o_paradoxus (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} o_paradoxus) wrote,@ 2005-09-15 19:17:00 |
|
Tensing in an essay
Lately I have struggled with keeping to the right verb tense. For instance, should I say, ``Sewall Wright argues that the shifting balance theory is correct,'' or ``Sewall Wright argued that the shifting balance theory is correct.'' He is, unfortunately, dead; so he can't argue it today. Then again, the present tense is used to refer to ideas, theories, concepts, and so on, as they presumably exist here and now, at least abstractly. ``Kant's view is that the categorical imperative is of first importance.''
The resolution of this problem is as follows. If referring to the thinker's initial proposal of the theory, its place in history, or in the development of his or her thought, the tenses should reflect temporal relationships. Otherwise, the present tense should be used. ``Wright first argued that species differences were nonadaptive; he later changed his view, arguing that interdeme differences, but not species differences, were nonadaptive.''
A similar problem arises when referring to one's own work. ``Above, I argue that drift has explanatory power.'' What about ``Above, I argued that drift has explanatory power''? It has been pointed out that ``above'' indicates a location in space, and so referring to it in the past tense doesn't make sense. However, ``above'' refers to a point previously in the essay, and if someone were reading the essay from start to finish, one would have read past that point previously in time. So the spatial term is used as a metaphor for a temporal one. I think that it would be better not to use the past tense in this case.
However, there is a clear warrant for using the past tense in the following kind of sentence. ``I have just argued that Rosenberg is incorrect; now, I will argue that Millstein is as well.'' Here, the author looks back at what has been accomplished, and looks forward to what he or she intends to do. This signals a point of transition in the essay.
Paul G. suggested that it doesn't matter what tense is used, since he sometimes reads essays starting in the middle. His suggestion is just to refer to section numbers or page numbers without reference to their relative location. I take it that he believes that the present tense ought to be used in such cases. ``Section 3.1.3 concerns Hempel.'' I suppose that much of what he reads is on the web, so he would expect the reference to the section number to be hyperlinked. I suppose ``above'' would not really make sense, literally, in this case.
Still, I think that maintaining the coherence of an essay requires that sometimes ``above'' and the temporal markers I discuss in the paragraph before last be used. ``Above'' can refer to the position of a claim in the development of an argument, for instance.
Lately I have struggled with keeping to the right verb tense. For instance, should I say, ``Sewall Wright argues that the shifting balance theory is correct,'' or ``Sewall Wright argued that the shifting balance theory is correct.'' He is, unfortunately, dead; so he can't argue it today. Then again, the present tense is used to refer to ideas, theories, concepts, and so on, as they presumably exist here and now, at least abstractly. ``Kant's view is that the categorical imperative is of first importance.''
The resolution of this problem is as follows. If referring to the thinker's initial proposal of the theory, its place in history, or in the development of his or her thought, the tenses should reflect temporal relationships. Otherwise, the present tense should be used. ``Wright first argued that species differences were nonadaptive; he later changed his view, arguing that interdeme differences, but not species differences, were nonadaptive.''
A similar problem arises when referring to one's own work. ``Above, I argue that drift has explanatory power.'' What about ``Above, I argued that drift has explanatory power''? It has been pointed out that ``above'' indicates a location in space, and so referring to it in the past tense doesn't make sense. However, ``above'' refers to a point previously in the essay, and if someone were reading the essay from start to finish, one would have read past that point previously in time. So the spatial term is used as a metaphor for a temporal one. I think that it would be better not to use the past tense in this case.
However, there is a clear warrant for using the past tense in the following kind of sentence. ``I have just argued that Rosenberg is incorrect; now, I will argue that Millstein is as well.'' Here, the author looks back at what has been accomplished, and looks forward to what he or she intends to do. This signals a point of transition in the essay.
Paul G. suggested that it doesn't matter what tense is used, since he sometimes reads essays starting in the middle. His suggestion is just to refer to section numbers or page numbers without reference to their relative location. I take it that he believes that the present tense ought to be used in such cases. ``Section 3.1.3 concerns Hempel.'' I suppose that much of what he reads is on the web, so he would expect the reference to the section number to be hyperlinked. I suppose ``above'' would not really make sense, literally, in this case.
Still, I think that maintaining the coherence of an essay requires that sometimes ``above'' and the temporal markers I discuss in the paragraph before last be used. ``Above'' can refer to the position of a claim in the development of an argument, for instance.
