When to use has been?

[Indumohan81]

What is the difference between the following 2 sentences ?

1. She was working from Jan 2006 to Jan 2009 .

2. She has been working from Jan 2006 to Jan 2009 .

When do we use " has been " . Any eg ?

[Abdalhadi82]

I think we use has been to talk about something happened at the past and continue without stopping to the present.

[OxfordBlues]

'has been working' is the perfected form of the first sentence. Perfected means completed or finished.

She was working... simply gives a duration in the past.

She had* been working... gives a duration up to a point at which the verb is completed.

*because your sentence says 'from Jan 2006 - Jan 2009' and the terminal time is at a point in the past, had been working (past tense) is used rather than has which is present tense.
_________________
There's no such thing as an exception to the rule...

My blog: http://calleteach.wordpress.com

[Indumohan81]

Mr. Oxfordeblues,

Thanks for your correction,

does this means that we use has been only for intervals or duration ?

Can u help me with 2 egs for has been?

[Indumohan81]

Kind thanks for your answer Mr. Oxforblues,

So, which is the correct sentence,

She has been working from Jan 2004- Jan 2009 .
She had been working from Jan 2004 - Jan 2009

Please provide another 2 egs for has been , had been .

[Abdalhadi82]

She has been studying English for 6 months.

[OxfordBlues]

Remember that you have two separate time elements in a language -- tense (present, past, and future) and aspect (the type of time information). The progressive aspect in English is used to express duration (a verb happening over a length of time).

Examples:

She is learning English. (learning takes place over a length of time and has duration. She is doing it now, so the present tense auxiliary verb 'is' is used)

She was learning English for two hours yesterday. (like the first example, this verb learning has duration. In this case, the duration is specified as 'two hours'. That duration occured at a time in the past 'yesterday' so the past tense form of the auxiliary 'was' is used.

Tomorrow she will be learning English from 3 till 5. (again there is a duration 'from 3 till 5' so the progressive aspect is used. Because that duration occurs in the future 'tomorrow' a future form of the auxiliary is used 'will be')

---------------

As stated above, perfected forms express completion of the verb. Both the durational progressive aspect and the non-durational simple aspects can be perfected. Just as the progressive aspect is used to express or measure duration, the perfected progressive aspect is used to express or measure duration up to a point of completion. In the perfected progressive it is possible that the verb couldcontinue beyond the point of completion, but the duration of the verb is only measured up to that point.

In other words, the perfected progressive allows you to measure how long a verb progressed, progresses, or will progress up to a certain point in time.

For all perfected forms used in the present, the time of completion is always now. For this reason you never use a specific time phrase to represent the time of completion (unless you say something like 'as of now').

So in the example "She has been studying English for 6 months," the verb study has had a duration of 6 months as of now. We don't know whether it continues or not, butwe can measure it up to this point.

In your original "She had been working there from Jan 2006 till Jan 2009," the verb work has a duration of three years (Jan 2006 till Jan 2009), but that verb work was also completed at a time before now (Jan 2009, a year ago). Because the verb is completed the perfected form is used, and because that time of completion occurred before now, the past tense form of the perfecting auxiliary 'had' must be used.

If there is a time of completion in the future, and you want express duration, then the perfected progressive in the future would be used: "I will have been working here for five years by August." In this example, the time of completion is August, which is in the future. By that time in the future, the verb work will have had a duration of 5 years. As with the present tense example, the working could continue beyond August (we have not been given that information) but regardless, we can measure the duration of the verb up to that future point (5 years).

Make sense?
_________________
There's no such thing as an exception to the rule...

My blog: http://calleteach.wordpress.com

[Slickric]

Does "She had studied English for 6 months" same meaning with "She had been studying English for 6 months?"

[OxfordBlues]

Because study is a verb that has natural duration, they have the same meaning, but this would not be the case for all verbs.

She had been studying adds an extra emphasis on the durational nature of the activity. In other words, maybe she had been very actively studying English (as in working on it everyday).
_________________
There's no such thing as an exception to the rule...

My blog: http://calleteach.wordpress.com