tried to vs has been trying to

[jutfrank]

I couldn't disagree more, and neither would many, if any, of the writers in the field, but we'll leave it there if you want to.

 

[Friar Lawrence]

The acts of listening and writing down the lyrics need not necessarily be in the very same time frame. It is quite possible that he decided to try writing down the lyrics after the act of listening to the song was completed. Therefore in my opinion, both A and B are possible.

The past tense verb listened in the first clause sets the narrative context in the past. This is a narrative sentence about the past so only a past tense verb fits.

Do you really think that it would be fair of the question writer to change the time frame mid-sentence?

Interesting discussion. Jutfrank, might you be assuming that Daniel's listening to the song again and again, on the one hand, and his trying for almost three hours to write down the song's lyrics, on the other, happened, as teechar puts it, "in the very same time frame"?

That does seem a most natural context. Certainly, when I've tried to write down song lyrics, I have done so while playing a song again and again. Maybe that is the context that the question writer had in mind.

However, it doesn't seem unnatural to have a slightly different context in mind. Perhaps Daniel wished to play the song again and again to cement the song into memory, that he might subsequently write down all the lyrics accurately.

If so, the nonoverlapping activities could have happened in one of two time frames. Either both the listening and the writing occurred in the past, with the writing occurring at a later time in the past than the listening, or the listening occurred in the past, with the three-hour writing period continuing into the present.

Compare:

Daniel filled up his car with gas and has been driving for about three hours.

Do you feel that that sentence awkwardly shifts time frames? What if we added an adverbial?

Daniel filled up his car with gas at 9 a.m. and has been driving for about three hours.

 

[jutfrank]

Jutfrank, might you be assuming that Daniel's listening to the song again and again, on the one hand, and his trying for almost three hours to write down the song's lyrics, on the other, happened, as teechar puts it, "in the very same time frame"?

Yes, exactly.

That does seem a most natural context. Certainly, when I've tried to write down song lyrics, I have done so while playing a song again and again. Maybe that is the context that the question writer had in mind.

Yes, I think that's obviously what the writer had in mind.

However, it doesn't seem unnatural to have a slightly different context in mind. Perhaps Daniel wished to play the song again and again to cement the song into memory, that he might subsequently write down all the lyrics accurately.

Well, yes, that's possible, but do you think that's a more likely, or a less likely thing to happen? Is it easier or harder to imagine?

I maybe haven't made my point clear. I'm not denying that it's perfectly grammatical and perfectly natural to think that Daniel listened first and only subsequently tried for hours to write down the lyrics. (Let's call this the second interpretation.)

What I am saying is that this second interpretation makes less sense than the first interpretation. I'm predicting that if you gave this test question to a thousand native speakers, the vast majority of them would choose answer A over answer B, and that is sufficient to validate the test. This is, though, a reasonable point of disagreement, as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, this whole discussion is kind of pointless since we don't know who wrote the question or what exactly it is supposed to be testing. What I will concede is that it is a very strange question and it doesn't seem to have been written by anyone who really knows what they're doing. Still, in my judgement the context is sufficient to elicit A as the answer.

 

[jutfrank]

Leaving the question of the validity of the test aside, we can talk about the language itself.

If so, the nonoverlapping activities could have happened in one of two time frames. Either both the listening and the writing occurred in the past, with the writing occurring at a later time in the past than the listening, or the listening occurred in the past, with the three-hour writing period continuing into the present.

Yes, good point, you're right—there are three interpretations at hand, not two. One could interpret the word 'and' to mean 'and then'.

1) listening and trying are cotemporaneous (both in the past)
2) listening and trying are sequential (both in the past)
3) listening and trying are sequential (one past, one present)

(Two of those interpretations would have A as the right answer.)

Daniel filled up his car with gas and has been driving for about three hours.

Do you feel that that sentence awkwardly shifts time frames?

Not in the right context, no. It doesn't have to be awkward. Still, the shift might be facilitated by the inclusion of a time marker:

Daniel filled up his car with gas and has now been driving for about three hours.

What if we added an adverbial?

Daniel filled up his car with gas at 9 a.m. and has been driving for about three hours.

Yes, I think a time marker in the initial clause does also make the following time shift slightly easier to swallow. I think that any time markers that clarify the time relations would help the sentence since that's their job, but if there should be only one, it coming after the shift would be much more effective.

 

[MichaelLu2000]

Hi guys

When I checked with the tutor, the correct answer he provided was A. He claims that the tense should be consistent, and I’ve asked other native speakers. Some of them, like some helpful comments here, think both are possible because both A and B are grammatical and might actually happen in daily life.

I personally think there should be some other clues about the time frame to eliminate the ambiguity.

E.g. Jack listened to the song again and again yesterday and _____to write down the lyrics for three hours.

In the version above, the answer would be clearly A.

 

[jutfrank]

I personally think there should be some other clues about the time frame to eliminate the ambiguity.

I expect we're all in agreement that that would help the question greatly, yes.

Do you have any idea what this question was trying to test exactly?

 

[MichaelLu2000]

I expect we're all in agreement that that would help the question greatly, yes.

Do you have any idea what this question was trying to test exactly?

As I said, the tutor said the question was about tense consistency, so your answer is the one he expects.

 

[Friar Lawrence]

E.g. Jack listened to the song again and again yesterday and _____to write down the lyrics for three hours.

In the version above, the answer would be clearly A.

Even with that revision, "tried" can correctly fill the blank:

Jack listened to the song again and again yesterday and has been trying for [the last] three hours to write down the lyrics. [He is having trouble remembering them all.]

However, if you placed "yesterday" at the beginning of the sentence, where it would have scope over both verb phrases, "has been trying" would indeed be incorrect.

incorrect/ungrammatical: Yesterday, Jack listened to the song again and again and has been trying to write down the lyrics for three hours.

 

[MichaelLu2000]

Even with that revision, "tried" can correctly fill the blank:

Jack listened to the song again and again yesterday and has been trying for [the last] three hours to write down the lyrics. [He is having trouble remembering them all.]

However, if you placed "yesterday" at the beginning of the sentence, where it would have scope over both verb phrases, "has been trying" would indeed be incorrect.

incorrect/ungrammatical: Yesterday, Jack listened to the song again and again and has been trying to write down the lyrics for three hours.

I think you are right. It's not clear when the writing down of the lyrics takes place. To be honest, I could listen to a song a hundred times one day and then spend three hours trying to write down the lyrics the next day by recalling what I heard.

 

[5jj]

I couldn't disagree more, and neither would many, if any, of the writers in the field,

I am not rejoining this thread, but I would be interested to have links to the views of some of the writers in the field.

 

[jutfrank]

I would be interested to have links to the views of some of the writers in the field.

A key feature of multiple choice tests is the inclusion of what are called 'distractors' (i.e., wrong answers). Plausibility and grammaticality are actually desirable in distractors since they require the test taker to use other contextual cues in order to select the right answer. If a question is valid, it must lead the test-taker to the interpretation that the writer has in mind. If it doesn't, it's either because the context isn't good enough or that the test-taker lacks comprehension.

Coincidentally, I've been doing a lot of reading on the topic of the principles of test construction over the past weeks as I'm writing some teacher training materials. If you really want me to, I'll see if I can pick out any particularly relevant passages and examples from the literature.

 

[5jj]

He stirred his coffee with a __________.

a) teaspoon
b) horseshoe
c) astrolabe
d) dipstick

The right answer is a) 'teaspoon', for which you get a point. The other answers, though grammatical and 'possible', are wrong, and merit no points.

I agree.

However. in michael's original question,

Daniel listened to the song again and again and____to write down the lyrics for almost three hours.

A) tried B) has been trying

there is no 'wrong' answer.

 

[5jj]

If you really want me to, I'll see if I can pick out any particularly relevant passages and examples from the literature.

I would certainly be interested to read a justification for arbitrarily deciding that one possible , grammatical and natural response is 'wrong'

 

[jutfrank]

It's no good repeating what we've already said.

You said that if any answer that is not the answer that the writer had in mind is grammatical, it invalidates the test. I was trying to show that non-grammaticality is not essential. It's about understanding what best fits the context.

I would certainly be interested to read a justification for arbitrarily deciding that one possible , grammatical and natural response is 'wrong'

Arbitrarily? It certainly shouldn't be arbitrary.

 

[5jj]

It certainly shouldn't be arbitrary.

Then what is the non-arbitrary reason for deciding that , of the two sentences below, A is right and B is wrong

A. Daniel listened to the song again and again and tried to write down the lyrics for almost three hours.

B. Daniel listened to the song again and again and has been trying to write down the lyrics for almost three hours.

 

[jutfrank]

That the first clause, being past tense, sets the narrative context in the past. A shift of tense from present to past is not expected. I said that in post #5.

 

[5jj]

is not expected by whom? By you?

 

[jutfrank]

is not expected by whom? By you?

By you, and any other native speaker.

Give this test question to as many native speakers as you can and I predict that a vast majority of them will choose answer A.

 

[5jj]

Even if they did, that would not make B wrong.

 

[jutfrank]

Of course it would. You'd then be able to ask what it is that the learner cannot understand that a native speaker can understand. It would mean that the learner can't do something that they should be able to do. That's the test.