The past perfect continuous can seem quite complicated to form, with had + been + present participle. However, the nice thing about the past perfect continuous is that the words used in the form never change (like the bare infinitive). This is because all three words used to create the past perfect continuous are participles – two past participles (had and been) and the present participle (for example walking). These participles always use the same form, whatever the subject. Now that we know that, how do you use it?
Uses of the past perfect continuous
The main use of the past perfect continuous is to show the duration of a continued or repeated activity that was in progress at a specific point in the past.
- They had been learning English for two years when the course finished.
Here, the activity of learning was occurring for two years before the course finished. The past perfect continuous usually shows that the action or event in the past was either finished or interrupted by another event in the past.
- I had been reading the book for months, but I gave up.
The specific time is not always an exact point; in the example above, the duration is clear (for months), and the action was interrupted by giving up. Therefore the duration was for an action (reading the book) beforethe time that I gave up.
This tense is often used with prepositions such as for and since to show duration.
- He had been tracking the murderer since the first crime.
The secondary use of the past perfect continuous is to show that an action completed before another event in the past was an ongoing process. This use is similar to how we use the past perfect, but it emphasises that the action was ongoing, or a process.
- Everyone was very tired at the party. They had been working too hard. (Emphasising the process of working, finished before the party.)
This is important when the process is more important than its completion. It often stresses activity.
- I had been running.
- He had been talking on the phone.
With an emphasis on process and duration, it can also be effective to demonstrate irritation:
- We were frustrated because we had been waiting for hours.
Comparing the past continuous and the past perfect continuous
Both the past continuous and the past perfect continuous can show an ongoing process in the past, sometimes for the same event, with only a subtle difference in meaning.
- I was washing the car when she phoned.
- I had been washing the car when she phoned.
These two sentences essentially give the same information, but the past perfect continuous emphasises that washing the car happened earlier in the past; which can show it had been going on for a certain amount of time.
The difference becomes clearer when we add a duration to the sentence.
- I had been washing the car for an hour when she phoned. (The phone call followed an hour of washing the car.)
It would not be possible to show this duration with the past continuous. When we add duration to the past continuous, it tells us the action happened at the same timeas the past event.
- I was washing the car for an hour while she spoke. (She spoke at the same time as I washed the car.)
The past perfect continuous is therefore used instead of the past continuous to clearly demonstrate that the ongoing process or repeated action started before another past event.
(This article has been an abridged version of sections from the book, The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide – for more information on the tenses, including more details about the past perfect continuous, please read more articles on my site, or consider reading the book itself!)
Dear Phil,
I have three queries concerning the past perfect continuous tense.
Firstly, I don’t quite get your statement when you said “The specific time is not always an exact point; in the example above, the duration is clear (for months), and the action was interrupted by giving up. Therefore the duration was for an action (reading the book) before the time that I gave up”. Isn’t it a case where a duration is always used with the present perfect continuous? If so, why then the need to say the specific time is not always an exact point? My argument being that the continuous aspect of this tense will need a duration to go along with it since a point in time can’t express the continuous aspect/duration.
Secondly, is it grammatically correct for me to say “I was washing the car for an hour when she called” to mean the same as “I had been washing the car for an hour when she called”? Do both sentences convey the same meaning in that the washing had been going on for an hour before/when “she” called?
Thirdly, while I understand that the past perfect con’t is used to express something which had been continuing for sometime before being interrupted by another time or action in the simple past, my question is whether is it necessary to mention the interruption within the same sentence as the past perfect con’t (as in “She had been working at that company for a year when she met James” or “I’d been walking for hours when I finally found the house”) as compared to a case where maybe a single sentence only contains the past perfect con’t and that the interruption isn’t mentioned in the same sentence as the past perfect con’t but instead shows up in the neighboring sentences such as “by the time Tom noticed the doorbell, it had already rung three times. As usual, he had been listening to loud music on his stereo. He turned the stereo down and stood up to answer the door” – here the past perfect con’t is interrupted by Tom’s action of turning down the stereo, but that this interruption (i.e. turning down the stereo) doesnt show up in the same sentence as the past perfect con’t action of “had been listening to loud music”. In otherwords, the interruption to the past perfect con’t can either be in adjacent sentences and not in the same sentence as the past perfect con’t action, or perhaps not even mentioned at all in the adjacent sentences but is clear from context. In this case, is such a use of past perfect con’t correct?
Appreciate your advice, thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Sorry I have been slow to respond to this one. For the first question, perhaps point was inaccurate, I think what I meant to say there was that the time might not be specifically defined. I.e. the duration could be specified (“two months”) or not (“many months”). So whilst it may always be used to show duration, it may not give us an exact duration, if that makes sense.
On the second question, no these would have different meanings. The past perfect continuous would tell us that duration was complete when the call interrupted it, but the past continuous would suggest the duration included the call (i.e. while she called, I was washing the car for an hour). The latter isn’t a particularly eloquent way to say it, but that would be the meaning.
On the third question, as with much in English, it’s all about context, and your ideas are right – it doesn’t have to be in the same sentence, and it may even merely be implied, if we understand the interruption through other means. So yes, you may have the past perfect continuous on its own without the interruption, depending on how we understand the context.
Best,
Phil