The category of phase. Various interpretations of the category of phase
The cat-ry of Ph-made up by opposition of Perf&non~ forms(f-s) which r char-sed by certain gr. m-gs. Tragger &Smith Use the term ”Ph” speak of the opp-ton of the current perf. Ph f-s . the term from physics . A verb in the current Ph denotes an action which is simultan. with its effect of the action(E.g.He came swiftly-The action is simultan with the effect.He was seen the mom he came) If the v in the Perf. Ph, the effect of the action is delayed. The perf Ph. removes our attention from the action &relocates it on the effect. E.g.He has opened the book. To open-is an action of limited duration, completed in the past& the effect of this action is fact in the present & temperarly delayed´the book is opened now´. There r 2 ??: 1)to what gr cat-ry the perf. Ph belong? 2)gr m-g of the Perf. f-s. 3 possibilities: 1)Some l-sts treat Perf.f-s within the framework of tenses (t). Class. school :Primary t-s- non-perfect, refer an action to cert. moment (mom.) of time in the past,pr., the fut or to the mom. of speaking (sp-ng). Secondary-perfect forms,don’t refer actions to points of time but express priority to the point of time in the P., Pr or Fut. The Pr.Perf denotes an action connected with the pr. The Past perf –action prior to the mom in the past, Fut perf- prior to a certain time in fut. Perf forms – special aspects.Ильиш: P.Perf&theFut.Perf. can be treated as relative t-s as they express priority. Pr.Perf-special aspect-the resultative aspect. Voroncova: Perf. f-s- transmissive aspect. ´The m-g of a PrPerf. showsa completed action, connected with the Pr, we observe continuity b/n the Past&thePr.” 3)Смирницк. и Бархударов: Describing Perf f-s we should speak about the cat-ry of time correlation-made up by the opp-tion of Perf&non~ f-s. This difference b/n perf & nonperf fs isn’t temporal, has nothing to do with the cat-ry of tense (took &had taken-both in the Past t), is not aspective either.(He has been doing it – he has done it)Pr perfect a spec aspect:1 sent-ence the form of predic.V contains 2 diff. aspects- it’s inlogical. Смирницк states that the diff-ce b/n Perf&non~ f-s is that non~ f-s denote actions which take or took place during a cert.mom or period of time, perf. f-s denote actions which r prior to a cert. mom. So non-perf f-s denote non-priority. Perf. f-s – priority. Non~ f-s of Cont.& common aspect r opposed to perf. f-s of Cont&common aspect. (to have been doing-to have been done, to be doing-to do). These opp-tions form a special gr cat-ry – the cat-ry of time correlation-was criticized by other ling-sts, they say there is a weak point-the Pr. Perf on 1 hand & the P&Fut. Perf on the other hand have differ. m-gs. They agree that the F&P. Perf indicate priority whereas the Pr.Perf besides priority to the mom of speech indicates some connection with it. Смирниц: The m-g of priority is nevertheless inherent in the Pr.Perf. It’s not the only case when a gr f. has addition. m-gs. The basic m-g is found in all the 3 Perf. f-s
The category of tense. The number of tenses in Modern English. The
Meaning of the present and the past tense. The problem of the future tense and
the future-in-the-past tense in Modern English.
Time vs Tense
Time = a form of the existence of matter
Tense = gram. category which indicates the time of an action by means of the form of a
verb.
Main divisions of time: present, past, future. Tense divisions in different Ls are different.
Number of tenses?
In English: 2 tenses/3 tenses
The present tense
Actions that take place at the moment of speaking or occupy a prolonged period of time or timeless actions.
/ hear a noise, I'm speaking English, We live in Moscow, The Volga flows into the Caspian sea
By means of Present tense we can describe:
- Past=> historical/dramatic present: / enter the room and who do you think I see?!
- Future=>I'm leaving next week
Structurally dependent use: clauses of time, condition and concession; in certain object clauses present instead of future (I’ll do what you say)
=> meaning of the present tense is hard to define; it's better understood from the opposition with past (some grammarians prefer ''non-past' to 'present').
The past tense
Бархударов: denotes an action prior to the moment of speaking and not correlated to this moment.
The form is marked (marked member = phonologically conditioned allomorphs in regular forms: - ed => [t],[d],[id] and morphologically conditioned in irregular: sing- sang)
The future tense
Traditional grammar: 3-fold division of tenses => the future tense is an analytical form which is made up of the auxiliary verbs shall/will + the stem of the infinitive (Смирницкий, Ильиш)
Arguments:
1. an analytical form is always some auxiliary verb (grammatical meaning) + main part (lexical meaning of the form).
2. shall&will originated from modal verbs but lost their modal meaning (prove: 'will' is freely used with the 1st person sg & pl without modal colouring). Modal meanings -in some sentences (Will you join us? - Присоединяйтесь!; Who shall answer the phone -> duty).
3. shall/will still have some shade of modality; describing the form ‘shall/will + infinitive'sometimes speak about the modality of uncertainty => we can never be sure about the future, so uncertainty is always present in prospective utterances (shall/will + infinitive can have the modalitv of futurity).
Jespersen, Allen, Qwerk&компания, Бархударов => 2 tenses.
Бархударов: shall/will + infinitive is not a tense form:
1. formal point of view: shall/will + infinitive = may/might + infinitive
modal verbs create free word-combinations + we can come across different forms of
infinitive:
can/may be working/have worked/have been working, etc
2. The modal meaning of shall/will + mf is always present in the utterance (a future action is always treated as necessary, possible or desirable)
3.shall/will + 'mf- no discontinuous morpheme => doesn't answer requirements for an analytical form.
4. shall/will + inf= not the only form to express a future action; there are
- certain verbs which refer to future (e.g. intend)
- several word-combinations (to be going to, to be about to)
- some verbs in their modal meaning
- present tenses
• Purely analytical forms are usually the only means of the language to convey a certain grammatical meaning (ср. с формой past)
5.shall/will like other modal verbs have their special past forms (should/would)
the combination should/would +inf can express both future and past (future-in-the-past), which hardly makes any sense in terms of a grammatical category (the principle of identification of any grammatical category demands that the forms of the category in normal use should be mutually exclusive. The category is constituted by the opposition of its forms, not by their co-position).
Блох believes that shall/will + inf belongs to a new specific temporal category -the category of prospective time. This category is built on the opposition of forms with s/)3///w///-marker and forms without this marker. As to the difference in meaning the forms with sha/l/witl-marker express an AFTER-ACTION whereas the forms without this marker express NON-AFTER-ACTION.
The prospective time is relative - the future action is relative to the present or the past time. If they are relative to the present time we speak of the form of the FUTURE. If they are relative to the past time we speak of the FUTURE-IN-THE-PAST.
The category of tense. The number of tenses in Modern English. The meaning of the present and the past tense. The problem of the future tense and the future-in-the past tense in Modern English.
E=English; Ts=tenses; Mg=meaning
Speaking about TIME we can define it as a form of existence of matter, it is the way we think about the progression of existence.
Tense- is a grammatical category that indicates the time of the action expressed by the form of the verb.
The main divisions of the objective time are relatively clear: there exist the past, the present and the future.
Concerning the E Ts we know that there are different opinions on the number of Ts. The 2 most wide-spread points of view about the English tense-system: some linguists think that it is a 2-tense system and some – that it’s a 3-tense system.
Within a 2-t. sys we differentiate between past and present tenses.
Within a 3-t. sys we differentiate between present, past and future.
The problem of the Future Tense: traditional grammar suggests the 3-fold division of Ts, which reflects the philosophical concept of time of the period.Linguists who belong to this field (Смирницкий, Ильиш) believe that the Future T. is an analytical form of the verb - this means that shall\will are auxiliary Vs & an infinitive makes the lexical part of this analytical form.
By these linguists, an analytical form is traditionally understood as a combination of an auxiliary verb which is devoid of the lexical Mg and a lexical part which is limited in function, so it carries the lexical Mg of the form only and is devoid of any Gr. Mg.
The Gr. Features of an analytical forms are concentrated in the auxiliary part. The combination of shall\will+inf. meets these requirements and that’s why it may be called an analytical form.
The Vs shall and will originate from modal Vs but they’ve lost their modal Mg (It’s easily shown be the fact that ~will~ nowadays is freely used for the 1-st person sing.) The modal colourings of these 2 Vs can be traced now only in a few constructions: ~ Will you join us?~(expressing of a request)
~Who shall answer the phone?~ (obligation)
The other group of linguists (Jespersen, Quirk, Leech) thinks that there is a 2-fold T sys in E. They believe that the category of T is expressed through the opposition of past and non-past forms (live-lived) They insist there is no Future T in E.
Here are their arguments:
1.Formally the combinations shall\will +inf. are in no way different from the comb. can+inf. or any other comb-s of modal V +inf.
(will come\ can come; will be reading\ can be reading; will be invited\can be invited ) As to the Mg of the comb. shall\ will+inf.- their modal colouring is always retained though it may be weakened. (In particular, Бархударов says a future action is never real- it`s always possible, planed and so on)
2.The comb-s shall\ will+inf. Are not the only constr-s in E which are used to express future actions. We can also employ other: to be going to do smth., to be about to do smth. Also we have special Vs to express future actions (to intend). Also- special tense forms which may express future actions (I’m leaving tomorrow)
3.The Vs shall\will like other modal Vs have corresponding past forms: should\would which can combine with diff. infinitives.
The above given arguments lead to the conclusion that the E lang. has no special form for the Future T. It has no form standing on the same grammatical level as the forms of the past and present Ts.
If to stick to the 3-fold division of Ts, we should take into consideration that these 3 Ts may appear in the common and in the continuous aspect- thus we get 6 tense-aspect forms.
Besides these six, however, there are 2 more, namely: the future-in-the-past and the future-continuos-in-the-past. These forms are used chiefly in subordinate clauses, but can be found in independent clauses as well.
The F-in-the-past &the F-Cont.-in-the-past do not easily fit into a system of Ts represented by a straight line running out of the past into the future. They are a deviation from this straight line: their starting point isn’t the present from which the past and the future are reckoned, but the past itself.
The Present tense(PT):
PT denotes a wide scope of actions:
1.They can be: taking place at the very moment of speaking (I hear a noise )
2.Occupying a prolonged period of time (I live in Moscow )
3.Timeless action (The Earth moves round the Sun)
4.Past actions («dramatic narrative use» - to make the description more vivid) I entered the room and who do you think I see? Your cousin!)
5.Future actions (I`m leaving tomorrow)
6.to denote future actions in object clauses when 2 future actions are regarded as simultaneous (I`ll do what you say)
So, we can conclude that the Mg of PT can be characterized as vague.
Бархударов insists that it`s easier to understand the PT comparing it with the past. He puts forward the term non-past. Барх. Very distinctly defines the Mg of the Past T. By him, the Past T. denotes an action which is prior to the moment of speaking & which is not correlated with this moment. Past T. is the marked number of the tense oppositions. The formal marker of the Past T. is the morpheme -ed in regular Vs (in speech it is represented by allomorphs -e, d, it).