Have had or Have been

Question

I've been learning English in my company.
We have just started Present Perfect and encountered 1 issue I don't quite understand.

There were 2 different, not related to each other exercises.
In one we had to rephrase the following sentence using Present Perfect:

1) I got this job in January.

In the 2nd excercise we had a list of events. The last two are:

2001 - moved back to the USA and went to work at the M&M factory in Montana.
  
  2006 - moved to A new job in the M&M offices in Nebraska.

Using this information we had to make a sentence in Present Perfect out of words

2) have/job/Nebraska

and since/for/from...to. Since the prompts clearly point out to the last of entries and we have no info on what happened to "him" further, I supposed that only 'since' could have been used here.

Most of us gave the following answers:

1) I have had this job since January.

and

2) He has had a job in Nebraska since 2006

Our teacher said that considering information given in tasks, the 2) answer is correct, but the 1) answer isn't. The proper answer to the 1) is:

1) I have been in this job since January.

To me they have the same meaning and both are suitable. Both cases seems to be related, so I asked what's the difference between 2 answers and why it's wrong to say "I have had" in 1) as we did in 2) example. He said the reason lies in the fact that in 1st case there is "this", more specific, and in 2nd case we have "a", which indicates something general. Therefore, there is no way we can use "have had" in 1)

The lesson ended and he told us to investigate this as our homework. I've spent a great deal of time considering this and searching through the web, but still have had no answer.

He is a native speaker, British, wearing a bow-tie, speaking with that funny British accent, scrupulous and addicted to proper grammar. It's rather odd not to believe him.

But it still bothers me, is he right? Does the presence of this/a has so much impact on usage of have had?

Toby 1 Kenobi · Accepted Answer

I am also British, and I say there is no semantic difference between your answer for question 1 and your teacher's answer. Also, they both have valid grammar and as such they are both correct.

It's possible that in your teacher's variety of English his form is grammatically preferred over yours, but without a wider context to the phase it's hard to say.

The presence of the near demonstrative "this" gives the sense that the speaker is saying it while being in the workplace, perhaps while actually working. In that case, in British English, it sounds a little more awkward (though not incorrect) to use "have had this job". The most usual form in that situation would be "have been working here", but that's further from the original form of question 1, so maybe that's why you're teacher went with "have been in this job"

But really this is splitting hairs and your teacher shouldn't have marked you incorrect for "have had this job"

Ashish Singh · Answer

Yes, he is right.

For first sentence:

We generally use "have had" to tell the instances in which something happened.

For example, "I have had many break-ups since 2011."

If someone is continuously involved with a job for some time, he or she would say, "I have been in this job since January."

Here, being in the job is one continuous event and not many instances hence the use of "have been" is apt here.

Or, if one is a job-hopper, one may say, "I have had many jobs since January."

For second sentence:

The second sentence simply implies that the person has had a job since 2006.

That means "he was never without a job in that period".

Again, there were many instances when he had jobs (one or the other), and hence, using have had is apt.

Right sentence is, "He's had a job in Nebraska since 2006".

TRomano · Answer

"=" as I use it here means very much the same, insignificant differences meaning-wise.

I have a job now = I am in a job now.

I have had this job since 2011 = I have been in this job since 2011.

"Have" is both a lexical verb (to possess, to hold) and a helper or auxiliary verb.  In the present perfect example above, "had" is lexical. The verb "held" could be substituted for "had" there.

The verb "get" in your first example complicates matters, because we cannot use "get" with a temporal phrase expressing duration. You "get" things at a point in time.  For the verb "get" to be used with duration, we must use the continuous "getting" or use a temporal phrase that means "after a certain point".

okI got hired.

not ok I got hired since January.
not ok I have gotten this job in January.

ok I have had an interview and am getting the job.

ok I have been getting job offers left and right ever since I read that self-help book called 1001 Ways to Improve Your Resume.

ok I have gotten job offers left and right after reading that self-help book called 1001 Ways to Improve Your Resume.

Cargill · Answer

I would like to offer the counter-argument, and suggest that "I've had this job since January." is both widely used and not ungrammatical, and it means that you started a new job in January. Whereas "I've been in this job since January." can mean the same thing, but would often be used to mean that you had a different job with the same firm, before that.

Also, "I've had this job since January." implies that you won the job in January through a selection process or other hiring method, while "I've been in this job since January." does not necessarily contain the implication that you were appointed at that time.

Have had or Have been

4 Answers

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question