Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

L2 Tense and Time Reference

Author(s): Eli Hinkel
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 557-572
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587178 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 12:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TESOL QUARTERLY,Vol.26, No.3, Autumn1992

L2 Tenseand TimeReference
ELI HINKEL
The OhioStateUniversity

The meanings and formsoftensesarecomplexand oftendifficult

fornonnativespeakersto acquire.The conceptsassociatedwith
timewhichdifferamonglanguagecommunities can presentan
additionallevel of complexityforlearners.In a survey,130ESL
studentswereaskedto describethemeanings ofEnglishtensesin
termsof timeconceptsused in ESL grammartexts.The results
suggestthatspeakersof Chinese,Japanese,Korean,Vietnamese,
and Arabic associatedifferent temporalrelationships withthe
termsrightnow, present,and past thando nativespeakers.An
implicationof thisfindingis thatgrammarteachingthatutilizes
descriptionsoftimeacceptedin English-speaking communitiesto
explainusagesand meaningsof Englishtensescan producea low
rateoflearnercomprehension.

Few ESL researchersdoubt thatlearners'L1 conceptualizationof

time and lexical and/orgrammaticaltime markershave an impact
on their acquisition of English tense. In all languages, time is
referred to in some fashion. However, time attributes (i.e.,
perceptual,conceptual and culturaldivisionsof time) differamong
societies. One obvious example of thisis the boundaryof a day. In
nonsecularMuslimand Jewishcultures,days begin at sunsetand not
at midnightas in Westerncivil convention.On the otherhand, the
Japanese considersunrisethe beginningof a new day.
Time attributesare bound to reflecton thesystemsthroughwhich
languages representthese divisions (Levinson, 1983). Linguistic
referencesto timeattributescan take manyforms:Some languages,
such as Chinese and Japanese referto time lexicallyby employing
nouns and adverbs; others,like English, also utilize grammatical
references(i.e., verb tense). If both Li timeattributesand theirlin-
guisticreferencesdifferfromthose in L2, learnersmay findthem-
selves in an environment wheretheycannotpick out thetemporalat-
tributeto whichtenseis a grammaticalreference(Donnellan,1991).
English aspect can be morphologicallymarked as well. For
example, theverbs in both sentencesHe runsand He is runningare

557

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in the presenttense. However,the presentsimplerunscarries
iterative(or habitual)implicature,whereas -ing in the second
sentenceimpartsprogressive implicature to theverb'spresenttense
meaning. Aspects, which Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), and
Richards(1987)viewas additionalfeatures oftimedeixis(or means
of locating events in time), can present the same potential
dichotomy betweenthetimeattributable and itsreference.
In orderto gaininsightintohow ESL learnersacquiremorpho-
logical tense, numerousstudies have examined the order of
morphemeacquisition(e.g., Andersen,1977; Bailey,Madden, &
Krashen,1974;Dulay & Burt,1974;Larsen-Freeman, 1976;Makino,
1979;Pienemann,1985). In addition,a greatdeal of researchhas
been devotedto ESL learneracquisitionof tenseand morpheme
meaning (Andersen,1983; Bailey, 1989a, 1989b; Hatch, 1978).
Whereassomespecialistson languageand tenseacquisitionbelieve
thatlearnersacquire tensemeaningsbeforetheirmorphological
forms,othershold theoppositeview. This paper willaddressthe
issue of whethernonnativespeakers(NNSs) who have received
extensiveL2 trainingand have achieved a relativelyhigh L2
proficiency intuitivelyperceiveEnglishconceptualization of time
and itsgrammatical references to deictic(orindexical)time,thatis,
morphologicaltense,in ways similarto native speakers(NSs).
Anotherfocus of this study is NNSs' perceptionsof English
aspectualimplicature.
ESL teachersandL2 researchers recognizethatEnglishtensesare
to acquire(DeCarrico,1986;Richards,1981;Riddle,1986).
difficult
Guiora(1983) notesthatspeakersof Hebrew encounterdifficulty
mastering themeaningsand usagesof severalof theEnglishpast
tenseswhich,to them,seem redundantand withoutan easily
discerniblefunction.He alsonotesthatspeakersofChinesemaybe
faced withestablishing an entirely new hypothesis of how timeis
used and referredto. SharwoodSmith(1988) indicatesthathis
Polishstudents had difficulty relatingtothepastprogressive and its
form.Richards(1981) discussesthe complexityof introducing
Englishprogressive tensesand theirexplicitand impliedmeanings.
DialectvariationsevenwithinEnglish-speaking societiesmakefor
differences
significant in tenseusageand meanings(Leech,1971).
Coppetiers(1987),who conducteda studyof highlyeducated
NNSs withnear-native proficiency in French,foundthatwhereas
theyhad obviouslyacquiredtenseforms, theirperceptions oftense
meaningswere not NS-like.Coppetiers contends thatthe NNSs'
perceptionsof tense meanings were strongly affected by tense
meanings in the L1 so that the speakers of Romance languages
interpreted themeanings ofFrenchtensesdifferently fromspeakers
of Germanicand tenseless languages(pp. 560-561).

558 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 To date,whetherspeakersof themanylanguageswithoutmor-
phologicaltensescan fullymasterthe Englishverbal systemof
tenseshas notbeendetermined. Richards(1973)observesthatESL
omissions
learners' of tense markers representa damagingand
confusing typeof error.
Chappel and Rodby (1983)notethatESL
students'tense-relatederrorsoften detract from the overall
comprehensibilityof theirtext.Theyfurther mentionthatdespite
thefactthatverbtensesoccupya prominent rolein theteachingof
ESL, studentsseemto chooseverbtensesarbitrarily. In theirview,
tenseerrorsmayresultfromthelearners'lack of understanding of
theimpactoftenseon text.

BACKGROUND: PRAGMATICS OF TIME AND TENSE

The issueoftherelationship betweengrammatical tenseandtime
and the acquisitionof tense systems *is complex. Whethera
connectionexistsbetweenthedetailedmarkingof timein English
and itsmorphological tenseas a grammaticalcategoryhasnotbeen
establishedwithcertainty. Comrie (1985) mentionsthatvarious
culturalgroups "have radicallydifferent conceptualizationsof
time"(p. 3) and onlysomemeasuretimeand occurring eventswith
exactitude.Fillmore(1975) notesthat,in mostlanguages,lexical
markers,such as today,tomorrow, and yesterday,can referto a
varietyoftimelengths withina relevant
span.Theserelevant spans,
however,differfromone languageto another.Levinson(1983)
claimsthatin "languageswithouttruetenses,forexampleChinese
or Yoruba"(p. 78), theconceptof timeis realizedthrough adverbs
and implicitand contextual assumptions.SoutheastAsianlanguages
require a strictdiscourse frame which delineates time and,
therefore, thetimereference.
The numerousstudiesof the meaningrelationships in English
betweenattributeand reference-thethingand its name-have
demonstratedthat they are vague (Bach, 1981) and language
specific.Kripke(1991) viewsnotionsof meaningsas "determined
by theconventions of thelanguage"whichcan be treatedonlyin
conjunction withtherelatedlinguistic phenomenaof thelanguage
(p. 84). Bach (1981)advancesthisargument that,in orderto
stating
be understood,the speakerand his audience musthave mutual
contextualbeliefs.Linguisticmeaningsof tensealso includethe
mutualbeliefsand sharedperceptions of themembersof a speech
community. The expression ofsuchbeliefsandperceptions maynot
be sharedby membersofotherspeechcommunities (Searle,1979).
As Donnellan (1991) notes,if descriptionsof time are used
thesubjectstowhomthesedescriptions
referentially, areaddressed
L2 TENSE AND TIME REFERENCE 559

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
are thusenabled to "pick out" (p. 60) the referencesand their
attributes.However,if the referencedoes not fit the subjects'
perceptionsof the attribute, theymay be unable to establisha
correspondence between them.
For example,if theNS instructor statesthatthemorpheme-ed
markstheverbforpast simpletensebut thestudent's conceptual-
izationofpastdiffers fromtheinstructor's, thestudentmaynotuse
thismorpheme inthecontexts wheretheinstructor would.Learners'
abilitiesto establishthereferential relationships between L2 time
deixis,tense, and morphological markers necessarily affects their
perceptions ofthemeaningsand functions of tensemorphemes.
Recanti's (1991) availabilityprincipleassumes that linguistic
meanings must be available or accessible to our "ordinary,
consciousintuitions" (p. 106).Becausetime-span conceptualizations
and theirlexical referencesdifferfor NSs and NNSs, English
grammatical references to timemay not be readilyavailablefor
pragmaticinterpretation by speakersof tenselesslanguages.If this
is thecase,morphological timereference meaningof
(i.e.,linguistic
tense)may notbe accessible to thesespeakers' conscious intuitions.
Anothercomplication is thateven developedmorphological tense
structures in twolanguagesmaydiffer greatly(Fillmore,1975).
Levinson (1983) sees English time referenceas calendrical
reckoning and observesthatmostAmerindian languages,Japanese,
and Hindidifferfromit and one anotherin namesand lengthsof
days and time spans. In his briefexamination of how the time
attribute corresponds to tense,Levinsonmentions thatinlanguages
withtense,sentencesare anchoredto a contextby morphological
tense,whereasotherlanguagesutilizeotherlinguisticand social
meansof contextual anchoring. If mutualcontextual beliefs(Bach,
1981) and calendrical time deixis(Levinson,1983) necessaryfor
are
picking out a time attribute and its morphologicalreferencein
English, NNSs lacking intuitions and access to knowledge
associatedwiththeEnglishtimedeixisand linguistic tensemayface
in
problems using and interpreting English time references.
Usually,instructors teachtensesby presenting rules,explaining
the meaningsof tenses,and by identifying the timedeixis and
lexicalcontextsin whichcertaintensesare called for(Eisenstein,
1987).Such presentations are usuallyaccompaniedby exercisesin
whichthestudentsare expectedto applytheinstructor's explana-
tions.In orderto do so successfully, thestudents haveto perform a
seriesof tasks.Theyneed to be aware of thelexicaland syntactic
markers oftimeandtheirenvironments inthesentence, understand
theirmeaningsand implications, analyzethemfortimeand tense

560 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
referenceand aspectimplicature,pickoutone ormorecorrespond-
ing auxiliariesor morphemes, put themin therelevantform,and
producea correctverbalstructure.In thisstudy,ESL students
were
asked in a questionnaireto reversethisprocessand describethe
meaningsand implications whichtensesand aspectshaveforthem
through the reference terms associatedwithEnglishtimedeixis.
(The descriptions Englishtime deixisand the framework
of of
temporality were adopted followingLeech, 1971, and Comrie,
1985.)

METHOD
Questionnaire Design
In the questionnaire, the studentswere asked to describefour
sentencesforeachofthe8 Englishtensesexcludingfuture, a totalof
32 sentences:4 present(presentsimple,presentprogressive, pres-
entperfect,and presentperfectprogressive) and 4 past (past sim-
ple, past progressive,past perfect,and past perfectprogres-
sive). If responsesfor2 sentenceswiththesame tenseand aspect
differed, theywereaveragedindependently fortenseandaspect.In
orderto circumvent theissue of therespondents' possibleconfu-
sionwhenperforming therequiredtask,responsesto thefirst2 sen-
tencesper tensewere consideredinvalidand excludedfromdata
analysis.
In the questionnaire, timeattributesand references were listed
withtheimmediatepresentfirst, moving back to the pastperfect,
whichis themostdeicticallydistantfromthepresentmoment.To
assurethatthetensedescriptors wereaccessibleto theNNSs, the
selectionof termsdescribingthemeaningsof tensesand aspectual
implicatures were chosenfromintermediate/advanced ESL and
grammartexts:rightnow (Azar, 1989) and at the momentof
speaking(Leech, 1971); in the presentand in the past (Leech &
Svartvik,1975);in the past and beforeanotherpast event(Azar,
1989;Leech,1971;Leech& Svartvik, 1975);progressive (Azar,1989;
Leech, 1971; Leech & Svartvik,1975); and repetitive/habitual
(Azar,1989;Leech & Svartvik, 1975).
The semanticsofthecontextsweremade uniform forgrammat-
ical gender,animacy,and number.The choiceof sentencesin the
questionnaire reflected severalconsiderations:
1. The verbs did not carrymomentary or durationalmeanings
(Leech, 1971) (as in,respectively,blinkor love) and onlythree
verbswereused:walk,talk,and visit.

L2 TENSE AND TIME REFERENCE 561

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2. Explicit time markers were excluded, with the exception of
before, to motivatethe past perfecttenses (Azar, 1989; Leech,
1971).
3. Vocabulary was restrictedto fewer than 100 high-frequency
words.
(See theAppendixfora listingof thequestionnairesentences.These
are presented in an order differentfrom that in the actual
questionnaire.)
The NNS and theNS controlswere instructedto choose however
many of the multiple-choiceitems theywished and thusdescribe
theirown perceptionsof temporal referencesand the progressive
and iterative/habitual aspects (Comrie, 1985; Leech, 1971;
Richards, 1981). However, true to the multiple-choice testing
tradition,almost all participants selected only one answer per
multiple-choiceselection.The firstmultiple-choiceselectionhad a
generalheading,The timeof theactionis, and requiredthesubjects
to identifythe English verb time referenceregressivelyfromthe
presentto thepast. The second selectionhad theheading The action
is and dealt with the respondents' perceptions of aspect. The
aspects addressed in the questionnaireincluded the progressive
aspect and the iterative/habitualaspect. The perfectiveaspect and
0 aspect were not included and, for the purposes of thisstudy,are
termednonprogressive/nonhabitual. (The selectionin the question-
naire correspondingto these aspects was none of the above.) The
multiple-choiceoptionsremaineduniformforall 32 sentences.
For example, the studentsread the sentenceBob is talkingto his
brother.Then theysaw two multiple-choiceselectionsfortenseand
aspect descriptors,respectively:
1. The timeoftheactionis:
a. rightnow/atthemomentofspeaking
b. inthepresentand inthepast
c. inthepast
d. beforeanotherpastevent
e. cannotdecide
2. The actionis:
a. progressive
b. repetitive/habitual
c. noneoftheabove
d. cannotdecide
The survey was administeredat the conclusion of the Autumn
Quarter,immediatelyfollowing9 weeks of instructionin daily or
thrice-weeklyESL classes. There was no timelimitforthe subjects
to respond to the questions.

562 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Subjects
Of the 130 ESL studentswho participatedin thisstudy,70
studentswere speakersof Chinese (CH); 17, Korean (KR); 13,
Japanese(JP);11,Vietnamese(VT); 12,Spanish(SP); and7, Arabic
(AR). Of the21 NS includedas controls,
19 weregraduatestudents
enrolledin variousdepartmentsat The Ohio State University
(OSU), most of whom had minimaltrainingin linguistics. The
remaining 2 were ESL instructors.
The totalnumber of participants
was 151.
AllNNS participants had beenadmittedto OSU and weretaking
classesat theuniversity.
TheirTOEFL scoresrangedfrom500 to
617, with a mean of 563. Unlike the majorityof NNSs, the
Vietnameseand somespeakersofSpanishwereU.S. resident aliens
or citizensand thuswerenotrequiredto taketheTOEFL.
The NNS subjects'ESL trainingrangedfrom4 to 18 yearswitha
meanof9.6 years.AllNNS students includedin thestudy,withthe
exceptionof the Vietnamese, had been residingin theU.S. fora
periodof timerangingfrom2.5 to 30 months,witha meanof 6.3
months.The Vietnamesestudents'residencein the U.S. ranged
from4 to 11 years,withan averageof5.7 years,and thedurationof
theirformalESL training rangedfrom9 to 33 months, witha mean
of 10.3months.

RESULTSAND ANALYSIS
The sizes of theNNS groupswerenotequalized.Afterthedata
werecompiledforeach sentence, theywereconvertedto percent-
ages. The NS valueswerecomparedto thoseforothergroups.The
temporalreference foreach tensechosenby thehighest numberof
NSs was acceptedas thetensetemporalreference againstwhichall
thoseoftheNNSswerecompared.(See Table 1.)
Onlyin thepresentprogressive werethe NNSs' perceptionsof
tensemeaningsclose to thoseof NSs. Otherwise,NSs generally
chose descriptionsof temporalreferencessubstantially
differently
from members of all groups of trained NNSs. In fact, the
differences betweenNSs and NNSs were statistically significant
(p < .01) foreach row of Table 1 exceptthepresentprogressive,
whichis not significant.-The NNSs' temporalreferenceforthe
presentprogressive rightnow/atthemomentofspeakingindicates
1 This is based on Fisher's
exact testforeach row, groupingall NNSs together.A chi-square
test forindependence would not have been appropriatedue to small cell sizes associated
with percentagesnear 0 or 100%.Since resultsfor2 sentenceswere used and averaged in
Table 1, care was takento performthe testseparatelyforeach sentence.

L2 TENSE AND TIME REFERENCE 563

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE1
Reference
Temporal (%)
(N= 151)

NS CH KR JP VT SP AR
(n=21) (n=70) (n=17) (n=13) (n=11) (n=12) (n=7)

Rightnow/atthemoment
ofspeaking
Present
progressive 100 90 88 85 100 100 100

In thepresentandinthepast
Present
simple 95 40 24 38 0 83 72
Present
perfect
progressive 96 49 64 62 9 75 72

In thepast
Present
perfect 97 34 29 23 36 58 57
Pastprogressive 100 60 71 85 46 67 57
Pastsimple 100 81 88 0 55 58 57

Beforeanother
pastevent
Pastperfect
progressive 95 41 35 92 27 58 86
Pastperfect 98 61 70 85 27 67 71

that,forthem,itis themostintuitively accessibledeicticpoint.This

finding is consistent with thatof Olshtain (1979) whosecase study
showedthatevena speakerof a languagewithoutaspectacquired
the presentprogressive earlierthanothertenses.The past simple
attributeprovides the second most easily available point of
referencebecause present,past, and futureare the basic tense
meaningswithinthe conceptualizationsof linear temporality
(Comrie,1985). The unanimity of the Japanese,none of whom
perceived it to mark the past,maybe explainedby theJapanese
of
system naming a certainnumberofdaysback fromtodaywhich
can be includedinboththepresentand thepast (Fillmore,1975).
The Chineseperceivedthedeictictimeofthepresentprogressive
and past simplemost nearlyapproximating NS perceptions.In
terms of distance from the NS values, these two tenseswere
followedby the past perfectand the past progressive, thenthe
presentsimple,presentperfectprogressive, past perfectprogres-
sive,and presentperfect,respectively. thevaluesfor
Interestingly,
Koreans followed approximately thesame pattern. Vietnamese
The
values for the presentprogressive and past simpleare also the
highest for this group and are similarlyfollowed by thepast pro-
gressive.As has been the
mentioned, Japanese are somewhat differ-
ent.

564 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Withthe exceptionof the speakersof Spanishand Arabic,the
valuesfortheotherpresenttensesreflect theconsiderable difficulty
most NNSs had when choosingthe temporaldescriptions listed
withinthe selections.The past perfecttenses presentedless
difficulty, which can be partiallyexplainedby the lexical (as
opposed to grammatical)referenceof before.Levinson (1983)
indicatesthat most tenselesslanguagesprovide for lexical and
discoursesentenceanchors.In thiscase, the adverb beforeis an
explicit lexical markercongruentwith the concepts of time
reference availableto thespeakersofsuchlanguages.
intuitively
Linear conceptualizations of timemay not be commonto all
societies(von Stutterheim & Klein,1987).Amongthe6 groupsof
NNSs, onlythespeakersof Spanishand Arabicwere speakersof
languageswithdevelopedmorphological tenses.The veryfactthat
Spanish and Arabic have deictic time referenceprovides an
establishedconceptual structureand morphologicaltemporal
reference whichthespeakersoftheselanguagescan drawon when
exposedto L2 conceptualizations of timeand morphological tense.
To somedegree,theysharemoremutualconceptualizations oftime
withNSs and weremoresuccessfulin pickingout appropriateL2
timeattributes thanspeakersof Chinese,Korean,Japanese,and
Vietnamese.
The NSs' behaviorin the analysisof tense-marked temporality
demonstratesthat they appear to know that auxiliariesand
morphemesrepresent deictictimereference and were,therefore,
able to pick out themoreappropriatetimeattribute(Donnellan,
1991).Theyappearto have access to thelinguistic meaningswhich
auxiliariesand morphemes encodeinEnglish.The NNSs,however,
do notseem to have theNS-likeintuitive knowledgeofthelinear
conceptualization of time and itslinguistic references.
Morphological references to deictictimeare inextricably linked
to tense reference.If a grammaticalreferenceto temporality
impliesa deictictime,we assumethattheNNS knowsand intends
thatmeaning(Recanti,1991);thatis,we assumethatNNSs' choice
ofmorphemes impliestheirknowledgeofmorphological meanings.
Even if theNNSs' intuitive knowledgeof deictictimeattribute is
NS-likebuttheirchoiceofmorphemes is not,theirNS-likeintuitive
knowledgeofdeictictimewouldstillappearseriously flawed.
In thesecondtask,thestudyparticipants wererequestedtoassign
aspectual implicature(Comrie, 1976, 1985) to each temporal
reference oftense.The implicature oflineartemporalaspectstends
to increasethedistancebetweentheNS and NNS perceptionsof
temporality. (See Table 2.)
L2 TENSE AND TIME REFERENCE 565

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE2
Aspectual (%)
Implications
(N= 151)

NS CH KR JP VT SP AR
(n=21) (n=70) (n= 17) (n= 13) (n= 11) (n= 12) (n=7)

Progressive
Present
progressive 100 64 59 100 36 75 86
Present
perfect
progressiw 95 56 65 85 0 67 71
Pastprogressive 99 53 71 92 27 50 71
Pastperfect
progressive 96 49 65 85 27 58 43

Interactive/habitual
Present
simple 97 47 59 77 18 50 85

Nonprogressive/nonhabitual
Presentperfect 97 34 29 23 36 42 43
Pastsimple 98 47 82 62 46 42 86
Pastperfect 96 56 53 38 28 34 57

The NNSs' perceptionsof aspectualimplicatureindicatedby

theirchoiceswere also analyzedagainstthechoicesmade by the
majorityof NSs. NSs chose descriptions of aspectualimplicature
significantlydifferently(p<.01) from NNSs in every case,
includingpresentprogressive (based on Fisher's exacttest).A cell-
by-cellcomparison of same-tense values associated withtheNNSs'
perceptions of L2 aspectualimplicature(see Table 2) shows an
average declineof 7.8% compared to values associated withNNSs'
of
perceptions temporality (see Table 1). This is
finding consistent
withBailey's(1989a, 1989b) accountof NNS acquisitionof past
simpleand pastprogressive, whichnotesthattheprogressive aspect
combinedwiththemeaningof thepastpresentsan additionallevel
of complexityfor L2 learners.The NNSs' perceptionsof the
progressiveaspectweregenerally closerto thoseof NSs thanwere
theirperceptionsofthehabitualandnonprogressive/nonhabitual.
Durativeand continuative, and iterative and repetitiveaspects,in
someform,can be foundin all LUsrepresented inthedata withthe
exception of Vietnamese. NNSs whose Lis have aspect as
referential
implicature thushave access to theassociatedlinguistic
conceptualization.Chinese (Li & Thompson,1981) and Spanish
(Comrie,1976,1985) have the durativeand continuative; Korean
(Joo Hwang, 1987), Japanese(Inoue, 1984), and Arabic (Kaye,
1987) have both of
types implicature-durative and continuative,
and repetitive.
and iterative However,theaspectualimplicature in

566 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
theselanguagesis different fromthatof English-so muchso that,
as thecitedauthors indicate,itis rather difficulttodescribeinterms
of English.Vietnamese, is
however, unique in thatitdoes nothave
tensesor aspects,and itswordorderis thesole meansofindicating
grammatical relations(Nguyen,1987).
The NNS perceptionsof aspectand temporality in thepresent
perfectarethemostdistantfromthoseof NSs. Amongthespeakers
of tenselesslanguages,theKoreansand theJapanesemoreclosely
approximated NS valuesovertherangethandid theChinese,who
have onlydurativeLi aspect.In turn,thevalues fortheChinese
werenearerNS valuesthantheVietnamese. The factthattheSpan-
ishcontinuative and thesituational repetitiveare notsimilarto the
Englishprogressive and iterative (Comrie,1976,1985) is presum-
ably reflectedin thevaluesfor the Spanishspeakers.
Leech (1971) and Comrie(1976,1985) strongly be-
distinguish
tweenthebasic meaningsof tensesand thesecondarymeaningsof
aspects.The NNSs' interpretations of L2 timedeixisthatare, in
Donnellan's(1991)framework, restricted bytheirLi conceptualiza-
tionare made additionally difficult by theneed to inferaspectual
implicature.The fact that the distancebetween NNS and NS
perceptionswas greater inregardtoaspectualimplicature thanwith
temporal reference supports the earlierobservation that NNSs'
intuitions
regarding morphological referencesto deictictemporality
maynotbe fullydevelopedby yearsofL2 training.

CONCLUSION
Independentof the NNSs' perceivedmeaningsof timespans,
morphological references to timeimposeobviousconstraints on L2
learnerperformance. The factthatNNSs withextensivelanguage
training and TOEFL scoresabove 500 consistently made temporal
referenceanalysesand choices of time attributessignificantly
different fromthoseofNSs innearlyall cases can be accountedfor
by fourinterrelatedhypotheses whichrequirefurther investigation.
1. NNSs' intuitiveconceptualizations of timeare notlinearand/or
deicticand,therefore, removedfromthoseofNSs. ExtensiveL2
instruction may diminishthis conceptualdistanceonly to a
limitedextent.
2. BecauseEnglish,unlikesomeotherlanguages,requiresmorpho-
logicalreference to timedeixis,NNSs' intuitions
associatedwith
deictictensemaynotbe based on lineartemporality and mor-
phological tenseas fullyas thoseof NSs are.

L2 TENSE AND TIME REFERENCE 567

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
3. Despitetheiryearsoflanguagetraining,comparedtoNSs,NNSs
have limitedaccess to themeansof interpretingmorphological
deictictime.
4. As is apparentfromthedata fortheVietnamesespeakers,many
yearsof exposureto L2, combinedwithinstruction, mayhave a
limitedimpacton NNSs' perceptions of L2 deictictense.
The markeddifferences whichhavebeen notedbetweentheNS
and NNS perceptionsof timeand its associatedmorphologyas
describedinthetermsacceptedinL1 researchand L2 methodology
can also implythattense-related does notalwaysstrike
instruction
a familiarchordor providefora pointof reference in NNSs' con-
ceptualizationsof timeand itsgrammaticalencoding.

FOR TEACHING
IMPLICATIONS
in thisstudyare preliminary
The data presented and require
further For thisreason,onlysomegeneralsuggestions
investigation.
forteachingcan be offered.The substantial
and implications
differencesbetweenNS and NNS perceptionsof tensemeanings
seem to indicatethatNSs and NNSs view timespans and their
divisionsand measurements If this is the case, the
differently.
teachercannotassumethattheterminology and theconceptualiza-
tionsassociatedwithEnglishtimedeixisare understoodby NNS
studentsinthesamewayas theyareunderstood by NSs. Specifical-
ly and thoroughlyexplainingEnglishtimeattributes and notions,
thereference termsused to describethem,and theirimpacton the
meaningsoftensescan possiblyhelpL2 learnersassociatetheword
labelsand morphemes whichrefertotimedivisions.
The data furthershowthatfortheseL2 learners, thepresentpro-
gressive,past simple,and past progressive, respectively,repre-
sentedthemostaccessibledeictictimespans.It is reasonablethat
theteachingof Englishtensesshouldbeginwiththesethreetenses.
Ashasbeennoted,Japanesespeakersmayhaveparticular difficulty
withthemeanings and morphology associatedwiththepastsimple.
Because NNSs tendto relyon lexicaltimemarkerssuchas before
and afterwheninterpreting themeaningsof tensesand theirmor-
phological references, these may be included in the initial
explanationsof the Englishtense systemto facilitatethelearners
of
understanding time-span and tensemeanings.
relationships
Because morphologicaltense markersimpose constraints on
learnerperformance, be
theymay specially addressed in conjunc-
tionwithtensemeanings. The speakersofSpanishseemtohavedif-
ficultydistinguishingbetween Englishtense-related morphemes

568 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and false cognates associated withthe Spanish tense systemand its
morphology (Andersen, 1983; Comrie, 1985). The intuitionsof
Vietnamese speakers regardingtense morphologicalmarkersseem
to be notably differentfromthose of other groups of NNSs, pre-
sumablydue to theabsence of morphologicaldeixisin theirL1. For
speakers of Arabic,as opposed to Chinese and Korean,Englishno-
tionsof temporalityseem to impose somewhatreduced constraints
associated with notionsof temporality.However, theiracquisition
of the meaningsand formsfor the perfecttenses,such as the past
perfect,past perfectprogressive,and presentperfect,appears to
presentsubstantialdifficulty. In verygeneralterms,the teachingof
English conceptual notionsof time,its divisions,and the relation-
ships between these divisions can underlie or even precede the
teachingof the tensesystemand itsmorphologicalreferences.

THE AUTHOR
Eli HinkelreceivedherPhD inlinguistics
fromThe UniversityofMichiganin1984
and has taughtin intensive
and ITA-training
programsforthepast10 years.Her
researchinterests
includeconcept-based and L2 teachingmethodologies.
transfer
She is employedas Coordinator of theESL CompositionProgramat The Ohio
StateUniversity.

REFERENCES
Andersen, R. (1977).The impoverished stateofcross-sectionalmorpheme
acquisition/accuracymorphology. In C. Henning(Ed.), Proceedingsof
theLos AngelesSecondLanguageResearchForum(pp.308-320).Los
Angeles:University ofCalifornia.
Andersen, R. (1983). Transferto somewhere.In S. Gass & L. Selinker
(Eds.), Languagetransfer in languagelearning(pp. 177-202).Rowley,
MA: NewburyHouse.
Azar,B. (1989). Understanding and usingEnglishgrammar(2nd ed.).
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Bach,K. (1981).Referential/attributive.Synthese, 49,219-244.
N., Madden,C., & Krashen,
Bailey, S. (1974).Is therea "natural
sequence"in
adultsecondlanguage learning?LanguageLearning, 27,235-244.
Bailey,N. (1989a). Theoreticalimplicationsof the acquisitionof the
English simple past and past progressive.In S. Gass, C. Madden,
D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language
acquisition:Vol. 2. Psycholinguistic issues (pp. 109-124).Clevedon,
England:Multilingual Matters.

L2 TENSE AND TIME REFERENCE 569

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bailey,N. (1989b). Discourse conditionedtense variation:Teacher
implications.In M. Eisenstein(Ed.), The dynamicinterlanguage:
Empiricalstudiesinsecondlanguagevariation (pp. 279-295).New York:
PlenumPress.
Chappel,V., & Rodby,J. (1983). Verb tenseand ESL composition:A
discourse-level approach.In M. A.Clarke& J.Handscombe(Eds.), On
TESOL '82. Pacificperspectiveson languagelearningand teaching
(pp. 309-320).Washington, DC: TESOL.
Comrie,B. (1976).Aspect:An introduction to thestudyof verbalaspect
and relatedproblems.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Comrie,B. (1985).Tense.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Coppetiers, R. (1987).Competencedifferences betweennativeand non-
nativespeakers.Language,63,544-573.
DeCarrico,J. (1986). Tense, aspect and time in the Englishmodality.
TESOL Quarterly, 20(4),665-682.
Donnellan,K. (1991). Referenceand definitedescriptions. In S. Davis
(Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.52-64).Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Dulay,H., & Burt,M. (1974).Naturalsequencesin childsecondlanguage
acquisition. LanguageLearning, 24,37-53.
Eisenstein, M. (1987). Grammaticalexplanationsin ESL: Teach the
student, notthemethod.In M. Long& J.Richards(Eds.), Methodology
in TESOL. New York:NewburyHouse.
Fillmore, C. (1975).Santa Cruz lectureson deixis.Bloomington: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Guiora,A. (1983).The dialecticoflanguageacquisition. LanguageLearn-
ing,33,3-12.
Hatch,E. (1978).Discourseanalysisand secondlanguageacquisition.In
E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition:A book of readings.
Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse.
Inoue,K. (1984). Some discourseprinciplesand lengthysentencesin
Japanese.In S. Miyagawa& C. Kitagawa(Eds.), Studiesin Japanese
languageuse. Edmonton, Canada: Linguistic Research.
JooHwang,S. J.(1987).DiscoursefeatureofKoreannarration. Dallas,TX:
The SummerInstitute ofLinguistics.
Kaye,A. (1987).Arabic.In B. Comrie(Ed.), The world'smajorlanguages.
Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Kripke, S. (1991).Speaker'sreference and semanticreference. In S. Davis
(Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.77-96).Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976).An explanation of themorphemeacquisition
orderofsecondlanguagelearners. LanguageLearning, 26,125-134.
Leech,G. (1971).Meaningand theEnglishverb.London:Longman.
Leech,G., & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammarof English.
London:Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983).Pragmatics. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Li,C., & Thompson, S. (1981).MandarinChinese.A functional reference
grammar. Berkeley: University ofCaliforniaPress.
Lyons,J. (1977). Semantics(Vols. 1 & 2). Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress.

570 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Makino,T. (1979). English morphemeacquisitionorder of Japanese
secondaryschoolstudents. TESOL Quarterly, 13(3),428-449.
Nguyen, D-H. (1987).Vietnamese. In B. Comrie(Ed.), The world'smajor
languages.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Olshtain,E. (1979). The acquisitionof the Englishprogressive: A case
study of a seven-year-oldHebrew speaker. WorkingPapers in
Bilingualism, 18,81-102.
Pienemann,M. (1985). Learnabilityand syllabus construction.In
K. Hyltenstam & M.Pienemann(Eds.), Modelingand assessingsecond
languageacquisition. San Diego, CA: College-HillPress.
Recanati,F. (1991). The pragmaticsof what is said. In S. Davis (Ed.),
Pragmatics (pp.97-120).Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Richards,J.C. (1973). Erroranalysisand second languagestrategies. In
J.W.Oller & J.C. Richards(Eds.), Focus on the learner:Pragmatic
perspectives forthelanguageteacher.Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse.
Richards, C.
J. (1981). Introducing the progressive.TESOL Quarterly,
15(4),391-402.
Richards,J.C. (1987).Introducing theperfect:An exercisein pedagogic
grammar.In M. H. Long & J.C. Richards(Eds.), Methodologyin
TESOL. New York:NewburyHouse.
Riddle,E. (1986). Meaningand discoursefunctionof the past tensein
English.TESOL Quarterly, 20(2),267-286.
Searle,J.(1979).Referentialand attributive.Monist,62,190-208.
SharwoodSmith, M. (1988).Imperative versusprogressive:Anexercisein
contrastive pedagogicallinguistics.In W.Rutherford & M. Sharwood
Smith(Eds.), Grammarand second languageteaching.New York:
NewburyHouse.
von Stutterheim, C., & Klein,W. (1987).A concept-oriented approachto
secondlanguagestudies.In C. Pfaff(Ed.), Firstand secondlanguage
acquisitionprocess.Cambridge,MA: NewburyHouse.

L2 TENSE AND TIME REFERENCE 571

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 APPENDIX

SENTENCESUSED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Usedfordataanalysis Excludedfromdataanalysis
1. Bob is talking
tohisbrother. 1. Bob is visiting
hiscousin.
2. Johnwalkstoschool. 2. JohntalkstoPeter.
3. The studenttalkedto his friendabout 3. The studentwalkedto schoolfromthe
thenewmovie. meeting.
4. The studentshad been talkingto Bob 4. Peterhad been walkingquicklybefore
beforethemeeting. meeting Bob.
5. Peterwas walkingquietly. 5. Johnwas talking quietly.
6. Peterhaswalkedtoschool. 6. Bob hastalkedto Peter.
7. Johntalks to his brotherabout his 7. The student at school.
visitshisbrother
friends.
8. Bob is walkingto themovies. 8. Johnis talkingtoa friend.
9. Johnhas been talkingto Bob on the 9. Peterhas been visitinghis brotherin
phone. Hawaii.
10. Johnhad been visitingBob before 10. The studenthad been walkinghome
leavingforschool. beforetherain.
11. Johnhasvisitedhisbrother at school. 11. Bob hastalkedabouthisnewschool.
12. Bob hasbeenwalking. 12. Johnwalkedto themeeting.
inHawaii.
13. Petervisitedhisbrother 13. Peterhasbeentalking on thephone.
14. The studenthad visitedBob before 14. The studenthad talkedto Bob before
goingto school. goinghome.
15. Johnhad talkedtoPeterbeforelunch. 15. Bob had walked to school before
talkingto Peter.
to Bob.
16. Johnwas talking 16. Peterwas Bob.
visiting

572 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.158 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:26:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions