 |
 |
You might be interested in the advice on tense use in literature reviews from Monash University's *Language and Learning Online* website http://monash.edu/lls/llonline/writing/general/lit-reviews/3.2.xml Dr Janice Pinder Learning Skills Adviser Sir Louis Matheson Library Monash University Clayton 3800 tel. (03) 990 51470 (Mon-Tues, Thurs-Fri) On 23 September 2015 at 02:14, Carl Johan Carlsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Interesting. Without any backing evidence, I also think it has to do with > what the verb is. I would probably go for “found”, “discovered” etc. but > then “claim”, “argue”, “point out” etc. That is, what they did in their > study and what they still say about their results. > > Best, > Carl > —————————— > Carl Johan Carlsson > Division for Language and Communication > Department of Applied Information Technology > Chalmers University of Technology > 412 96 Gothenburg > Sweden > +46(0)31-772 5816 > > > From: European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing - > discussions <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of john t <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: john t <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tuesday 22 September 2015 17:57 > To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Referencing: Past or present tense? > > In amongst this wealth of knowledge relating to ‘I’ and ‘we’. Kerstin > takes up the issue of tense and writes: Can I use the past tense in > papers/theses/dissertation/academic texts and switch between > > tenses, i.e. when introducing the method which usually has been done > before the presentation of results and then go back to present tense when > the actual results are presented? What would be an appropriate guideline? > > > I seem to recall that this question (or a variety thereof) was taken up > some 5-6 years ago. Let me present the problem as follows: > > Smith and Jones (1997) found that there was no association between X and Y. > > Brown and Green (1994) find that X and Y are highly correlated. > > > > I am sure that there is a rule determining the use of past or present > tense, but whatever this, many authors are inconsistent. If the findings of > S&J are still relevant, is the present tense more appropriate? If so, then > the findings of B&G should employ the present tense. > > > > Of course, we can combine these sentences: > > Whereas S&J found no association between X and Y, B&G observe a strong > correlation. > > > > Now we are mixing tenses. This is not quite the question posed by Kerstin, > but covers the principle of changing tense, and the matter of past or > present tense in referencing. > > > > Comments very welcome. > > John Taylor > > Freelance language consultant > > > > >