Theme 13. The verb: time correlation

Plan

1. The definition of the category.

2. The traditional and modern interpretation:

a) the tense view;

b) the aspect view;

c) the tense-aspect view;

d) the time correlation view;

e) the retrospective coordination view.

The functional meaning of the category has been interpreted in four different ways:

I. The tense view

This view is shared by H. Sweet, G. Curme, M. Bryant, J.R. Aiken and developed in the Soviet linguistic literature by N. F. Irtenyeva, M.A. Ganshina and N.M Vasilevskaya.

According to this viewpoint, the perfect verb form denotes a secondary temporary characteristic of the action which shows that the denoted action precedes some other action or situation in the present, past or future. This secondary tense quality of the perfect form is naturally contrasted against the secondary tense quality of the continuous form which, according to N.F. Irtenyeva, intensely expresses simultaneity of the denoted action with some other action in the present, past or future.

This idea is a sound one as it shows that the perfect, in fact, coexists with the other, primary expression of the time:

e.g. Grandfather has taken his morning stroll and now is having a rest on the veranda.

The situation could be translated into the past (with the time correlation intact)

e.g. Grandfather had taken his morning stroll and was having a rest on the veranda.

or even into the future, though in this case the correlation is not so clearly pronounced:

e.g. By the time he will he having a rest on the veranda, Grandfather will surely have taken his morning stroll.

Laying emphasis on the temporal function of the perfect, the “tense” view ignores its aspective function by which the action is connected with a certain time limit. Besides, as M.Y. Bloch points out, the purely oppositional nature of the perfect form is not disclosed by this approach, thus leaving the categorical status of the perfect undefined.

II. The aspect view.

According to this view point, the perfect is approached as an aspective form of the verb. This view is presented in the works by M.Deutschbein, E.A.Sonnenschein, A.S. West and is shared by the Soviet linguist G.N.Vorontsova. A subtle observer of intricate nature of language as she was, G.N.Vorontsova disclosed the successive connection of two events expressed by the perfect verb form, prominence given by the form to the transference or transmission of the accessories of a pre-situation to a post-situation. G.N. Vorontsova’s explanation has revealed the aspective nature of the perfect: the resultative meaning of the perfect is understood in her conception within a more general destination of this form as a particular manifestation of its transmissive functional semantics:

E.g. The wind has dropped and the sun burns more fiercely than ever.

One is made aware of the resultative implication of the perfect due to the transformation:

The sun burns more fiercely than ever as a result of the wind having dropped.

Despite the merits of the aspect approach one soon becomes aware of its two drawbacks:

1) While emphasizing the aspective side of the function of the perfect, it underestimates its temporal side;

2) it fails to disclose the oppositional nature of the perfect, leaving the categorical status of the perfect undefined.

III. The tense-aspect view.

According to this view developed by I.P. Ivanova, the perfect verb form has double temporal aspective character, similar to the continuous verb form. The two verbal forms, perfect and continuous, are contrasted to the so-called indefinite forms with neutralized aspective properties.

The merit of the approach lies in the fact that it reveals the actual double nature of the analyzed verbal form. However, exposing the two different sides of the integral semantics of the perfect, the conception loses sight of its categorical nature since it fails to explain how the grammatical function of the perfect is effected in contrast with the continuous or indefinite.

Thus it is evident, that the three view points expounded here actually compliment each other as to the contents of the perfect verb forms, though all of them have failed to disclose the grammatical category within the structure of which the perfect is enabled to fulfil its distinctive function.

IV. The time correlation view.

A.I. Smirnitsky was the first to show the categorial individuality. His conception has been called the ´time correlation` view. According to A.I. Smirnitsky, the perfect form by means of its oppositional mark builds up its own category, different from that of the tense (present-past-future) and the aspect (continuous-indefinite) and cannot be reduced to either of them.

The functional contents of the category of time correlation can be defined as priority expressed by its perfect form in the present, past or future contrasted against the non-expression of priority by the non-present forms, i.e. the perfect, the form of precedence, i.e. the form giving prominence to the idea of two times brought in contrast, coexists syntagmatically with the continuous, the form of simultaneity, i.e. the form, expressing one time for two events.

It was the peculiar structure of the perfect continuous form that caused A.I. Smirnitsky to advance the new interpretation of the perfect. A.I. Smirnitsky’s reasoning is easy to grasp. Since the same categorial (semantic) meaning cannot be expressed twice in one and the same verb form, the perfect verb form is neither aspective nor temporal form on condition that the continuous form expresses aspect or tense, the idea being that the perfect is different from both, the tense and the aspect.

As M.Y. Bloch points out, the analysis of A.I. Smirnitsky is not devoid of certain limitation:

1) it underestimates the aspective plane of the categorial semantics of perfect form revealed by G.N. Vorontsova and I.P. Ivanova.

2) The reasoning by which the category is identified is not altogether complete in so far as it confuses the general grammatical notions of time and aspect with the categorical status of concrete word-forms in each particular language, conveying the corresponding meanings. Some languages may convey temporal or aspective meanings within the functioning of one integral category for each (as the Russian language), while other languages may convey the same or similar kind of meanings in two or even more categories for each (as the English language).

The only true criterion of this is the character of the representation of the respective categorial forms in the actual speech manifestation of a lexeme. If a lexeme normally displays the syntagmatic coexistence of several forms distinctly identifiable by their own peculiar marks, as, for example, the forms of person, number, time, etc., it means that these forms in the system of language make up different grammatical categories. The integral grammatical meaning of any word-form is determined by the whole combination of the categories peculiar to the part of speech the lexeme belongs to. e.g. the form has been speaking expresses the 3 rd person of the category of number, the present of the category of time, the continuous of the category of aspect, the perfect of the category of time correlation.

Thus the perfect can be disclosed as a marked form of a separate verb category of time correlation or order (to stress its actual retrospective property) semantically intermediate between aspective and temporal, but self-dependent in the general categorial system of the English verb.

The category of time correlation is made by two constituents:

Perfect	Non-Perfect
личные формы
writes wrote is writing is written	has written had written has been writing has been written

Perfect	Non-Perfect
неличные формы
to write to be written to be writing writing	to have written to have been written to have been writing having written

The marked member of the opposition is the perfect (have=V+en). Unlike the categories of voice and aspect every verb (but modal) has the opposition of the perfect : : non-perfect.

M.Y. Bloch considers it advisable to rename the grammatical category under examination as a category of retrospective coordination in order, first, to stress its retrospective property (priority of action), and, second, to reserve such a general term as ‘correlation’ for more unrestricted, free manipulations in non-specified uses connected with grammatical analysis.

References:

1. Бархударов, Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка / Л.С. Бархударов. – М.: Высшая школа, 1975. – С. 116-119.

2. Блох, М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: учебник / М.Я Блох. – 4-е изд., испр. – М.: Высшая школа, 2003. – С. 180-190.

3. Жигадло, В.Н., Современный английский язык. Теоретический курс грамматики: учебное пособие / В.Н. Жигадло, И.П. Иванова, И.Л. Иофик. – М.: ИЛИЯ, 1956. – С. 97-109.

4. Иванова, И.П., Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка: учеб. / И.П. Иванова, В.В. Бурлакова, Г.Г. Почепцов. – М.: Высшая школа, 1981. – С. 60-65.

5. Иофик, Л.Л. Хрестоматия по теоретической грамматике английского языка: пособие для студ. фак. ин. яз. пед. инст-тов / Л.Л. Иофик, Л.П. Чахоян. – 2-е изд., доп. – Л.: Просвещение, 1972. – С. 67-77.

6. Смирницкий, А.И. Морфология английского языка / А.И. Смирницкий. – М.: ИЛИЯ, 1959. – С. 274-316.