The Verb: The Categories of Aspect and Order and Tense.
The Category of Aspect
The category of aspect is a system of two-member opposemes such as works – is working, has worked – has been working, to work – to be working showing the character of the action, i.e. whether the action is taken in its progress, in its development (‘continuous’) or it is simply stated, its nature being unspecified (‘non-continuous’).
The problem of aspect is controversial in English grammar. There is but little consensus of opinion about this category in Modern English.
One meets with different lines of approach to English aspect, which can be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Aspect is interpreted as a category of semantics rather than that of grammar.
2. Aspect is not recognized at all as a category of Modern English grammar.
3. Aspect is blended with tense and regarded as an unalienable part of the tense-aspect system.
4. Aspect and tense are recognized as two distinct grammatical categories.
Typical of the first line are the views advanced by M. Deutschbein, A.G. Kennedy and some other grammarians, although it is self-evident that their views have nothing to do with grammar, being based exclusively upon semantic principles.
Those who do not recognize the existence of aspect in Modern English treat the ‘continuous’ forms as tense forms (termed ‘progressive’, ‘expanded’, ‘long’, ‘durative’ or ‘relative’ tense forms) expressing actions simultaneous with some other actions or situations.
However, Haimovich reasons in the following way:
1. The forms wrote – was writing are opposed not as tense forms. Both of them express the same tense – the past.
2. The idea of simultaneous does not go very well with the ‘perfect continuous’ forms which are a necessary part of the system of ‘continuous’ forms.
3. Even the ‘non-perfect continuous’ forms may be used without special indications of simultaneity (I’mstaying with his sister).
4. Simultaneous actions are very often expressed by the non-continuous forms of the verb (Her voice pursued him as he walked up and down).
5. Sentences like “Soames passed into the corner where side by side hung his real Goya and the copy of the fresco “La Vendimia”. And next to it was hanging the copy of “La Vendimia” show that the continuous and the non-continuous forms may express exactly the same relation of the action to time.
All this bears testimony to the fact that the category expressed by the opposition of the continuous and the non-continuous forms is not that of tense. Likewise Haimovich disagrees with those who, though recognizing aspect as a grammatical category, think, nevertheless, that it cannot be severed from tense.
|
|
|
Consequently, Haimovich follows the views advanced by Ilyish, Smirnitsky, Yartseva, and some other linguists and treat tense and aspect as different grammatical categories.
The categories of tense and aspect characterize an action from different points of view. The tense of a verb shows the time of the action, while the aspect of a verb deals with the development of the action.
The term aspect describes to some extent the content of the category. It really shows what aspect of the action is considered: whether the action is taken in its progress or without that specification.
With regard to the category of aspect verbs divide into those that have aspect opposites and those that have not. The latter are united by the oblique, or lexico-grammatical, or potential meaning of ‘non-continuous aspect’. As usual, the neutralization of ‘aspect’ opposemes depends on the lexical meaning of the corresponding verbs (see, hear, believe, like, trust, burst, feel, etc.).
The Category of Order
The category of order is a system of two-member opposemes, such as write – had written, writing – having written, to be written – to have been written, etc. showing whether the action is viewed as prior to (“perfect”), or irrespective of (“non-perfect”), other actions or situation. The interpretation of this category belongs to the most controversial problems of English grammar.
Linguists disagree as to the category the “perfect” belongs to.
Some Soviet authors (Ilyish, Vorontsova) think that it forms part of the aspect system (‘resultative’ aspect – according to Ilyish, ‘transmissive’ aspect – according to Vorontsova). This point is shared by quite a number of grammarians both in our country and abroad.
Other linguists treat the ‘perfect’ as belonging to the system of tense. Ivanova regards the ‘perfect’ as part of the ‘tense – aspect’ system. However, those who stick to this theory are up against a very serious difficulty, since proceeding from the point of view it is difficult to explain the nature of the ‘perfect continuous’, where two aspects (‘resultative’, ‘perfective’ or ‘transmissive’, on the one hand, and ‘continuous’ or ‘imperfective’, on the other hand) seem to have merged into one, which is hardly possible. We cannot imagine a verb as having positive indications of two tenses, two voices, etc. at the same time.
|
|
|
Smernitsky was the first to draw attention to the fact that opposemes like write – has written, wrote – had written or to write – to have written represent a grammatical category different from that of tense, though closely allied to it.
She has come (priority to the situation in the present, to the act of speech)
She had come before Mrs. B. phoned over (priority to the act of Mrs. B.’s phoning over)
From the examples above it is clear that the ‘perfect’ serves to express priority, whereas the non-perfect member of the opposeme (write – has written) leaves the action unspecified as to its being prior or not to another action, situation or point of time.
Smernitsky calls the category represented by the above members the category of time correlation.
Haimovich name this category the category of order. Members like had written presenting a process as prior to some action or situation are opposites of the ‘perfect’ order, those like wrote, writing which do not specify the action as to its being prior to another situation or action – of the ‘non-perfect’ order.
The Category of Tense
The category of tense is a system of three-member opposemes such as writes – wrote – will write, is writing – was writing – will be writing showing the relation of the time of the action denoted by the verb to the moment of speech.
The time of an action or event can be expressed lexically with the help of such words and combinations of words as yesterday, next week, now, a year ago, etc. It can also be shown grammatically by means of the category of tense.
The correlation of time and tense is connected with the problem of the absolute and relative use of tense grammemes.
|
|
|
We say that some tense is absolute if it shows the time of the action in relation to the present moment (the moment of speech).
This is the case in the Russian sentences:
Он работает на заводе.
Он работал на заводе.
Он будет работать на заводе.
The same in English:
He works at a factory.
He worked at a factory.
He will work at a factory.
But very often tense reflects the time of an action not with regard to the moment of speech but to some other moment in the past or in the future, indicated by the tense of another verb.
| Он сказал, что | он работает на заводе. |
| он работал на заводе. | |
| он будет работать на заводе. |
Here the tense of the principle clauses сказал is used absolutely, while all the tenses of the subordinate clauses are used relatively. The present tense работает does not refer to the present time but to the time of the action сказал. The future tense of будет работать does not indicate the time following the present moment, but the time following the moment of the action сказал. The same holds true with regard to the past tense of работал.
In English such relative use of tenses is also possible with regard to some future moment.
| He will say that | he works at a factory |
| he worked at a factory | |
| he will work at a factory |
But as a rule, this is impossible with regard to a moment in the past:
| He said that | he worked at a factory |
| he had worked at a factory | |
| he would work at a factory |
The tenses of works, worked, will work cannot be used relatively with regard to the past moment indicated by the verb said. In English they are, as a rule, used absolutely, i.e. with regard to the moment of speech.
Therefore a ‘present tense’ verb may be used here only if the time of the action it expresses includes the moment of speech, which occurs, for instance, in clauses expressing general statements (He said that London is the capital of Great Britain). In case of future tense – if the action it expresses refers to some time following the moment of speech (Yesterday I heard some remarks about the plan we shall discuss tomorrow).
|
|
|
In the sentence ‘He said that he worked at a factory’ the past tense of worked also shows the past time not with regard to the time of the action of saying but with regard to the moment of speech.
Since English has special forms of the verb to express ‘precedence’ or ‘priority’ – the perfect forms – the past perfect is used to indicate that an action preceded some other action (or event) in the past. He said he had worked at a factory. But both in the principle and in the subordinate clause the tense of the verb is the same – the past tense used absolutely.
Дата добавления: 2019-09-13; просмотров: 1042; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!