Class 02 – Time Tenses (Continuation)

Past Perfect

Format: had + past participle

Just as the present perfect refers to a time-frame in the past that has
relevance to the present, the past perfect refers to a time-frame leading
up to a point in the past.

In other words, the present perfect refers to ‘time up to now’, while the
past perfect refers to a ‘time up to then’.

We will call this the “then relevance”.

----------- Event ------------→

Past --------------------------------→ Then

The “then relevance” is always indicated either through adjuncts or

through context!

Example:

That was in 1938. I left in June with the children for a new home in Oxford,
where my mother had bought a house. My father had died in 1936.
↓
This can be illustrated as:

Time before ‘then’:

… my mother had bought a house
… father had died

‘then’ (= 1938):
I left in June

Other examples:

By 1930, the economic depression had caused severe unemployment in

many countries. (then = 1930)
She finally passed her exam that year. She had studied very hard. (then=
“that year”)

There were many car accidents that morning. It had rained all night. (then
= “that morning”)

Uses of the past perfect:

The past perfect is very frequent in reported clauses where the reporting
verb is in the past:

Linda kept me informed and she said that her husband had moved back
in.

The policed informed me that criminals had robbed stores in the area
before.

Obs. Reporting verbs include verbs of perception:

I noticed he had hurt his leg.

He saw that she had healed.

The past perfect is also often used to refer to situations which were true
but which have been or are to be changed. In such cases, had is often
stressed:

I had planned to stay in the library and study until 9:30, but I was too
tired.

We had hoped to see them at the party, but they didn’t come.

The past perfect MUST be used when there is a past reference in a

hypothetical conditional clause If:

She was so old she would have died if she had caught swine flu.
Well, even if you had come home tonight, you would have been upset
anyway.

Obs. The past perfect is not used in the main clause in hypothetical
conditional sentence:

If I had had more time, I would have been in touch earlier.

(If I had had more time, I had been in touch earlier.)

Past Perfect X Past Simple

Sometimes the past perfect may be necessary to undo possible

misunderstandings or ambiguities with regards to the sequence of events
and the semantic relationship between them:

They all left the room when she recited her poem. → Suggests they all left
at the moment she started reciting.

They all left the room when she had recited her poem. → Suggests they
left after she had finished reciting.

The past simple also suggests a more immediate causal link between two
events, compared to the past perfect:

When he opened his third present, he looked at the roller skates and
smiled. → Stresses the immediate result, suggesting that the rollers skates
were his third present.

When he had opened his third present, he looked at the roller skates and
smiled. → Not such an immediate relationship; the roller skates may not
have been the third present.

What is the difference?

He had written many essays that month. He was tired. → He wrote many
essays (he’s done), and because of it, he was tired. (“then relevance”)

He had been writing many essays that month. He was tired. → He wrote
and he was still writing many essays that month, and because of it, he was
tired.
 Past Perfect Progressive

Format: had been + ing form

The principles for choosing between the past perfect and the past perfect
progressive are the same as those operating between the present perfect
and the present perfect continuous.

The past perfect progressive is used for events which had started in the
past and were still continuing at the moment “then”.

-----------Event -------- Continuing→

Past --------------------------------→ Then

Again, context and/or adjuncts are going to be used to indicate the “event
in the past still continuing then” aspect!

We had been playing football for five minutes when you showed up. →
Ongoing event continuing up to that point in the past “when you showed
up”.

I had been working so intensely I could not believe when everything was
finished. → Ongoing event continuing up to that point in the past “when
everything was finished”.

I felt so sick that morning. I had been sneezing and blowing my nose all
night. → Ongoing event continuing up to “that morning”.

Past Perfect X Past Perfect Progressive

Often, the difference between the past perfect and the past perfect
progressive is the emphasis on the extended aspect of the event in the
past (past perfect progressive) or the emphasis on that event being
completed on a ‘time up to then’ time-frame (past perfect):
After their departure Edith noticed the small white card lying on the table.
She had been meaning to tell her brother about it, he had the right to
know, but their behavior had put everything else out of her mind.
↓
“had been meaning…” refers to an extended event going on around that
time-frame; “had put” refers to a single, completed event that occurred
during that time.

Past Tense Round Up

The past tense forms refer to a time-frame that is in some way separated
from the present; there is a clear break between the completion of the
event and the present moment. This break may be explicitly stated by an
expression of definite past time (ex: yesterday, last week, in 1975) or may
be implicit through context.

The past tense forms may be contrasted with the present perfect forms,
which are used to refer to events in a time-frame that is still connected to
the present moment (“now relevance”).

The basic difference between the speaker’s perception of the time as past
or as extending until now, and the choice of the past tense or the present
perfect forms can be expressed as:

Past tense forms:

----Time---→ Now
Event

I mailed your letter.

We were working in the garden all day yesterday.

Present perfect forms:

----Time---→ Now
Event --→ Now

I have called you many times today!

She has been feeling sick for the last few days.

Past perfect forms:

A speaker may also refer to a time-frame in the past and to events from
an earlier past that are linked in some way to that time-frame. In these
cases, the past perfect forms may be used. This relationship may be
represented as:

----Time---→ Then
Event --→ Then

I had told Michael already, so the news came as no surprise to him.

He had been dating her for a while, but he still had not met her parents.
 Composition CACD 2018
When the statesmen who took Europe to war in 1914 came to write their
memoirs, they agreed on one thing: that war had been inevitable – the
result of such vast historical forces that no human agency could have
prevented it. “The nations slithered over the brink into the boiling
cauldron of war”, wrote David Lloyd George in a famous passage in his
War Memoirs. Nor was this the only metaphor he employed to convey the
vast, impersonal forces at work…
Neil Ferguson, Why the World Went to War, Penguin, 2005, p. 1 (adapted)

In light of the quote above, comment on the conclusion the statesmen

had come to, regarding the inevitability of the First World War. Mention
and explain some of the circumstances that induced them individually to
arrive at such a common judgement.
1 – Nationalism – Balkans – Yugoslavia, German, Russia, French, British,
Ottoman Empire
2 – Imperialism – Lenin, colonies, Moroccan question, the Fashoda
incident,
3 – The system of alliances – the murder of Franz Ferdinand

In “The Sleepwalkers”, Christopher Clark provides a comprehensive

analysis of the reasons the world slipped into World War I. Statesmen,
from Lloyd George to Czar Nicholas II, became hostages of the impersonal
forces mentioned by Neil Ferguson. Indeed, rising nationalism, imperialist
competition and the system of alliances that developed in the late 1800s
and early 1900s set the stage for the War. Therefore, although individual
statesmen could have worked to avoid the conflict, the systemic conditions
of the time rendered the War imminent.
The nationalism that developed throughout the 19th century was one
of the forces that led to the Great War. Russia established alliances with
Slavic nationalism in the Balkans, mostly in the would-be Yugoslavia, in
order to weaken the Ottoman Empire and, thus, expand towards the
Mediterranean. Simultaneously, French revanchism toward Germany,
stemming from the German unification process, added great tension to the
dynamics of European politics. Finally, the British, as the world’s military
and financial hegemon, sought to contain the rise of the German and
Russian Empires. Thus, these opposing projects helped lead the world to
war.
Economically, imperialism contributed to ignite the war. According
to Vladimir Lenin, the conflicting interests of the great capitalist powers, in
search for rising profits and increasing surplus value in the exploitation of
the colonies, rendered interstate competition deadly. The Scramble for
Africa, for instance, led not only to genocide in the Congo but also to
consequential events for the War itself, such as the Fashoda Incident,
which consolidated the British-French alliance. In Asia, the Japanese-
Russian War of 1904 established Japan as the first non-European great
military power. These dynamics also set the stage for World War I.
Diplomatically, the system of alliances that developed in the 50
years that preceded the War was also one of its fundamental causes. The
Austrian-Hungarian Empire became both a fundamental ally of Berlin and
an enemy of Moscow. Unsurprisingly, it was through this alliance that the
War spread, after the murder of Franz Ferdinand. Once Russia and
Germany went to war, the entire alliance system unraveled. The colonies
were thus dragged into the conflict, rendering it a true global war. In the
end, even independent countries from other continents, such as Brazil and
the United States, would participate in this great tragedy.
As these important historical forces evidence, Lloyd George, Charles
Clemenceau, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Czar Nicholas II were not entirely to
blame for World War I. Their judgement that it was inevitable seems
credible when one analyzes the conjuncture of nationalism, imperialism
and the system of alliances. Nonetheless, as Christopher Clark argued, if
these statesmen had taken a step back to reflect upon their actions,
millions of lives could have been spared. One hundred years after the end
of the Great War, one hopes the lessons of history will be valued so as to
avoid the further collapse of the already-crumbling current international
order.
Composition CACD 2017
Many commentators are of the opinion that this grouping of five large and
populous emerging nations has the potential to influence the international
system, as regards for instance the reform of the International Monetary
Fund and the implementation of the Paris Convention. Others, however,
point out that Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have their own
separate diplomatic agendas, and that their differences will always make it
impossible for the group to become a real force in world affairs.
Nevertheless, the impact of the Trump presidency and the weakening of
the post-Brexit European Union may open new perspectives for the BRICS.
In the light of the different opinions presented above, discuss if the
BRICS can contribute to create a new world order.
 TPS 2018
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front
of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike
them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda,
constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is
deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately,
it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring
diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one
unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is
unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further
research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is
about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another
polity
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a
theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the
example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little
further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese
ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who
spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation.
But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent
polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in
the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of
diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to
represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt,
walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political
mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while
embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags,
walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into
presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states
they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant
pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently
embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material
deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other
states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing
inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —,
in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: (adapted)

QUESTÃO 37 Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or

wrong (E) according to text II.
1 The author starts his text by mentioning people who stand apart from
most because of their understanding of the political implications which
may arise from the presence of panda bears in countries other than China.
2 The passage “The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as
strange” (R. 2 and 3) indicates that people may become aware that panda
bears kept outside China can be signs of international political forces.
3 One can correctly infer from the text that the author is against the
exploitation of animals for political or diplomatic ends.
4 The view on representation expressed by the author is broader and
more flexible than the one which considers that “diplomacy is about
people representing polities” (R.14).
QUESTÃO 38 Considering the grammatical and semantic aspects of text II,
decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
1 The point made by the author in “Unfortunately, it was (…) that of
representation” (R. 8 to 11) would remain the same if this passage were
rewritten as Sadly, only recently have political scientists started to actively
engage in the study of diplomacy as a conceptual phenomenon, and this
delay has led to the irrefutable axiom of representation.
2 As used in the text, the word “posit” (R.26) is synonymous with ignore.
3 In “But this is merely an extension” (R. 27 and 28), the word “this” refers
to the statement that “the panda bear in the zoo is China” (R.27).
4 Because the word “deployed” (R.40) can be related to the meaning of
putting troops or weapons in a position ready to be used, in the text it
reinforces the idea that panda bears have acquired political and strategic
significance.