The Shotgun Blog
« Free enterprise - 1, Doom and gloom left - 0! | Main | Hey Sarah Palin - the song »
Friday, October 10, 2008
The present perfect and "tough" questions
By now you have seen the video of Dion failing to answer a question on the economy. If not, scroll down or click here.
If you read the message boards at Maclean's or the desperate posts at the Liberal Blogs you might think that the question asked to Stephane Dion was impenetrable. Well here's the question:
If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?
This is a mixed conditional (2nd + 3rd conditional). The conditional element (the 'if') thing doesn't seem to be too confusing. The problem people claim - is in the 'would' clause - and it involves time. Here's Kady O'Malley re-stating the problem to a commenter:
I was asking whether you thought the reporter was asking what Dion would do *now*, if elected Prime Minister, or what he would have done back in 2006, if he had been elected during the last election, instead of Stephen Harper.
Well, it's not as hard as people are making it sound. The tense used in this 'would' clause is the Present Perfect. The present perfect is made up of the auxiliary verb 'have' plus the 'past participle' - which in this case is 'done'. It is used to describe actions which:
... happened at an unspecified time before now. The exact time is not important. You CANNOT use the Present Perfect with specific time expressions such as: yesterday, one year ago, last week, when I was a child, when I lived in Japan, at that moment, that day, one day, etc. We CAN use the Present Perfect with unspecific expressions such as: ever, never, once, many times, several times, before, so far, already, yet, etc.
It's important that the time is unspecified, that is to say, that we do not care when the action began. We only know that the action began before now. If it were a definite time and we could pin it down, then we would use the past simple. So grammatically the question is simple and clear. How simple?
I am fortune to work in an office with people from around the world. I took it upon myself to ask these people a question:
If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done about the economy and the crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?
Luis from Mexico:"I would have to pay the less taxes."
'Henry' from Korea: "Canada has a lot of natural resources like gas so, I would have developed more gas and exported that."
Young Shin from Korea: "I would have saved the banks."
Luis has been in Canada for 2 years, Henry has been here 10 months, and Young Shin, for 6 months.
If you don't know much about teaching the language, you are likely to think that questions like the one asked to Dion are more difficult than they actually are. But look at how the language is taught, and when things like this are taught. The present perfect is something taught at an "Elementary Level" of English. It's something you teach to eight year-olds, or to people that have only been learning the language for a few months.
Dion wasn't just confused about the question - look at the interview, he was confused about his own 30 day "action plan" - calling it the "30/50" plan a few times before finally nailing it. Dion has issues, he has difficulty with stress, with tough questions, with English, he can't keep his own party on message, he can't explain his Green Shift, he can't say in specifics what he would do about the economy - watch his reaction when confronted by the Prime Minister - or look at him here sputtering at an attack by Jack Layton. Could you see such a person running a minority government or standing up for the economy in the face of NDP and Bloc pressure?
I think we're back where we were when we started this election. The ballot question once again is Dion: "Is he up to the job?"
If I have to, I can repeat the question three times, but I think it's simple enough for even Kady O'Malley to understand it.
Posted by Robert Jago on October 10, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e20105357093ef970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The present perfect and "tough" questions:
Comments
Robert,
Nice try, but the question was unclear. A clear version of the question might have been this: "If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done TWO WEEKS AGO about the economy and the crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?" Without that addition, the time of action is unclear, thus Dion asking "At which moment? Today? Or since a week? Or since two weeks? If I were the Prime Minister starting when? Today? If I were the Prime Minister today?" was the right response.
In your survey, Luis' answer does not show he understands the timeframe. His advice to lower taxes counld be what he would have done two years ago or two weeks ago or what he would do starting today. There is no way of knowing if he actually understood the time element. Henry's answer clearly shows he does NOT understand the time element, not unless he thinks that developing and exporting more gas is something you can do in a week. It sounds like he means he would have done it years ago, confirming Dion's initial understanding of the question. Young Shin's answer shows even less understanding, unless he thinks the Canadian PM is in a position to bail out American banks or he wants to 'save' Canadian banks that are not in trouble. Who knows what time frame he means, as he seems to live in a parallel universe.
So despite your hard work, you only verify that the time frame was not specified and it is easy to not know that the question was asking about two weeks ago rather than two years ago. Give it up. Whether you agree with his policies or not, Dion is no Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-10-10 12:01:36 PM
I know for a fact that each of them understood the question because I asked follow ups to check if they understood the question. Their solutions may not be realistic, but they're not running for office.
You can check out the elementary level textbook linked to in the post. One doesn't require your convoluted phrasing to get the point across. But if you don't believe me, try this, Google the phrase "if you were president now, what would you have done" and see if the question really is the Rubik's cube some are making it out to be.
Posted by: Robert Jago | 2008-10-10 12:12:50 PM
Even if it WAS a complex question (and I don't think it was), eventually Dion understood it because an aide explained it to him before the final take. The scarier issue is that he really had no answer except to restate his plan to consult with lots of people for thirty days and then come up with a plan!
Posted by: Nancy | 2008-10-10 12:29:08 PM
Robert,
"I know for a fact that each of them understood the question because I asked follow ups"
Without a transcript of the conversation, I don't trust your reassurances. Maybe your follow up was leading. Maybe they said something you took to be confirmation that was not. The reason you printed their answers in the first place was to offer proof rather than just hearsay, so I think I'll stick to the evidence presented.
More importantly, you don't know your English very well. The clause was NOT in the present perfect. It was a pluperfect subjunctive. The pluperfect subjunctive is a much more complex form and one that often does require a specific time to complete the idea (As in: "If I had known you were coming YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, I'd have baked a cake YESTERDAY MORNING.") Please learn the language yourself before criticizing someone else's understanding of it.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-10-10 12:32:47 PM
Its amazing that when some people run into a brick wall,they just give 'er more gas instead of brake.
The Libs are a shattered party with no real leadership from Dion...In fact I'd venture that Dion has no credibility beyond being a "nice guy"
What does that mean ?...I think I'm a nice guy yet I would never purport to put myself in the position of pretending that I could run the country.
It takes a very talented,resourceful,focused and confident individual to accomplish that.
The LPC is a morally bankrupt and dishonest party in that they with the MSM are complicit in foisting this 3rd rate scam upon the electorate.
Its all about control and as nice as Dion might be,he is easily swayed by others with more sinister agendas than one could imagine.
Vote on Tuesday and vote responsibly.
Posted by: simon | 2008-10-10 12:35:59 PM
The pluperfect subjunctive is a much more complex form..................
Posted by: Fact Check | 10-Oct-08 12:32:47 PM
Lifted almost word for word from Wikipedia.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-10 12:41:37 PM
It's been a while since I stopped teaching, and even longer since I did the Cambridge EFL teaching cert, but let's see what I can remember.
The pluperfect subjunctive is otherwise know as the third conditional (a 'tense' which I mentioned in the post). This is composed of an 'if' clause containing the past perfect, and a 'would' clause containing the present perfect.
There is no past (plu)perfect in the question (that's 'had' + past participle). Hence it's not a third conditional. Anyhow it's beside the point, because according to all the amateur grammarians out there, Dion did not have a problem with the 'if' clause where the past perfect would have been.
The second clause is in the present perfect - and that's where there is a problem.
Let me give you an example sentence in this apparently confounding 'tense'. (The present perfect can be seen in the 'would' clause.)
If you weren't relying on media reports you would have known that the present perfect was a very easy tense to understand.
Now here it is in the third conditional - notice the difference:
If you had been a more careful reader, you would have seen that the third conditional was mentioned in the post.
Posted by: Robert Jago | 2008-10-10 1:05:51 PM
"Do again's" are hardly a rare occurrence in this type of taped interview situation, the difference here is that contrary to what they initially promised Dion and against normal taped television interview practices for what can only be perceived as purely partisan reasons CTV decided to air Dion's flubs this time around, rather than ditch them. Can we expect to see CTV now offering similar past examples from Harper and Layton this weekend? Yeah right. That seems about as likely as a Conservative majority.
Posted by: Kenny Goser | 2008-10-10 1:07:37 PM
Kenny:
How many re-do's was Sarah Palin allowed? I don't know either, but it seems to me the Couric interview was live.
If there were any re-dos from Harper and Layton, then the MSM would have had them out by now.
Until they show up, I'm assuming there are none, because the MSM operates on a double standard, just like they did when that criminal Chretien mangle the language.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-10 1:41:09 PM
Robert Jango: Thanks for the grammer lesson, but I am even more confused by english after reading your explanation than I was before. Tell me friend, how much money did you guys spend on university to learn all that crap?
But then again, I am luckly if I can spell correctly half the time so...
(I'm just having some fun with ya, but seriously ... WOW egg head stuff that was for sure)
Points which were good in this exchange: Posting names without back up evidence is simply hearsay, ask any lawyer. I cannot say to a judge that so and so understood this and that and expect the court to simply accept what I said based on my word alone. They would want to talk to those names I mentioned or at least see some sort of documented evidence that I was speaking the truth.
Having said that: I accept what Robert Jago posted regarding Young, etc and how they understood questions as I have no reason to think of Robert as a liar yet and this is not a court of law. However, Robert, you should not be surprised when others reject these statements outright, they do have cause to do so as you have not presented your evidence very well.
Nice to see a disagreement that has not degenerated into insults and spittle. Good exchange even if you did get wrapped up in a very hard to understand grammer debate (at least for me).
Anyways, we are going to go around and around and wind up with a minority government anyways. Then the Liberals can turf Dion (as he is a very poor leader even if he is a very smart individual). I worry more about the next election when the Liberals will actually have their house in order again.
People need to understand that communications is everything in politics. If Dion cannot communicate, then what difference does him being right or wrong, smart or dumb make? If he cannot communicate then he cannot express his ideas to me and what he is asking is this
'Vote for me, I know you cannot understand me and that I do not speak clearly, but trust me , I know what I am doing'
I am sorry liberal supporters, but even if I was likely to vote liberal, which I am not, I would think very very hard before taking this leap of faith.
Thanks
Posted by: RobinHood | 2008-10-10 3:02:03 PM
I couldn't care how complex a question may or not be, ANYONE wanting to lead Canada should be reasonably proficient in both. Chretch may have mangled both languages, but he was generally understandable. At least as far as I can recall. Deeyawn should be ashamed of his lack of linguistic proficiency and calm under fire.
I seem to recall an awful lot of smooth urbanites and media types whom were absolutely shocked when they learned that Preston Manning didn't know a lick of french and that he needed a translator for the debates. Where is that shock now?
Posted by: Dave Tracey | 2008-10-10 8:07:24 PM
Fact Check is clearly right about the grammar. The question was ungrammatical. Based on the preamble to the question, the interviewer meant to ask: "If you were [or had been] Prime Minister, what would you have been doing during this crisis that Harper hasn't done?"
By inserting "now" -- If you were Prime Minister NOW,... -- the interviewer just confuses the issue. 'Now' is a fuzzy term: as Dion correctly points out, it could have referred to the period of the present Parliament, the present crisis (the past week or two), or going forward (as in 'starting now').
All that being said, the point of the question was crystal clear from the preamble (twice repeated). It is only logical to ask someone who has criticized the Prime Minister for "doing nothing during this crisis" to ask him what he would have done if he were Prime Minister. THAT is not difficult to understant. Not at all.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-10-10 11:48:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.