[Grammar] I've read this book since early this morning.

[beachboy]

- I've been reading this book since early this morning/for 15 minutes.
- I've read this book since early this morning/for 15 minutes.

Do all the four sentences above sound good?
Is there any difference between using the present perfect and the present perfect continuous in the sentences above?

 

[jutfrank]

The first two, yes. The third, no. The fourth, possibly, given an appropriate (but very unlikely) context.

 

[beachboy]

The first two, yes. The third, no. The fourth, possibly, given an appropriate (but very unlikely) context.

Is it because "reading a book" is a temporary action, unlike "living in New York", for example? I'm asking this because I think there isn't much difference between "I've lived in New York for a long time" and "I've been living in New York for a long time".

 

[jutfrank]

Is it because "reading a book" is a temporary action, unlike "living in New York", for example?

The first two sentences are easy to imagine a context for because we would naturally interpret the central meaning as giving a sense of duration. It's this sense of duration that the present perfect continuous provides. The for fifteen minutes clarifies this interpretation nicely.

I think there isn't much difference between "I've lived in New York for a long time" and "I've been living in New York for a long time".

Don't confuse things by thinking about different examples. The sentences above use different aspects but they have essentially the same use. What I mean is they could both be used in the same situation to communicate practically the same message.

Changing the aspect of a verb will always give a different meaning, however slight. The difference of meaning created by the different aspects in each pair of sentences here is greater in the 'book' examples than in the 'New York' examples.

 

[beachboy]

The first two sentences are easy to imagine a context for because we would naturally interpret the central meaning as giving a sense of duration. It's this sense of duration that the present perfect continuous provides. The for fifteen minutes clarifies this interpretation nicely.



Don't confuse things by thinking about different examples. The sentences above use different aspects but they have essentially the same use. What I mean is they could both be used in the same situation to communicate practically the same message.

Changing the aspect of a verb will always give a different meaning, however slight. The difference of meaning created by the different aspects in each pair of sentences here is greater in the 'book' examples than in the 'New York' examples.

That's exactly what is difficult for me to understand. When it comes to "since" and "for" examples, I don't what kind of verb requests the present perfect and what kind of verb requests the present perfect continuous. So, it's difficult for me to come up with my own sentences using either one or the other.

 

[jutfrank]

That's exactly what is difficult for me to understand. When it comes to "since" and "for" examples, I don't what kind of verb requests the present perfect and what kind of verb requests the present perfect continuous. So, it's difficult for me to come up with my own sentences using either one or the other.

Yes, that's normal. If you really want to understand this, you need to get to the heart of grammatical aspect and try to identify the essential uses (i.e. how aspect relates to meaning.)

If I could give you one piece of general advice: Start with meaning and then go to grammar. It seems that currently you're doing the reverse. What you're currently doing is looking at the grammar and then asking 'What does it mean?' What you should be doing (in my view) is getting the meaning clear in your mind first, then asking What is the best grammar to use to convey this meaning?