1

I am reading many academic papers at the moment and am becoming more aware of the use of has, have, had in front of a verb, where it seems redundant. For example the following sentence:

The economic and financial crisis has pushed Western OECD countries to cutback management and to savings, but has also pushed them towards an awareness that trust in the capacity of governments and its public sector to realise effective policies is a crucial element in a performing society and economy.

My intuition says

The [...] crisis pushed Western countries...

is the same, and avoiding redundant words is always favourable. Am I correct here, and if not, is there a rule the use of this?

(I tried Google, but I don't know what the correct name of this past tense is)

edit

Am I correct if I say both versions are right, but 'has pushed' is more appropriate because it does not refer to a specific point in time?

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    Some still call it the "present-perfect tense", some prefer "the perfect aspect" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_%28grammar%29
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Jul 25, 2013 at 9:43
  • Generally, the construction using "has" plus the past-tense verb is used to discuss something in a broader context. Use of the simple past is more immediate, and more likely to be used in a step-by-step progression. Compare: "I have shaken branches before, and no apple has fallen." This makes a general, almost philosophical statement. "I shook the branch. No apple fell." This limits the scope to a specific incident.
    – Robusto
    Commented Jul 25, 2013 at 12:04
  • It's not "has" plus the past tense verb. It's "has" plus the past participle of the verb. This is the same as the past tense for regular verbs like push, but different for most irregular verbs like do, see, or go. And it's probably best described neutrally as the perfect construction. See the Verb Phrase Study Guide for details.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Jul 25, 2013 at 14:02
  • 1
    @JohnLawler: True enough, and my bad for misnaming the verb form. Ironically, I was simply trying to avoid naming it, since I didn't want to get into an argument about whether it was called present perfect or perfect aspect or whatever, early in the morning. My intent was merely to draw a usage distinction between the two. Obviously my brain fart defeated that, since the discussion still seems to be about nomenclature instead of substance.
    – Robusto
    Commented Jul 25, 2013 at 14:14
  • Sorry, Robusto. I'm not concerned with you, really; it's the OP, who clearly hasn't a clue about constructions.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Jul 25, 2013 at 14:18

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

About redundancy: A verb is the heart of the sentence and you shouldn't simplify because it can change all the meaning.

As @Mari mentioned, your question is in the present perfect tense. Generally, you would use this tense in two main scenarios:

  1. When you want to talk about an incident in the past but you don't know the exact time.
  2. When you are talking about several incidents in the past without mentioning (even) the approximate time. (like last year)

So, whenever you want to write a sentence in the past, just ask yourself: Do I know the exact time? If not, use present perfect. Or ask yourself: Did it happen several times? If yes, then use the present perfect.

Your sentence fits in the first case of using present perfect.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .