time (1979)”)
> (4) Dansan: Sadakichi! Sadakichi! Where are you?
> Sadakichi: Heeei, Dansan. May I help you?
> Dansan: Look at this pillar. A nail *is sticking* out here. It’s dangerous. I need a hammer.  Go and borrow one from the neighbor.
> 
> However, the situation with the final endpoint can be long-lasting or shorter than a second:
> 
> (5) Listen, it’*s raining*. (Leech, 2004)
> (6) The universe *is expanding*. (Needs to be confirmed by a native speaker)
> 
> What is important is how the conceptualizer construes the situation; it does not matter how long the situation can last. When using the progressive, the conceptualizer construes the situation as having a final endpoint.




Hi Hiden-san,

> Because of the existence of this final endpoint at the level of construal, people tend to feel that the situation expressed by the progressive is temporary, according to the natural thinking pattern of humans: <

Yes, this is it. I agree. And this lines up with my comments in my previous posts

_________

> (6) The universe *is expanding*. (Needs to be confirmed by a native speaker) <

This activity continues for such a long time that we normally don't conceive of it having an ending. I would say that the present progressive is used here because this is an activity that is always in progress, which is to say it is continual. Our way of understanding this activity, which is to say our cognition, does not generally permit us to believe that there is an end in sight for this activity.

We can compare it to this idea, which brings us back to planet Earth.

We are always improving.<

Someone who says this would not like to think that there is an end in sight to the activity of improving. Let's take "we", in this sentence, to mean "all humans". Or the speaker could be referring to something such as a particular skill or subject matter that he or she and the listeners have in common, in which case the speaker would only be speaking of those participating in the dialogue or those that are listening.

So, with these two examples, we find that present progressive can communicate permanence. Or we could say that present progressive can communicate an extraordinarily long temporary activity. Now, we can recognize that permanence is relative. In other words, nothing is really permanent at all even though some things seem as if they could go on forever.

It seems to me that you understand the idea. I would trust yourself to further analyze something like this with your own analytical ability. This idea moves us beyond grammar and structure. I believe that Rod Mitchell, a linguist that I have had numerous exchanges with online, would say that this involves a cognitive approach to understanding language and understanding how we interpret our use of grammar, form, and structure.

__________

> What is important is how the conceptualizer construes the situation; it does not matter how long the situation can last. When using the progressive, the conceptualizer construes the situation as having a final endpoint.<


Yes, this is it. In other words, this has to do with speaker viewpoint in context.

However, again, we can find what I'll call "special cases" such as "the universe expanding" and the idea that we are "always improving". Both of these activities would not seem to have an end in sight. We know that there's an end to these activities. However, given our viewpoint of these activities, we don't recognize these as having an end in sight. We do, however, recognize that they are progressive, continuous, or ongoing.

__________

Your question and topic are very interesting, Hiden-san.


----------



## Hiden

bennymix said:


> Sounds good, Hiden.


Thank you. It helps.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> Hi Hiden-san,
> 
> > Because of the existence of this final endpoint at the level of construal, people tend to feel that the situation expressed by the progressive is temporary, according to the natural thinking pattern of humans: <
> 
> Yes, this is it. I agree. And this lines up with my comments in my previous posts
> 
> _________
> 
> > (6) The universe *is expanding*. (Needs to be confirmed by a native speaker) <
> 
> This activity continues for such a long time that we normally don't conceive of it having an ending. I would say that the present progressive is used here because this is an activity that is always in progress, which is to say it is continual. Our way of understanding this activity, which is to say our cognition, does not generally permit us to believe that there is an end in sight for this activity.
> 
> We can compare it to this idea, which brings us back to planet Earth.
> 
> We are always improving.<
> 
> Someone who says this would not like to think that there is an end in sight to the activity of improving. Let's take "we", in this sentence, to mean "all humans". Or the speaker could be referring to something such as a particular skill or subject matter that he or she and the listeners have in common, in which case the speaker would only be speaking of those participating in the dialogue or those that are listening.
> 
> So, with these two examples, we find that present progressive can communicate permanence. Or we could say that present progressive can communicate and extraordinarily long  temporary activity. Now, we can recognize that permanence is relative. In other words, nothing is really permanent at all even though some things seem as if they could go on forever.
> 
> It seems to me that you understand the idea. I would trust yourself to further analyze something like this with your own analytical ability. This idea moves us beyond grammar and structure. I believe that Rod Mitchell, a linguist that I have had numerous exchanges with online, would say that this involves a cognitive approach to understanding language and understanding how we interpret our use of grammar, form, and structure.
> 
> __________
> 
> > What is important is how the conceptualizer construes the situation; it does not matter how long the situation can last. When using the progressive, the conceptualizer construes the situation as having a final endpoint.<
> 
> 
> Yes, this is it. In other words, this has to do with speaker viewpoint in context.
> 
> However, again, we can find what I'll call "special cases" such as "the universe expanding" and the idea that we are "always improving". Both of these activities would not seem to have an end in sight. We know that there's an end to these activities. However, given our viewpoint of these activities, we don't recognize these as having an end in sight. We do, however, recognize that they are progressive, continuous, or ongoing.
> 
> __________
> 
> Your question and topic are very interesting, Hiden-san.


Thank you for your insightful feedback.  I must think about "The universe *is expanding"* in more depth.  As you say, it sounds like it expresses a parmanent situation.  Again thank you for answering my constant questions. You've been helpful. I will preserve every opinions I got here as document.


----------



## koper2

From SevenDays post (#48):

Remove all context, so that we end up with:
(a) _He calls me three times a day_
(b) _He is calling me three times a day_

It's an interesting discussion about the usage of progressive and non-progressive forms, indeed.
I've understood that (b), expressed in progressive aspect, is emotionally charged whereas (a) is not.


----------



## kentix

koper2 said:


> It's an interesting discussion about the usage of progressive and non-progressive forms, indeed.
> I've understood that (b), expressed in progressive aspect, is emotionally charged whereas (a) is not.


That's not an absolute truth. (a) could also be emotionally charged, depending on the context and how it was said.

But I think it's true that it's harder for (b) to be neutral than it is for (a) to have an emotional aspect.


----------



## Steven David

koper2 said:


> From SevenDays post (#48):
> 
> Remove all context, so that we end up with:
> 
> (a) _He calls me three times a day_
> (b) _He is calling me three times a day_
> 
> It's an interesting discussion about the usage of progressive and non-progressive forms, indeed.
> 
> I've understood that (b), expressed in progressive aspect, is emotionally charged whereas (a) is not.




I would say that this is a reasonable and fair assessment, koper2.

However, there are a couple considerations here:

1) We have to also consider that tone of voice is a factor in considering how emotionally charged a statement is.

2) As for removing all context, yes, it's possible to analyze sentences as isolated sentences. However, context and speaker viewpoint color our perception of language without exception. So it's really not practical to remove all context. We should, or we have to, take sentences on their own merit in context and relative to speaker viewpoint and listener viewpoint. [Granted, there are certain phrases or expressions that we may automatically interpret in a particular way because they are so common.]

Given context, and tone of voice, both sentences have the potential to be either emotionally charged or not emotionally charged. In other words, in addition to the specific words that a speaker uses, we should consider context, speaker viewoint within context, and, again, tone of voice.

So this is why I qualify this assessment with "reasonable and fair" ("fair" meaning justified).

Generally, you've got the idea, or you've captured the idea.

 

__________



Hiden said:


> Thank you for your insightful feedback.  I must think about "The universe *is expanding"* in more depth.  As you say, it sounds like it expresses a parmanent situation.  Again thank you for answering my constant questions. You've been helpful. I will preserve every opinions I got here as document.




You're welcome.

I look forward to your comments, and what you conclude about this, later on.


----------



## Hiden

With regard to “The universe is expanding now.”, I think it expresses that the universe changes from one size to the next and I regard that grammatically speaking, change itself always has some kind of beginning and end.


----------



## Forero

There is nothing ungrammatical about "The universe will always be expanding." You might believe that change always has an end, but that is not a grammatical issue.

Of course "always" could refer only to times when we check on it, but it could indeed mean forever.

The present perfect, then, does not say that an end occurs afterwards. It says there is no end within the present time period the speaker has in mind.

In the case of calling three times a day, the phone starts ringing, then stops ringing, and all this happens three times each day within whatever present time period the speaker has in mind. There is no suggestion of an end to the behavior, only that it is the current state of affairs.

"He is calling me three times a day" is not necessarily any more emotional than "I am getting sleepy" and the speaker's attitude may affect whether the statement should be taken literally, but the literal meaning does not require any particular emotion or level of feeling.


----------



## sdgraham

Forero said:


> "He is calling me three times a day" is not necessarily any more emotional than "I am getting sleepy" and the speaker's attitude may affect whether the statement should be taken literally, but the literal meaning does not require any particular emotion or level of feeling.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> With regard to “The universe is expanding now.”, I think it expresses that the universe changes from one size to the next and I regard that grammatically speaking, change itself always has some kind of beginning and end.




I agree. Nothing is *really* permanent in our world. The entire universe is a mystery.

"The universe is expanding." This is an extraordinarily long temporary timeframe. The idea that this is an extraordinarily long temporary time frame justifies the use of present progressive. However, I would say that simple present is possible, as well, in speaking of the universe's expansion. Because simple present is also possible, this has to mean that this extraordinarily long temporary timeframe is so long that we can still view it as permanent. In other words, both viewpoints are possible at the same time: It's temporary, and it's permanent.

In this way, I would *not* say that simple present tells us that something is "permanent". Simple present tells us what the normal state of things is. Relatively speaking, we view this state of things as being "permanent". However, we can only understand some things as "permanent" by understanding other things as "temporary". Again, nothing is really "permanent".

That said, this takes us back to the original example sentence.

"He's calling me three times a day."

We could say that this statement is emotionally charged. We could also say that the speaker is displeased, annoyed, or dissatisfied. These ideas are secondary to the idea that the speaker does not view this as the normal state of things and therefore does not use simple present.

This is present progressive used in place of present perfect progressive. This is the temporary state of things. Relatively speaking, it is not the permanent state of things. This is how the speaker views this abnormal phone calling activity: temporary and not the permanent state of things.

He's been calling me three times a day.

He's calling me three times a day.

In this particular context, using present progressive communicates a sense of tension, a heightened sense of immediacy, and a sense of urgency. It means "happening now in this timeframe", not "starting in the past and continuing up until this time or now", which is what present perfect progressive means.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> I agree. Nothing is *really* permanent in our world. The entire universe is a mystery.
> 
> "The universe is expanding." This is an extraordinarily long temporary timeframe. The idea that this is an extraordinary long temporary time frame justifies the use of present progressive. However, I would say that simple present is possible, as well, in speaking of the universe's expansion.
> 
> In this way, I would *not* say that simple present tells us that something is "permanent". Simple present tells us what the normal state of things is. Relatively speaking, we view this state of things as being "permanent". However, we can only understand something as "permanent" by understanding other things as being "temporary". Again, nothing is really "permanent".
> 
> That said, this takes us back to the original example sentence.
> 
> "He's calling me three times a day."
> 
> We could say that this statement is emotionally charged. We could also say that the speaker is displeased, annoyed, or dissatisfied. These ideas are secondary to the idea that the speaker does not view this as the normal state of things and therefore does not use simple present.
> 
> This is present progressive used in place of present perfect progressive. This is the temporary state of things. Relatively speaking, it is not the permanent state of things. This is how the speaker views this abnormal phone calling activity: temporary and not the permanent state of things.
> 
> He's been calling me three times a day.
> 
> He's calling me three times a day.
> 
> In this particular context, using present progressive communicates a sense of tension, a heightened sense of immediacy, and a sense of urgency. It means "happening now in this timeframe", not "starting in the past and continuing up until this time or now".


Thank you for your insightfull feedback. I find it very useful. I'm going to think about it in even more depth with your opinions in mind before making  final conclusion. I will post it if another different idea comes up to me.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Thank you for your insightfull feedback. I find it very useful. I'm going to think about it in even more depth with your opinions in mind before making  final conclusion. I will post it if another different idea comes up to me.




You're welcome. Please, note that I added something to this post.


----------



## Forero

To me, the sentence "He is calling me 3 times a day" communicates no more sense of tension or urgency than "He calls me 3 times a day", and the only immediacy associated with it is that the "present" is either smaller or more neatly defined in the speaker's mind with "is calling" than with "calls".

To me that suggests a change from the past, but that is not actually stated until the next sentence, and neither sentence says anything about what may or may not be the case after the speaker's "present".


----------



## sdgraham

Forero said:


> To me, the sentence "He is calling me 3 times a day" communicates no more sense of tension or urgency than "He calls me 3 times a day", and the only immediacy associated with it is that the "present" is either smaller or more neatly defined in the speaker's mind with "is calling" than with "calls".


   
A point missed by many learners who agonize over the present/present perfect progressive issie and those so-called linguists who conflond the issue, is that, at least in AE, some speakers just habitually use one form or the other and there's no substantial difference.;
The case in point is my late mother-in-law (a native speaker from New Jersey) who used the present perfect progressive for just about everything.
Edit: corrected perfect to progressive.   Sorry


----------



## velisarius

[Edited to remove no-longer-relevant comment.] 

I don't know any native speakers who fail to use both forms, though there is regional variation and not all speakers use them exactly as the grammar books describe.

Also, we are not always conscious of the subtleties conveyed by speech, just as we aren't always aware of the significance of body language - until those who have studied such things point it out to us.


----------



## Hiden

In "He *is calling* me three times a day. I hear more from him than I did when we were together." the speaker (i.e. a woman) is attracted to the listener (i.e. a man), so she implies by using the progressive that the situation of her ex-boyfriend calling her will stop very soon. Thus, I conclude that the situation is concieved of as having a final endpoint. The heightened feeling of "emotionally charged" is due to the focusing effect of -ing. It focuses our attention on the internal phase of the situation with initial and final endpoints.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> In "He *is calling* me three times a day. I hear more from him than I did when we were together." the speaker (i.e. a woman) is attracted to the listener (i.e. a man), so she implies by using the progressive that the situation of her ex-boyfriend calling her three times a day will stop very soon. Thus, I conclude that the situation is concieved of as having a final endpoint.




This is a logical conclusion. I agree.

It's only a question of what causes the ex-boyfriend to stop calling three times a day.

Possibilities:

1) The ex-boyfriend gets the message that the calls are unwanted and decides to stop. The ex-boyfriend gets tired of calling, decides to go his own way, and forgets about it.

2) The speaker tells, or asks, the ex-boyfriend to stop calling, and the ex-boyfriend agrees to stop calling.

3) The speaker creates a circumstance by which the ex-boyfriend is compelled to, or forced to, stop calling three times a day.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> This is a logical conclusion. I agree.
> 
> It's only a question of what causes the ex-boyfriend to stop calling three times a day.
> 
> Possibilities:
> 
> 1) The ex-boyfriend gets the message that the calls are unwanted and decides to stop. The ex-boyfriend gets tired of calling, decides to go his own way, and forgets about it.
> 
> 2) The speaker creates a circumstance by which the ex-boyfriend is compelled to, or forced to, stop calling three times a day.


Thank you for giving the possiblities. I agree.  And if there is a heightend feeling of "emotionally charged",  I think it is probably due to the focusing effect of -ing. It focuses our attention on the internal phase of the situation with initial and final endpoints. 

I'm always learning a lot from you, David-san.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Thank you for your comment. I'm always learning a lot from you. And if there is a heightend feeling of "emotionally charged",  I think it is probably due to the focusing effect of -ing. It focuses our attention on the internal phase of the situation with initial and final endpoints."



Yes, that's it. With present progressive only referring to "this present time frame", we could say that there is heightened awareness or some degree of tension (similar to historic present, narrative present, or dramatic present).

Present perfect progressive means that the speaker believes that there is some part of this in the past and some part of this in the present.

Present progressive tells us that the speaker is connected psychologically to this situation in the present time frame, not the past at all. And, with this psychological connection in the present, we get the idea, in a rather plain way, that the speaker is displeased with these phone calls and or doesn't like these phone calls.

Context tells us this. This is really the key. We should not look at sentences in isolation too much. Sometimes, it's possible to understand a sentence in isolation and out of context. However, where there is context, as there is in this case, we should not overlook context when concluding what a sentence means.

There is what the words mean by themselves. And then there is also pragmatics. This is to say what we can perceive given context, speaker viewpoint, and speaker attitude: the attitude of the speaker. We announce to the world how we view ourselves in relationship to other people and in relationship to circumstances and situations by what we say and how we say it.

We say something in a particular way for a reason. It's not necessarily an accident that we say something in a particular way. Of course, much of what we say is rather neutral, and there is nothing that should be read into it. However, other times this is not the case. In any event, what we say and how we say it is revealing of how we view ourselves in relationship to others and how we view ourselves in situations or circumstances.

You're welcome.


----------



## PaulQ

Hiden said:


> Compare: "Industry is growing in South America." and "I'm living in Japan." Leech (2001: 427) states that the temporary period can be as long as a few years or as short as a few seconds. I’m open to any opinion.


All simple forms of the verb indicate an action as a whole - from start to finish.
The simple form of the verb can indicate a habitual or regular action that
(i)                  is/was/will be complete/completed each time it is undertaken. ->
A: What do you do to keep fit?
B: I ride a bike. -> “ride” includes everything from getting on the bike at the start of the journey to getting off the bike at the end.

Or
(ii)                a single, complete or completed, present, future, or past action:
He told me that I had to visit the Eiffel Tower, so I go/went/will go to Paris on Wednesday” -> “go/went/will go” includes everything from the decision being made, bags being packed, going to the airport, etc., to the arrival in Paris.

The continuous form of the verb indicates
(i)                  an action that is/was incomplete and in progress at the time that is being referred to (it has started but it has not yet finished) ->
I will be/am/was/have been/had been riding a bike = I will be/am/was/have been/had been in the process of riding a bike but have not yet finished riding the bike at the time I am referring to.

The continuous form used to be known as “the imperfect”: It was called “imperfect” because the action had not been “perfected” i.e. it had not finished.

 OED 5. _Grammar_. Applied to a tense which denotes action going on but not completed; usually [edit Q- but not always] to the _past_ tense of incomplete or progressive action.

1871   H. J. Roby _Gram. Latin Lang._ §549   Three [tenses] denoting incomplete action; the Present, Future, and Imperfect (sometimes called respectively, present imperfect, future imperfect, past imperfect).


----------



## kentix

Hiden said:


> In "He *is calling* me three times a day. I hear more from him than I did when we were together." the speaker (i.e. a woman) is attracted to the listener (i.e. a man), so she implies by using the progressive that the situation of her ex-boyfriend calling her will stop very soon.


I don't see how that's true, either from her point of view or the new man's point of view. She can't know when her ex-boyfriend will stop. She especially can't know it will be very soon. From the new man's perspective, there is nothing in her words to surmise that the ex-boyfriend will stop calling, either sooner or later.

The only thing that those words convey is what's happening now. But the context does convey the probability, based on human experience not the grammar, that she is unlikely to be happy about it. It also implies that this behavior of his is relatively new.

If he had been calling her three times a day for three years she would likely say "He calls me three times a day." That would indicate habitual action over a long period of time that she has become accustomed to. By saying "He is calling me three times a day" there is an implied "now" (i.e. it's a recent development). That's backed up by her next sentence, which essentially says "he didn't do that sort of thing previously." So, far from being a situation that she has a reasonable belief will end soon, it's just the opposite - it's a new situation that she has no way to predict the end of. After all, she didn't predict that it would start, so how can she understand the ex-boyfriend's thought process well enough to predict when it will end. She might believe that's it's unlikely to last the rest of her life, but a direct end scenario is nowhere in sight, stated or implied, in those sentences.

As I said in my earlier comment, the progressive implies she thinks of it as one overarching, ongoing process. It's not three separate events. It's one ongoing, continuous event. Everyday it's part of her life all day long. In between calls, it's still there. After the first call it's just a matter of time until the second call. It's on her mind throughout the day, at least to some degree. It's not a question of if he calls, it's when. The calls are intimately connected.

Three years in the future, if he is still calling (and hasn't been arrested for stalking her), she will have adjusted to things and she will likely be able to forget about the last call before receiving the next. That's why in that future time frame "He calls me three times a day" makes more sense. Those calls are no longer a new, experience seen together. They are just individual annoyances that occur a few times a day. The novelty has worn off.


----------



## Hiden

Steven David said:


> Yes, that's it. With present progressive only referring to "this present time frame", we could say that there is heightened awareness or some degree of tension (similar to historic present, narrative present, or dramatic present).
> 
> Present perfect progressive means that the speaker believes that there is some part of this in the past and some part of this in the present.
> 
> Present progressive tells us that the speaker is connected psychologically to this situation in the present time frame, not the past at all. And, with this psychological connection in the present, we get the idea, in a rather plain way, that the speaker is displeased with these phone calls and or doesn't like these phone calls.
> 
> Context tells us this. This is really the key. We should not look at sentences in isolation too much. Sometimes, it's possible to understand a sentence in isolation and out of context. However, where there is context, as there is in this case, we should not overlook context when concluding what a sentence means.
> 
> There is what the words mean by themselves. And then there is also pragmatics. This is to say what we can perceive given context, speaker viewpoint, and speaker attitude: the attitude of the speaker. We announce to the world how we view ourselves in relationship to other people and in relationship to circumstances and situations by what we say and how we say it.
> 
> We say something in a particular way for a reason. It's not necessarily an accident that we say something in a particular way. Of course, much of what we say is rather neutral, and there is nothing that should be read into it. However, other times this is not the case. In any event, what we say and how we say it is revealing of how we view ourselves in relationship to others and how we view ourselves in situations or circumstances.
> 
> You're welcome.



Thank you for your insightful feedback. Yes, I agree. The present progressive form tells us that the speaker is connected psychologically to a situation. I’m thinking that the simple is a kind of statement of the fact.

Also, I completely agree that the context tells what a sentence means. Thus, we should not overlook the context when concluding what a sentence means.


----------



## Hiden

PaulQ said:


> All simple forms of the verb indicate an action as a whole - from start to finish.
> The simple form of the verb can indicate a habitual or regular action that
> (i)                  is/was/will be complete/completed each time it is undertaken. ->
> A: What do you do to keep fit?
> B: I ride a bike. -> “ride” includes everything from getting on the bike at the start of the journey to getting off the bike at the end.
> 
> Or
> (ii)                a single, complete or completed, present, future, or past action:
> He told me that I had to visit the Eiffel Tower, so I go/went/will go to Paris on Wednesday” -> “go/went/will go” includes everything from the decision being made, bags being packed, going to the airport, etc., to the arrival in Paris.
> 
> The continuous form of the verb indicates
> (i)                  an action that is/was incomplete and in progress at the time that is being referred to (it has started but it has not yet finished) ->
> I will be/am/was/have been/had been riding a bike = I will be/am/was/have been/had been in the process of riding a bike but have not yet finished riding the bike at the time I am referring to.
> 
> The continuous form used to be known as “the imperfect”: It was called “imperfect” because the action had not been “perfected” i.e. it had not finished.
> 
> OED 5. _Grammar_. Applied to a tense which denotes action going on but not completed; usually [edit Q- but not always] to the _past_ tense of incomplete or progressive action.
> 
> 1871   H. J. Roby _Gram. Latin Lang._ §549   Three [tenses] denoting incomplete action; the Present, Future, and Imperfect (sometimes called respectively, present imperfect, future imperfect, past imperfect).


Thank you for your insightful feedback.  I will think about it in more depth. You have been helpful.


----------



## Hiden

kentix said:


> I don't see how that's true, either from her point of view or the new man's point of view. She can't know when her ex-boyfriend will stop. She especially can't know it will be very soon. From the new man's perspective, there is nothing in her words to surmise that the ex-boyfriend will stop calling, either sooner or later.
> 
> The only thing that those words convey is what's happening now. But the context does convey the probability, based on human experience not the grammar, that she is unlikely to be happy about it. It also implies that this behavior of his is relatively new.
> 
> If he had been calling her three times a day for three years she would likely say "He calls me three times a day." That would indicate habitual action over a long period of time that she has become accustomed to. By saying "He is calling me three times a day" there is an implied "now" (i.e. it's a recent development). That's backed up by her next sentence, which essentially says "he didn't do that sort of thing previously." So, far from being a situation that she has a reasonable belief will end soon, it's just the opposite - it's a new situation that she has no way to predict the end of. After all, she didn't predict that it would start, so how can she understand the ex-boyfriend's thought process well enough to predict when it will end. She might believe that's it's unlikely to last the rest of her life, but a direct end scenario is nowhere in sight, stated or implied, in those sentences.
> 
> As I said in my earlier comment, the progressive implies she thinks of it as one overarching, ongoing process. It's not three separate events. It's one ongoing, continuous event. Everyday it's part of her life all day long. In between calls, it's still there. After the first call it's just a matter of time until the second call. It's on her mind throughout the day, at least to some degree. It's not a question of if he calls, it's when. The calls are intimately connected.
> 
> Three years in the future, if he is still calling (and hasn't been arrested for stalking her), she will have adjusted to things and she will likely be able to forget about the last call before receiving the next. That's why in that future time frame "He calls me three times a day" makes more sense. Those calls are no longer a new, experience seen together. They are just individual annoyances that occur a few times a day. The novelty has worn off.


I will think about it in more depth. Thank you for your insight. It helps.


----------



## Steven David

Hiden said:


> Thank you for your insightful feedback. Yes, I agree. The present progressive form tells us that the speaker is connected psychologically to a situation. I’m thinking that the simple is a kind of expression of the fact.
> 
> Also, I completely agree that the context tells what a sentence means. Thus, we should not overlook the context when concluding what a sentence means.




You're welcome.

> I’m thinking that the simple is a kind of expression of the fact. <

Yes, that's it.

Also, as I commented before, a simple present statement, more often or usually, is "a statement of the normal (and current) state of things".

In a relative way, simple present signifies permanence in the speaker's viewpoint.

In addition to context, we can also consider co-text.

"He *calls* me three times a day whenever I'm away on business."

co-text - "whenever I'm away on business"

This is the "permanent" and current normal state of things. The speaker will not always be away on business regularly.

"He's *calling* me three times a day, and I can't stand it."

This is temporary, not the normal state of things. And the speaker does not want it to become the normal state of things.

co-text - "and I can't stand it"

cotext - Wiktionary

*cotext* (plural cotexts)

(linguistics) Words that surround a node or another word; the linguistic environment of a word.


----------

