Before I take a detour in class and clarify usage of past and present tense in the case of referring to writers and their work, I wonder whether I am being too much of a stickler. Normally, I correct uses of past tense when an essay contains something like "He wrote in his famed historical novel . . . " noting that it should be "He writes in..." Or, correcting "In her article 'Reflections on the Bastille,' she wrote xxx" such that it reads, "In her article 'Reflections on the Bastille,' she writes xxx." Should I just let it go?
In this case, I think your usage is common but not literally correct. The students' usage is unassailable.
I wonder if this is discipline specific. As a historian, it seems silly to write in the present tense about something that happened a long time ago.
At the same time, in literary criticism, it is common to write in the present tense when dealing with writings that are old.
In the case that you gave, I think it depends on whether the writer is dealing with the "famed historical novel" as a historical act or a literary one. If I were writing a biography of (say) Howard Fast, I might write: Howard Fast wrote Freedom Road, as part of his efforts to highlight the importance of race in American history. In his famed historical novel, Fast told the story of Reconstruction." However, if I were writing a literary analysis of Fast, I might write something like: "In his famed historical novel, Freedom Road, Howard Fast tells the story of the fight against white supremacy in the period after the Civil War."
So I guess my bottom line is that you should, if you think it is important, establish a style that works best for your class/subject and tell students they should follow it, while recognizing in different contexts different styles are useful (similar in the way I won't let my history students use the MLA citation style in their senior theses, while I assume the English department requires them to do so).
Sequence of tenses within a paragraph or longer passage is also a consideration.
I definitely correct misused tense constructions, but I don't use the over-simplified basis the OP is working from to do it.
I'd elaborate more now, but I've just finished a 4-hour teaching stint, ending with a student who's 1/3 of the way through the third section of the Moonlight Sonata, and I'm bushed.
Tomorrow after sleep my braincells upstir I can.
M.
Huh, now I know where the weird misuse use of present tense in some of my students' psych papers probably comes from-- they must learn it in English classes. Along with many other things we have to un-teach them, like overly-flowery language and using multiple terms for the same things because "you should use a variety of words". Not saying there is anything wrong with these things in their appropriate fields, but they are wrong in science writing.
This doesn't seem like an issue of grammar, as much as an issue of style. Personally, I prefer what the student wrote.
I'm not sure exactly what our disciplinary conventions are, but I usually reserve the present tense for living authors and the past for the deaders. Schopenhauer sure said some things, but he can't say or argue much these days.
But perhaps I'm wrong to do so.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2021, 07:28:02 PM
I'm not sure exactly what our disciplinary conventions are, but I usually reserve the present tense for living authors and the past for the deaders.
Yes, I do the same.
I try to teach my students that each discipline has its own norms--of writing, of reading, of research, and of framing discussion. Sometimes these are at great variance with one another, and the axiomatic practice of one field are forbidden in another. This sometimes drives students mad, but it part of being an educated person. Too many professors seem to have fossilized, however, and assume that their way of doing something is the only possible way. (Add in different national and linguistic contexts, and if becomes more confusing.)
In literature there is something called the historical present tense, in which you use the present to describe events that happened in the past. It works sometimes in novels, memoirs, etc. If I, as a historian, wrote something in this tense, it would be thrown back at me. (Although I do sometimes use it when narrating an event in class: So Columbus goes to Queen Isabella, and what does she tell him?)
In Italian, however, it is much more common to write in the present tense to describe the past than it is in English.
Part of being an educated person is recognizing different ways that language is used, by different people in different contexts.
Again, to the OP: by all means, make your students use the present tense to describe what Thomas Paine wrote, and make the students use MLA citations. I will make them use the past tense and Chicago-style footnotes. I won't pretend mine is the only way, and neither should you.
I think it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2021, 12:55:31 AM
I think it doesn't matter.
It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.
Quote from: Caracal on December 16, 2021, 04:59:47 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2021, 12:55:31 AM
I think it doesn't matter.
It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.
Definitely. How many people do as I do, and say things like "Last class
we talked about...", when, in fact,
I talked about (whatever); the students were silent.
Quote from: mleok on December 15, 2021, 07:48:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2021, 07:28:02 PM
I'm not sure exactly what our disciplinary conventions are, but I usually reserve the present tense for living authors and the past for the deaders.
Yes, I do the same.
I realized that in some fields it might depend on whether a person's ideas were corrected by later ones. So "so-and-so
said blah, but Other-so-and-so
shows that blahblah." The author of the currently accepted idea gets the present tense; authors of discredited ideas get the past tense. (So "alive or dead" is determined by the
idea, not the person, in the above distinction.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 16, 2021, 05:40:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 16, 2021, 04:59:47 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2021, 12:55:31 AM
I think it doesn't matter.
It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.
Definitely. How many people do as I do, and say things like "Last class we talked about...", when, in fact, I talked about (whatever); the students were silent.
I actually use the present tense a fair amount in class when talking about historical events. Mostly, it is when I'm trying to set up a scene, or get students to to try to empathize with, or understand the choices and dilemmas of people from the past. "So, Washington has a problem, he needs to convince Dunmore that he acted correctly, but..."
Very occasionally, you'll see the present tense used that way in academic history writing. I can think of a few books where the author starts a chapter with a sort of theatrical set piece imagining how some event might have taken place, or what some figure might have been thinking. Usually these sections are in italics to indicate that this is informed speculation and the author isn't claiming that this did happen exactly in this way, or that they can really prove this is what the person was thinking. I suppose using the present tense serves as both a way to convey the idea of contingent event taking place, but also is a way of emphasizing that it isn't historical writing in the way that the rest of the chapter in past tense will be.
However, you should know the conventions before you break them and it is useful to get students to understand the difference between academic and colloquial usage. Again though, tense is not the worst example of inappropriate colloquial language that I see.
STEM discipline here. I'd be happy if they'd just choose one tense and be consistent with it. I get whiplash when they bounce between present, past and <shudder> future </shudder>
I am grading senior theses in history. I should say that as long as the students are consistent, I don't really care. What really makes me shudder is when they do not alphabetize their bibliographies.....
I teach art history and I generally advise students to use the past tense when describing what an artist did (she painted a still life of fruit), but the present tense to describe a work of art (the brush strokes used to define the pears are thick and visible). This is because a work of art still exists in front of you while the artist is usually dead. Things get sticky for living artists, but that's another issue.
So, I think I actually disagree slightly with your usage. That said, I'm with everyone else, I explain how my discipline writes about the past, but am really interested in consistency. If the verb is in agreement with the noun, I take it as a win. I don't get picky until the capstone paper.
Quote from: artalot on December 16, 2021, 08:11:14 AM
I teach art history and I generally advise students to use the past tense when describing what an artist did (she painted a still life of fruit), but the present tense to describe a work of art (the brush strokes used to define the pears are thick and visible). This is because a work of art still exists in front of you while the artist is usually dead. Things get sticky for living artists, but that's another issue.
For living artists, I suppose it matters on whether they are done with the work. The uncultured among us may think that happens once the work is sent off for sale. But an interesting topic of discussion in art history,
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 16, 2021, 05:40:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 16, 2021, 04:59:47 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2021, 12:55:31 AM
I think it doesn't matter.
It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.
Definitely. How many people do as I do, and say things like "Last class we talked about...", when, in fact, I talked about (whatever); the students were silent.
We're using the royal "we."
Quote from: aside on December 16, 2021, 09:14:24 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 16, 2021, 05:40:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 16, 2021, 04:59:47 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2021, 12:55:31 AM
I think it doesn't matter.
It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.
Definitely. How many people do as I do, and say things like "Last class we talked about...", when, in fact, I talked about (whatever); the students were silent.
We're using the royal "we."
^+100 ;)
Quote from: bio-nonymous on December 16, 2021, 09:18:04 AM
Quote from: aside on December 16, 2021, 09:14:24 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 16, 2021, 05:40:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 16, 2021, 04:59:47 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2021, 12:55:31 AM
I think it doesn't matter.
It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.
Definitely. How many people do as I do, and say things like "Last class we talked about...", when, in fact, I talked about (whatever); the students were silent.
We're using the royal "we."
^+100 ;)
Me too; should that be "us, too"?
Or, "We, also"?
;--}
M.
The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin. It is fine.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 16, 2021, 10:27:24 PM
The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin. It is fine.
In what situations does classic Latin use the historic present, and where is the border to use past?
Doesn't it depend a great deal on context?
Seneca tells us "All cruelty springs from weakness."
Seneca wrote "All cruelty springs from weakness." in his work "The Happy Life."
Seneca believed "All cruelty springs from weakness."
It is partly stylistic too, but I would do a doubletake if a student wrote
'Seneca postulates "All cruelty springs from weakness."'
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 16, 2021, 10:27:24 PM
The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin. It is fine.
Well, yes, if the students write their papers in Latin. Or even Italian. But my students tend to write their papers in English (although I give them the option to write in Spanish or Portuguese when I teach Latin American history).
As others have said, I often use the present for class discussions. But in written work, historians use the past tense. I won't fail a student--or perhaps even mark a student lower--for using the present tense in a paper, but it is part of becoming literate in English usage. In the same way an Anglophone learning Italian should know how to use the passato remoto and passato prossimo correctly; it is not strictly a question of grammar but of usage.
Quote from: ergative on December 17, 2021, 03:37:37 AM
The present author, likewise.
One journal I publish in might let that one go. The present author is sorely tempted to slip it in the ms just to see what happens.
Quote from: ergative on December 17, 2021, 03:37:37 AM
The present author, likewise.
Or as a wise philosopher once said, "We too can't not die in a freak gasoline fight accident."
Reverist, hahahaha! I get the reference, even though I don't read good.
Quote from: jerseyjay on December 17, 2021, 04:33:12 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 16, 2021, 10:27:24 PM
The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin. It is fine.
Well, yes, if the students write their papers in Latin. Or even Italian. But my students tend to write their papers in English (although I give them the option to write in Spanish or Portuguese when I teach Latin American history).
As others have said, I often use the present for class discussions. But in written work, historians use the past tense. I won't fail a student--or perhaps even mark a student lower--for using the present tense in a paper, but it is part of becoming literate in English usage. In the same way an Anglophone learning Italian should know how to use the passato remoto and passato prossimo correctly; it is not strictly a question of grammar but of usage.
Yeah, communication and language involves lots of rules that are basically arbitrary and dependent on context. Paying attention to these ruleis important in all kinds of contexts outside of academia.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 16, 2021, 10:27:24 PM
The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin. It is fine.
Nobody is arguing that the use of the 'historic present' is wrong, but the OP is forcing their students to use it, which seems questionable.
Isn't that what we do? Teach students the professional conventions of our field?
I made little notes for few students that noted their incorrect use of the words peaked/piqued and cord/chord. I didn't take points off but if I'm not going to tell them now, who will tell them and when?
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2021, 10:05:46 AM
Isn't that what we do? Teach students the professional conventions of our field?
Sometimes? I dunno about you, but I have to do a lot triage in my teaching...
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2021, 10:05:46 AMIsn't that what we do? Teach students the professional conventions of our field?
I guess it would depend on whether this is a general education class or an upper-division class. I think forcing the specific and idiosyncratic conventions of a field in a general education class would be wildly inappropriate.
Maybe in some fields there are very specific conventions, but my impression is that in most fields, there is a variety of practices, and it is rare for an idiosyncratic convention to be universal within a field. So insisting on one convention rather than educating students about the range of conventions would not serve students well, even in upper level undergrad or grad student classes.
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 12:37:32 AM
Maybe in some fields there are very specific conventions, but my impression is that in most fields, there is a variety of practices, and it is rare for an idiosyncratic convention to be universal within a field. So insisting on one convention rather than educating students about the range of conventions would not serve students well, even in upper level undergrad or grad student classes.
Well, if there isn't a convention in the field, then all the more reason not to be pedantic about it even in an upper-division class. It's one thing if the paper is going to have my name on it, but I'm not going to penalize a student for using a style I don't personally prefer if it is otherwise acceptable in my field.
Quote from: mleok on December 15, 2021, 07:48:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2021, 07:28:02 PM
I'm not sure exactly what our disciplinary conventions are, but I usually reserve the present tense for living authors and the past for the deaders.
Yes, I do the same.
If you're still quoting them though (the deaders) they are as if still walking and breathing among us. Immortal. Their ideas have, if anything, extra standing.
It's uplifting to think that way, and also true, but I don't know if it would be correct usage. I'd do it your way, but not mind if someone used present tense.
Aside: sports announcers now use
future tense for something that just happened. 'Rodriguez will steal second on the wild pitch.' What does this accomplish? Maybe it makes the TV watching more vivid.
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 12:37:32 AM
Maybe in some fields there are very specific conventions, but my impression is that in most fields, there is a variety of practices, and it is rare for an idiosyncratic convention to be universal within a field. So insisting on one convention rather than educating students about the range of conventions would not serve students well, even in upper level undergrad or grad student classes.
I doubt there are any fields that don't have specific conventions. It might not be about tense, but it's about something. There are certain conventions you are supposed to follow in doing a math proof. Scientific papers have a structure they need to follow. These things are arbitrary to some extent, but that doesn't mean they are pointless. It's useful to know where the methods section, or the literature review section is going to be. These structures can also make things easier for writers. It presumably saves a lot of time if you don't have to worry about where to put different elements of a scientific paper and nobody has to spend any time deciding what tense to write their article in. You can usually find examples where people don't follow the rules, but that usually serves a very specific purpose. If you write a paragraph of a history book in present tense, you are indicating something by your departure from the normal rules.
All of us can probably think of people we know who confuse personal preferences and rules. I've had colleagues complain to me about some stylistic "error" underarms mak eand have thought "I do that all the time, nobody has ever flagged it, it has appeared in my published work and in other people's published work-It's not a real rule." But that's not what we are talking about here. Present tense in lit writing or past tense in historical writing are accepted conventions.
Of course, how much to worry about these kinds of things is a different question and the one the OP was actually asking.
Different journals or university presses will have policies for all sorts of ways of setting things out. But if a a policy is not rationally required, and is just a conventional choice, I expect that different people will go different ways. I can't think of any convention that is universally accepted by all journals in a field, though I'd be interested to hear examples.
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 06:39:23 AM
Different journals or university presses will have policies for all sorts of ways of setting things out. But if a a policy is not rationally required, and is just a conventional choice, I expect that different people will go different ways. I can't think of any convention that is universally accepted by all journals in a field, though I'd be interested to hear examples.
Some rules can vary, but many are pretty universal across fields. No journal in history is going to print an article using parenthetical citations. I'm assuming it isn't going to work in your biology paper to just leave out the lit review section.
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 06:39:23 AM
Different journals or university presses will have policies for all sorts of ways of setting things out. But if a a policy is not rationally required, and is just a conventional choice, I expect that different people will go different ways. I can't think of any convention that is universally accepted by all journals in a field, though I'd be interested to hear examples.
Citing one's sources?
Writing one's own work (i.e. not plagiarizing)?
Not re-publishing work published elsewhere?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2021, 07:20:24 AM
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 06:39:23 AM
Different journals or university presses will have policies for all sorts of ways of setting things out. But if a a policy is not rationally required, and is just a conventional choice, I expect that different people will go different ways. I can't think of any convention that is universally accepted by all journals in a field, though I'd be interested to hear examples.
Citing one's sources?
Writing one's own work (i.e. not plagiarizing)?
Not re-publishing work published elsewhere?
Right, but those are not discipline-specific conventions.
I was thinking more about things like citation formats.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2021, 07:20:24 AM
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 06:39:23 AM
Different journals or university presses will have policies for all sorts of ways of setting things out. But if a a policy is not rationally required, and is just a conventional choice, I expect that different people will go different ways. I can't think of any convention that is universally accepted by all journals in a field, though I'd be interested to hear examples.
Citing one's sources?
Writing one's own work (i.e. not plagiarizing)?
Not re-publishing work published elsewhere?
These are all
principles in most, if not all, academic disciplines. How they are
applied, however, is often different even within the same discipline.
For example, citing sources? I have seen some books by really good and recognized historians that do not have any footnotes or citations, and instead just have a bibliographic essay at the end. These are usually in books aimed at undergraduates or non-historians (such as published by Hill and Wang). Then there are books that only cite primary sources. And then there are some journals (especially the American Historical Review) that cite anything that could conceivably be cited. I have received readers' reports asking for more footnotes, and readers reports requesting the footnotes be trimmed--for the same article. My point is, what "cite your sources" means varies within the same discipline.
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 08:04:28 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2021, 07:20:24 AM
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 06:39:23 AM
Different journals or university presses will have policies for all sorts of ways of setting things out. But if a a policy is not rationally required, and is just a conventional choice, I expect that different people will go different ways. I can't think of any convention that is universally accepted by all journals in a field, though I'd be interested to hear examples.
Citing one's sources?
Writing one's own work (i.e. not plagiarizing)?
Not re-publishing work published elsewhere?
Right, but those are not discipline-specific conventions.
I was thinking more about things like citation formats.
Every US-based psychology journal I know of follows the APA style guide.
Quote from: jerseyjay on December 19, 2021, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2021, 07:20:24 AM
Quote from: downer on December 19, 2021, 06:39:23 AM
Different journals or university presses will have policies for all sorts of ways of setting things out. But if a a policy is not rationally required, and is just a conventional choice, I expect that different people will go different ways. I can't think of any convention that is universally accepted by all journals in a field, though I'd be interested to hear examples.
Citing one's sources?
Writing one's own work (i.e. not plagiarizing)?
Not re-publishing work published elsewhere?
These are all principles in most, if not all, academic disciplines. How they are applied, however, is often different even within the same discipline.
For example, citing sources? I have seen some books by really good and recognized historians that do not have any footnotes or citations, and instead just have a bibliographic essay at the end. These are usually in books aimed at undergraduates or non-historians (such as published by Hill and Wang). Then there are books that only cite primary sources. And then there are some journals (especially the American Historical Review) that cite anything that could conceivably be cited. I have received readers' reports asking for more footnotes, and readers reports requesting the footnotes be trimmed--for the same article. My point is, what "cite your sources" means varies within the same discipline.
Sure. They're all still conventions, though.
(The point was just to offer downer some counterexamples, since their claim seemed too strong.)
Quote from: jerseyjay on December 19, 2021, 08:14:58 AM
For example, citing sources? I have seen some books by really good and recognized historians that do not have any footnotes or citations, and instead just have a bibliographic essay at the end. These are usually in books aimed at undergraduates or non-historians (such as published by Hill and Wang).
Usually, those have hidden citations. No footnotes, but there are references at the end ordered by page number. Although, perhaps not in all cases.
Conventions don't need to be universal to be broadly accepted, and the details can vary, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I do think its silly to worry about things where there isn't really a standard convention. For example, the practice of including the publisher in the citation seems to be fading. Some journals and publishers might require it, others don't. I give students a standard format just to keep things simple, but it would be silly to worry about whether they include the publisher.
Except when you're trying to find a really out-of-the-way resource and the publisher has changed or been bought out several times, in which case the habit of including all publishers might mean that one hard-to-find one will be there when it's needed.
I also decry the lack of credits for book cover and frontispiece materials, and the slung-on captions and credits that do not name the title of an artwork, its maker, date, school, country of origin, and current location (museum or other) if known.
Those of us who work from visual materials NEED to be able to find such resources. They're not just cute 'illustrations,' they signify as much as verbal texts do in iconographic and other imagaic studies.
It has taken me 50 years to track down an image I saw as an undergraduate; it just popped up online (thankfully, correctly credited, finally) the other day.
M.