Английский язык - Учебники на русском языке - Скачать бесплатно
past form. At the second stage, the process receives a non-absolutive
relative time characteristic by means of opposing the forms of the future
tense to the forms of no future marking. Since the two stages of the verbal
time denotation are expressed separately, by their own oppositional forms,
and, besides, have essentially different orientation characteristics (the
first stage being absolutive, the second stage, relative), it stands to
reason to recognise in the system of the English verb not one, but two
temporal categories. Both of them answer the question: "What is the timing
of the process?" But the first category, having the past tense as its
strong member, expresses a direct retrospective evaluation of the time of
the process, fixing the process either in the past or not in the past; the
second category, whose strong member is the future tense, gives the timing
of the process a prospective evaluation, fixing it either in the future
(i.e. in the prospective posterior), or not in the future. As a result of
the combined working of the two categories, the time of the event reflected
in the utterance finds its adequate location in the
139
temporal context, showing all the distinctive properties of the lingual
presentation of time mentioned above.
In accord with the oppositional marking of the two temporal categories
under analysis, we shall call the first of them the category of "primary
time", and the second, the category of "prospective time", or,
contractedly, "prospect".
§ 2. The category of primary time, as has just been stated, provides for
the absolutive expression of the time of the process denoted by the verb,
i.e. such an expression of it as gives its evaluation, in the long run, in
reference to the moment of speech. The formal sign of the opposition
constituting this category is, with regular verbs, the dental suffix -(e)d
[-d, -t, -id], and with irregular verbs, phonemic interchanges of more or
less individual specifications. The suffix marks the verbal form of the
past time (the past tense), leaving the opposite form unmarked. Thus, the
opposition is to be rendered by the formula "the past tense — the present
tense", the latter member representing the non-past tense, according to the
accepted oppositional interpretation.
The specific feature of the category of primary time is, that it divides
all the tense forms of the English verb into two temporal planes: the plane
of the present and the plane of the past, which affects also the future
forms. Very important in this respect is the structural nature of the
expression of the category: the category of primary time is the only verbal
category of immanent order which is expressed by inflexional forms. These
inflexional forms of the past and present coexist in the same verb-entry of
speech with the other, analytical modes of various categorial expression,
including the future. Hence, the English verb acquires the two futures: on
the one hand, the future of the present, i.e. as prospected from the
present; on the other hand, the future of the past, i.e. as prospected from
the past. The following example will be illustrative of the whole four-
member correlation:
Jill returns from her driving class at five o\'clock.
At five Jill returned from her driving class. I know that
Jill will return from her driving class at five o\'clock.
I knew that at five Jill would return from her driving class.
An additional reason for identifying the verbal past-present time system
as a separate grammatical category is provided by the fact that this system
is specifically marked by the do-forms of the indefinite aspect with their
various,
140
but inherently correlated functions. These forms, found in the
interrogative constructions (Does he believe the whole story?), in the
negative constructions (He doesn\'t believe the story), in the elliptical
response constructions and elsewhere, are confined only to the category of
primary time, i.e. the verbal past and present, not coming into contact
with the expression of the future.
§ 3. The fact that the present tense is the unmarked member of the
opposition explains a very wide range of its meanings exceeding by far the
indication of the "moment of speech" chosen for the identification of
primary temporality. Indeed, the present time may be understood as
literally the moment of speaking, the zero-point of all subjective
estimation of time made by the speaker. The meaning of the present with
this connotation will be conveyed by such phrases as at this very moment,
or this instant, or exactly now, or some other phrase like that. But an
utterance like "now while I am speaking" breaks the notion of the zero time
proper, since the speaking process is not a momentary, but a durative
event. Furthermore, the present will still be the present if we relate it
to such vast periods of time as this month, this year, in our epoch, in the
present millennium, etc. The denoted stretch of time may be prolonged by a
collocation like that beyond any definite limit. Still furthermore, in
utterances of general truths as, for instance, "Two plus two makes four",
or "The sun is a star", or "Handsome is that handsome does", the idea of
time as such is almost suppressed, the implication of constancy,
unchangeability of the truth at all times being made prominent. The present
tense as the verbal form of generalised meaning covers all these
denotations, showing the present time in relation to the process as
inclusive of the moment of speech, incorporating this moment within its
definite or indefinite stretch and opposed to the past time.
Thus, if we say, "Two plus two makes four", the linguistic implication of
it is "always, and so at the moment of speech". If we say, "I never take
his advice", we mean linguistically "at no time in terms of the current
state of my attitude towards him, and so at the present moment". If we say,
"In our millennium social formations change quicker than in the previous
periods of man\'s history", the linguistic temporal content of it is "in our
millennium, that is, in the millennium including the moment of speech".
This meaning is the invariant of the present, developed from its categorial
141
opposition to the past, and it penetrates the uses of the finite verb in
all its forms, including the perfect, the future, the continuous.
Indeed, if the Radio carries the news, "The two suspected terrorists have
been taken into custody by the police", the implication of the moment of
speech refers to the direct influence or after-effects of the event
announced. Similarly, the statement "You will be informed about the
decision later in the day" describes the event, which, although it has not
yet happened, is prospected into the future from the present, i.e. the
prospection itself incorporates the moment of speech. As for the present
continuous, its relevance for the present moment is self-evident.
Thus, the analysed meaning of the verbal present arises as a result of
its immediate contrast with the past form which shows the exclusion of the
action from the plane of the present and so the action itself as capable of
being perceived only in temporal retrospect. Again, this latter meaning of
the disconnection from the present penetrates all the verbal forms of the
past, including the perfect, the future, the continuous. Due to the marked
character of the past verbal form, the said quality of its meaning does not
require special demonstration.
Worthy of note, however, are utterances where the meaning of the past
tense stands in contrast with the meaning of some adverbial phrase
referring the event to the present moment. Cf.: Today again I spoke to Mr.
Jones on the matter, and again he failed to see the urgency of it.
The seeming linguistic paradox of such cases consists exactly in the fact
that their two-type indications of time, one verbal-grammatical, and one
adverbial-lexical, approach the same event from two opposite angles. But
there is nothing irrational here. As a matter of fact, the utterances
present instances of two-plane temporal evaluation of the event described:
the verb-form shows the process as past and gone, i.e. physically
disconnected from the present; as for the adverbial modifier, it presents
the past event as a particular happening, belonging to a more general time
situation which is stretched out up to the present moment inclusive, and
possibly past the present moment into the future.
A case directly opposite to the one shown above is seen in the
transpositional use of the present tense of the verb with the past
adverbials, either included in the utterance as such, or else expressed in
its contextual environment. E.g.:
142
Then he turned the corner, and what do you think happens next? He faces
nobody else than Mr. Greggs accompanied by his private secretary!
The stylistic purpose of this transposition, known under the name of the
"historic present" (Lat. praesens historicum) is to create a vivid picture
of the event reflected in the utterance. This is achieved in strict accord
with the functional meaning of the verbal present, sharply contrasted
against the general background of the past plane of the utterance content.
§ 4. The combinations of the verbs shall and will with the infinitive
have of late become subject of renewed discussion. The controversial point
about them is, whether these combinations really constitute, together with
the forms of the past and present, the categorial expression of verbal
tense, or are just modal phrases, whose expression of the future time does
not differ in essence from the general future orientation of other
combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. The view that shall and
will retain their modal meanings in all their uses was defended by such a
recognised authority on English grammar of the older generation of the
twentieth century linguists as O. Jespersen. In our times, quite a few
scholars, among them the successors of Descriptive Linguistics, consider
these verbs as part of the general set of modal verbs, "modal auxiliaries",
expressing the meanings of capability, probability, permission, obligation,
and the like.
A well-grounded objection against the inclusion of the construction
shall/will + Infinitive in the tense system of the verb on the same basis
as the forms of the present and past has been advanced by L. S. Barkhudarov
[Бархударов, (2), 126 и сл.]. His objection consists in the demonstration
of the double marking of this would-be tense form by one and the same
category: the combinations in question can express at once both the future
time and the past time (the form "future-in-the-past"), which hardly makes
any sense in terms of a grammatical category. Indeed, the principle of the
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!
However, reconsidering the status of the construction shall/will +
Infinitive in the light of oppositional approach,
143
we see that, far from comparing with the past-present verbal forms as the
third member-form of the category of primary time, it marks its own
grammatical category, namely, that of prospective time (prospect). The
meaningful contrast underlying the category of prospective time is between
an after-action and a non-after-action. The after-action, or the "future",
having its shall/will-feature, constitutes the marked member of the
opposition.
The category of prospect is also temporal, in so far as it is immediately
connected with the expression of processual time, like the category of
primary time. But the semantic basis of the category of prospect is
different in principle from that of the category of primary time: while the
primary time is absolutive, i. e. present-oriented, the prospective time is
purely relative; it means that the future form of the verb only shows that
the denoted process is prospected as an after-action relative to some other
action or state or event, the timing of which marks the zero-level for it.
The two times are presented, as it were, in prospective coordination: one
is shown as prospected for the future, the future being relative to the
primary time, either present or past. As a result, the expression of the
future receives the two mutually complementary manifestations: one
manifestation for the present time-plane of the verb, the other
manifestation for the past time-plane of the verb. In other words, the
process of the verb is characterised by the category of prospect
irrespective of its primary time characteristic, or rather, as an addition
to this characteristic, and this is quite similar to all the other
categories capable of entering the sphere of verbal time, e.g. the category
of development (continuous in opposition), the category of retrospective
coordination (perfect in opposition), the category of voice (passive in
opposition): the respective forms of all these categories also have the
past and present versions, to which, in due course, are added the future
and non-future versions. Consider the following examples:
(1) I was making a road and all the coolies struck. (2) None of us
doubted in the least that Aunt Emma would soon be marvelling again at
Eustace\'s challenging success. (3) The next thing she wrote she sent to a
magazine, and for many weeks worried about what would happen to it. (4) She
did not protest, for she had given up the struggle. (5) Felix knew that
they would have settled the dispute by the time he could be ready to have
his say. (6) He was being watched, shadowed,
144
chased by that despicable gang of hirelings. (7) But would little Jonny be
*being looked after properly? The nurse was so young and inexperienced!
The oppositional content of the exemplified cases of finite verb-forms
will, in the chosen order of sequence, be presented as follows: the past
non-future continuous non-perfect non-passive (1); the past future
continuous non-perfect non-passive (2) the past future non-continuous non-
perfect non-passive (3); the past non-future non-continuous perfect non-
passive (4); the past future non-continuous perfect non-passive (5); the
past non-future continuous non-perfect passive (6); the past future
continuous non-perfect passive (7) — the latter form not in practical use.
As we have already stated before, the future tenses reject the do-forms
of the indefinite aspect, which are confined to the expression of the
present and past verbal times only. This fact serves as a supplementary
ground for the identification of the expression of prospect as a separate
grammatical category.
Of course, it would be an ill turn to grammar if one tried to introduce
the above circumstantial terminology with all its pedantic strings of
"non\'s" into the elementary teaching of language. The stringed categorial
"non"-terms are apparently too redundant to be recommended for ordinary use
even at an advanced level of linguistic training. What is achieved by this
kind of terminology, however, is a comprehensive indication of the
categorial status of verb-forms under analysis in a compact, terse
presentation. Thus, whenever a presentation like that is called for, the
terms will be quite in their place.
§ 5. In analysing the English future tenses, the modal factor, naturally,
should be thoroughly taken into consideration. A certain modal colouring of
the meaning of the English future cannot be denied, especially in the
verbal form of the first person. But then, as is widely known, the
expression of the future in other languages is not disconnected from modal
semantics either; and this is conditioned by the mere fact that the future
action, as different from the present or past action, cannot be looked upon
as a genuine feature of reality. Indeed, it is only foreseen, or
anticipated, or planned, or desired, or otherwise prospected for the time
to come. In this quality, the Russian future tense does not differ in
principle
145
from the verbal future of other languages, including English, Suffice it to
give a couple of examples chosen at random:
Я буду рассказывать тебе интересные истории. Расскажу о страшных кометах,
о битве воздушных кораблей, о гибели прекрасной страны по ту сторону гор.
Тебе не будет скучно любить меня (А. Толстой). Немедленно на берег. Найдешь
генерала Иолшина, скажешь: путь свободен. Пусть строит дорогу для
артиллерии (Б. Васильев).
The future forms of the verbs in the first of the above Russian examples
clearly express promise (i. e. a future action conveyed as a promise);
those in the second example render a command.
Moreover, in the system of the Russian tenses there is a specialised
modal form of analytical future expressing intention (the combination of
the verb стать with the imperfective infinitive). E. g.: Что же вы теперь
хотите делать? — Тебя это не касается, что я стану делать. Я план
обдумываю. (А. Толстой).
Within the framework of the universal meaningful features of the verbal
future, the future of the English verb is highly specific in so far as its
auxiliaries in their very immediate etymology are words of obligation and
volition, and the survival of the respective connotations in them is backed
by the inherent quality of the future as such. Still, on the whole, the
English categorial future differs distinctly from the modal constructions
with the same predicator verbs.
§ 6. In the clear-cut modal uses of the verbs shall and will the idea of
the future either is not expressed at all, or else is only rendered by way
of textual connotation, the central semantic accent being laid on the
expression of obligation, necessity, inevitability, promise, intention,
desire. These meanings may be easily seen both on the examples of ready
phraseological citation, and genuine everyday conversation exchanges. Cf.:
He who does not work neither shall he eat (phraseological citation). "I
want a nice hot curry, do you hear?" — "All right, Mr. Crackenthorpe, you
shall have it" (everyday speech). None are so deaf as those who will not
hear (phraseological citation). Nobody\'s allowed to touch a thing — I won\'t
have a woman near the place (everyday speech).
The modal nature of the shall/will + Infinitive 146
combinations in the cited examples can be shown by means of equivalent
substitutions:
... > He who does not work must not eat, either. ... > All right, Mr.
Crackenthorpe, I promise to have it cooked. ... > None are so deaf as those
who do not want to hear. ... > I intend not to allow a woman to come near
the
place.
Accounting for the modal meanings of the combinations under analysis,
traditional grammar gives the following rules: shall + Infinitive with the
first person, will + Infinitive with the second and third persons express
pure future; the reverse combinations express modal meanings, the most
typical of which are intention or desire for I will and promise or command
on the part of the speaker for you shall, he shall. Both rules apply to
refined British English. In American English will is described as
expressing pure future with all the persons, shall as expressing modality.
However, the cited description, though distinguished by elegant
simplicity, cannot be taken as fully agreeing with the existing lingual
practice. The main feature of this description contradicted by practice is
the British use of will with the first person without distinctly pronounced
modal connotations (making due allowance for the general connection of the
future tense with modality, of which we have spoken before). Cf.:
I will call for you and your young man at seven o\'clock (J. Galsworthy).
When we wake I will take him up and carry him back (R. Kipling). I will let
you know on Wednesday what expenses have been necessary (A. Christie). If
you wait there on Thursday evening between seven and eight I will come if I
can (H. С Merriman).
That the combinations of will with the infinitive in the above examples do
express the future time, admits of no dispute. Furthermore, these
combinations, seemingly, are charged with modal connotations in no higher
degree than the corresponding combinations of shall with the infinitive.
Cf.:
Haven\'t time; I shall miss my train (A. Bennett). I shall be happy to
carry it to the House of Lords, if necessary (J. Galsworthy). You never
know what may happen. I shan\'t have a minute\'s peace (M. Dickens).
147
Granted our semantic intuitions about the exemplified
uses are true, the question then arises: what is the real difference, if
any, between the two British first person expressions of the future, one
with shall, the other one with will? Or are they actually just semantic
doublets, i.e. units of complete synonymy, bound by the paradigmatic
relation of free alternation?
A solution to this problem is to be found on the basis of syntactic
distributional and transformational analysis backed by a consideration of
the original meanings of both auxiliaries.
§ 7. Observing combinations with will in stylistically neutral
collocations, as the first step of our study we note the adverbials of time
used with this construction. The environmental expressions, as well as
implications, of future time do testify that from this point of view there
is no difference between will and shall, both of them equally conveying the
idea of the future action expressed by the adjoining infinitive.
As our next step of inferences, noting the types of the infinitive-
environmental semantics of will in contrast to the contextual background of
shall, we state that the first person will-future expresses an action which
is to be performed by the speaker for choice, of his own accord. But this
meaning of free option does not at all imply that the speaker actually
wishes to perform the action, or else that he is determined to perform it,
possibly in defiance of some contrary force. The exposition of the action
shows it as being not bound by any extraneous circumstances or by any
special influence except the speaker\'s option; this is its exhaustive
characteristic. In keeping with this, the form of the will-future in
question may be tentatively called the "voluntary future".
On the other hand, comparing the environmental characteristics of shall
with the corresponding environmental background of will, it is easy to see
that, as different from will, the first person shall expresses a future
process that will be realised without the will of the speaker, irrespective
of his choice. In accord with the exposed meaning, the shall-form of the
first person future should be referred to as the "non-voluntary", i.e. as
the weak member of the corresponding opposition.
Further observations of the relevant textual data show that some verbs
constituting a typical environment of the
148
non-voluntary shall-future (i.e. verbs inherently alien to the expression
of voluntary actions) occur also with the voluntary will, but in a
different meaning, namely, in the meaning of an active action the
performance of which is freely chosen by the speaker. Cf.: Your arrival
cannot have been announced to his Majesty. I will see about it (B. Shaw).
In the given example the verb see has the active meaning of ensuring
something, of intentionally arranging matters connected with something,
etc.
Likewise, a number of verbs of the voluntary will-environmental features
(i.e. verbs presupposing the actor\'s free will in performing the action)
combine also with the non-voluntary shall, but in the meaning of an action
that will take place irrespective of the will of the speaker. Cf.: I\'m very
sorry, madam, but I\'m going to faint. I shall go off, madam, if I don\'t
have something (K. Mansfield).
Thus, the would-be same verbs are in fact either homonyms, or else lexico-
semantic variants of the corresponding lexemes of the maximally differing
characteristics.
At the final stage of our study the disclosed characteristics of the two
first-person futures are checked on the lines of transformational analysis.
The method will consist not in free structural manipulations with the
analysed constructions, but in the textual search for the respective
changes of the auxiliaries depending on the changes in the infinitival
environments.
Applying these procedures to the texts, we note that when the
construction of the voluntary will-future is expanded (complicated) by a
syntactic part re-modelling the whole collocation into one expressing an
involuntary action, the auxiliary will is automatically replaced by shall.
In particular, it happens when the expanding elements convey the meaning of
supposition or Uncertainty. Cf.:
Give me a goddess\'s work to do; and I will do it (B. Shaw). > I don\'t
know what I shall do with Barbara (B. Shaw). Oh, very well, very well: I
will write another prescription (B. Shaw). > I shall perhaps write to your
mother (K. Mansfield).
Thus, we conclude that within\'the system of the English future tense a
peculiar minor category is expressed which affects only the forms of the
first person. The category is constituted by the opposition of the forms
will + Infinitive and shall + Infinitive expressing, respectively, the
voluntary
149
future and the non-voluntary future. Accordingly, this category may
tentatively be called the "category of futurity option".
The future in the second and third persons, formed by the indiscriminate
auxiliary will, does not express this category, which is dependent on the
semantics of the persons: normally it would be irrelevant to indicate in an
obligatory way the aspect of futurity option otherwise than with the first
person, i.e. the person of self.
This category is neutralised in the contracted form -\'ll, which is of
necessity indifferent to the expression of futurity option. As is known,
the traditional analysis of the contracted future states that -\'ll stands
for will, not for shall. However, this view is not supported by textual
data. Indeed, bearing in mind the results of our study, it is easy to
demonstrate that the contracted forms of the future may be traced both to
will and to shall. Cf.:
I\'ll marry you then, Archie, if you really want it (M. Dickens). > I will
marry you. I\'ll have to think about it (M. Dickens). > I shall have to
think about it.
From the evidence afforded by the historical studies of the language we
know that the English contracted form of the future -\'ll has actually
originated from the auxiliary will. So, in Modern English an interesting
process of redistribution of the future forms has taken place, based
apparently on the contamination will > \'ll <— shall. As a result, the form
-\'ll in the first person expresses not the same "pure" future as is
expressed by the indiscriminate will in the second and third persons.
The described system of the British future is by far more complicated
than the expression of the future tense in the other national variants of
English, in particular, in American English, where the future form of the
first person is functionally equal with the other persons. In British
English a possible tendency to a similar levelled expression of the future
is actively counteracted by the two structural factors. The first is the
existence of the two functionally differing contractions of the future
auxiliaries in the negative form, i. e. shan\'t and won\'t, which
imperatively support the survival of shall in the first person against the
levelled positive (affirmative) contraction -\'ll. The second is the use of
the future tense in interrogative sentences, where with the first person
only shall is normally used. Indeed, it is quite natural that a genuine
question directed by the speaker to
150
himself, i.e. a question showing doubt or speculation, is to be asked about
an action of non-wilful, involuntary order, and not otherwise. Cf.:
What shall we be shown next? Shall I be able to master shorthand
professionally? The question was, should I see Beatrice again before her
departure?
The semantics of the first person futurity question is such that even the
infinitives of essentially volition-governed actions are transferred here
to the plane of non-volition, subordinating themselves to the general
implication of doubt, hesitation, uncertainty. Cf.:
What shall I answer to an offer like that? How shall we tackle the matter
if we are left to rely on our own judgment?
Thus, the vitality of the discriminate shall/will future, characteristic
of careful English speech, is supported by logically vindicated intra-
lingual factors. Moreover, the whole system of Modern British future with
its mobile inter-action of the two auxiliaries is a product of recent
language development, not a relict of the older periods of its history. It
is this subtly regulated and still unfinished system that gave cause to H.
W. Fowler for his significant statement: ".. of the English of the English
shall and will are the shibboleth."*
§ 8. Apart from shall/will + Infinitive construction, there is another
construction in English which has a potent appeal for being analysed within
the framework of the general problem of the future tense. This is the
combination of the predicator be going with the infinitive. Indeed, the
high frequency occurrence of this construction in contexts conveying the
idea of an immediate future action can\'t but draw a very close attention on
the part of a linguistic observer.
The combination may denote a sheer intention (either the speaker\'s or
some other person\'s) to perform the action expressed by the infinitive,
thus entering into the vast set of "classical" modal constructions. E.g.:
I am going to ask you a few more questions about the mysterious
disappearance of the document, Mr. Gregg. He looked across at my desk and I
thought for a moment he was going to give me the treatment, too.
* Fowler H. W. Л Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Ldn., 1941, p. 729,
151
But these simple modal uses of be going are countered by cases where the
direct meaning of intention rendered by the predicator stands in
contradiction with its environmental implications and is subdued by them.
Cf.:
You are trying to frighten me. But you are not going to frighten me any
more (L. Hellman). I did not know how I was going to get out of the room
(D. du Maurier).
Moreover, the construction, despite its primary meaning of intention,
presupposing a human subject, is not infrequently used with non-human
subjects and even in impersonal sentences. Cf.:
She knew what she was doing, and she was sure it was going to be worth
doing (W. Saroyan). There\'s going to be a contest over Ezra Grolley\'s
estate (E. Gardner).
Because of these properties it would appear tempting to class the
construction in question as a specific tense form, namely, the tense form
of "immediate future", analogous to the French futur immйdiat (e.g. Le
spectacle va cornmencer — The show is going to begin).
Still, on closer consideration, we notice that the non-intention uses of
the predicator be going are not indifferent stylistically. Far from being
neutral, they more often than not display emotional colouring mixed with
semantic connotations of oblique modality.
For instance, when the girl from the first of the above examples
appreciates something as "going to be worth doing", she is expressing her
assurance of its being so. When one labels the rain as "never going to
stop", one clearly expresses one\'s annoyance at the bad state of the
weather. When a future event is introduced by the formula "there to be
going to be", as is the case in the second of the cited examples, the
speaker clearly implies his foresight of it, or his anticipation of it, or,
possibly, a warning to beware of it, or else some other modal connotation
of a like nature. Thus, on the whole, the non-intention uses of the
construction be going + Infinitive cannot be rationally divided into modal
and non-modal, on the analogy of the construction shall/will + Infinitive.
Its broader combinability is based on semantic transposition and can be
likened to broader uses of the modal collocation be about, also of
basically intention semantics.
152
§ 9. The oppositional basis of the category of prospective time is
neutralised in certain uses, in keeping with the general regularities of
oppositional reductions. The process of neutralisation is connected with
the shifting of the forms of primary time (present and past) from the
sphere of absolute tenses into the sphere of relative tenses.
One of the typical cases of the neutralisation in question consists in
using a non-future temporal form to express a future action which is to
take place according to some plan or arrangement. Cf.:
The government meets in emergency session today over the question of
continued violations of the cease-fire. I hear your sister is soon arriving
from Paris? Naturally I would like to know when he\'s coming. Etc.
This case of oppositional reduction is optional, the equivalent
reconstruction of the correlated member of the opposition is nearly always
possible (with the respective changes of connotations and style). Cf.:
... > The government will meet in emergency session. ... > Your sister
will soon arrive from Paris? ... > When will he be coming"?
Another type of neutralisation of the prospective time opposition is
observed in modal verbs and modal word combinations. The basic peculiarity
of these units bearing on (he expression of time is, that the prospective
implication is inherently in-built in their semantics, which reflects not
the action as such, but the attitude towards the action expressed by the
infinitive. For that reason, the present verb-form of these units actually
renders the idea of the future (and, respectively, the past verb-form, the
idea of the future-in-the-past). Cf.:
There\'s no saying what may happen next. At any rate, the woman was sure
to come later in the day. But you have to present the report before Sunday,
there\'s no alternative.
Sometimes the explicit expression of the future is necessary even with
modal collocations. To make up for the lacking categorial forms, special
modal substitutes have been developed in language, some of which have
received the status of suppletive units (see above, Ch. III). Cf.:
But do not make plans with David. You will not be able to carry them out.
Things will have to go one way or the other.
153
Alongside of the above and very different from them, there is still
another typical case of neutralisation of the analysed categorial
opposition, which is strictly obligatory. It occurs in clauses of time and
condition whose verb-predicate expresses a future action. Cf.:
If things turn out as has been arranged, the triumph will be all ours. I
repeated my request to notify me at once whenever the messenger arrived.
The latter type of neutralisation is syntactically conditioned. In point
of fact, the neutralisation consists here in the primary tenses shifting
from the sphere of absolutive time into the sphere of relative time, since
they become dependent not on their immediate orientation towards the moment
of speech, but on the relation to another time level, namely, the time
level presented in the governing clause of the corresponding complex
sentence.
This kind of neutralising relative use of absolutive tense forms occupies
a restricted position in the integral tense system of English. In Russian,
the syntactic relative use of tenses is, on the contrary, widely spread. In
particular, this refers to the presentation of reported speech in the plane
of the past, where the Russian present tense is changed into the tense of
simultaneity, the past tense is changed into the tense of priority, and the
future tense is changed into the tense of prospected posteriority. Cf.:
(1) Он сказал, что изучает немецкий язык. (2) Он сказал, что изучал
немецкий язык. (3) Он сказал, что будет изучать немецкий язык.
In English, the primary tenses in similar syntactic conditions retain
their absolutive nature and are used in keeping with their direct,
unchangeable meanings. Compare the respective translations of the examples
cited above:
(1) He said that he was learning German (then). (2) He said that he had
learned German (before). (3) He said that he would learn German (in the
time to come).
It doesn\'t follow from this that the rule of sequence of tenses in
English complex sentences formulated by traditional grammar should be
rejected as false. Sequence of tenses is an important feature of all
narration, for, depending on the continual consecutive course of actual
events in reality, they are presented in the text in definite successions
ordered
154
against a common general background. However, what should be stressed here,
is that the tense-shift involved in the translation of the present-plane
direct information into the past-plane reported information is not a
formal, but essentially a meaningful procedure.
CHAPTER XV
VERB: ASPECT
§ 1. The aspective meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal
meaning, reflects the inherent mode of the realisation of the process
irrespective of its timing.
As we have already seen, the aspective meaning can be in-built in the
semantic structure of the verb, forming an invariable, derivative category.
In English, the various lexical aspective meanings have been generalised by
the verb in its subclass division into limitive and unlimitive sets. On the
whole, this division is loose, the demarcation line between the sets is
easily trespassed both ways. In spite of their want of rigour, however, the
aspective verbal subclasses are grammatically relevant in so far as they
are not indifferent to the choice of the aspective grammatical forms of the
verb. In Russian, the aspective division of verbs into perfective and
imperfective is, on the contrary, very strict. Although the Russian
category of aspect is derivative, it presents one of the most typical
features of the grammatical structure of the verb, governing its tense
system both formally and semantically.
On the other hand, the aspective meaning can also be represented in
variable grammatical categories. Aspective grammatical change is wholly
alien to the Russian language, but it forms one of the basic features of
the categorial structure of the English verb.
Two systems of verbal forms, in the past grammatical tradition analysed
under the indiscriminate heading of the "temporal inflexion", i. e.
synthetic inflexion proper and analytical composition as its equivalent,
should be evaluated in this light: the continuous forms and the perfect
forms.
The aspective or non-aspective identification of the forms in question
will, in the long run, be dependent on whether or not they express the
direct, immediate time of the action denoted by the verb, since a general
connection between the
155
aspective and temporal verbal semantics is indisputable.
The continuous verbal forms analysed on the principles of oppositional
approach admit of only one interpretation, and that is aspective. The
continuous forms are aspective because, reflecting the inherent character
of the process performed by the verb, they do not, and cannot, denote the
timing of the process. The opposition constituting the corresponding
category is effected between the continuous and the non-continuous
(indefinite) verbal forms. The categorial meaning discloses the nature of
development of the verbal action, on which ground the suggested name for
the category as a whole will be "development". As is the case with the
other categories, its expression is combined with other categorial
expressions in one and the same verb-form, involving also the category that
features the perfect. Thus, to be consistent in our judgments, we must
identify, within the framework of the manifestations of the category of
development, not only the perfect continuous forms, but also the perfect
indefinite forms (i.e. non-continuous).
The perfect, as different from the continuous, does reflect a kind of
timing, though in a purely relative way. Namely, it coordinates two times,
locating one of them in retrospect towards the other. Should the
grammatical meaning of the perfect have been exhausted by this function, it
ought to have been placed into one and the same categorial system with the
future, forming the integral category of time coordination
(correspondingly, prospective and retrospective). In reality, though, it
cannot be done, because the perfect expresses not only time in relative
retrospect, but also the very connection of a prior process with a time-
limit reflected in a subsequent event. Thus, the perfect forms of the verb
display a mixed, intermediary character, which places them apart both from
the relative posterior tense and the aspective development. The true nature
of the perfect is temporal aspect reflected in its own opposition, which
cannot be reduced to any other opposition of the otherwise recognised
verbal categories. The suggested name for this category will be
"retrospective coordination", or, contractedly, "retrospect". The
categorial member opposed to the perfect, for the sake of terminological
consistency, will be named "imperfect" (non-perfect). As an independent
category, the retrospective coordination is manifested in the integral verb-
form together with the manifestations of other categories, among them the
156
aspective category of development. Thus, alongside of the forms of perfect
continuous and perfect indefinite, the verb distinguishes also the forms of
imperfect continuous and imperfect indefinite.
§ 2. At this point of our considerations, we should like once again to
call the reader\'s attention to the difference between the categorial
terminology and the definitions of categories.
A category, in normal use, cannot be represented twice in one and the
same word-form. It follows from this that the integral verb-form cannot
display at once more than one expression of each of the recognised verbal
categories, though it does give a representative expression to all the
verbal categories taken together through the corresponding obligatory
featuring (which can be, as we know, either positive or negative). And this
fact provides us with a safe criterion of categorial identification for
cases where the forms under analysis display related semantic functions.
We have recognised in the verbal system of English two temporal
categories (plus one "minor" category of futurity option) and two aspective
categories. But does this mean that the English verb is "doubly" (or
"triply", for that matter) inflected by the "grammatical category" of tense
and the "grammatical category" of aspect? In no wise.
The course of our deductions has been quite the contrary. It is just
because the verb, in its one and the same, at each time uniquely given
integral form of use, manifests not one, but two expressions of time (for
instance, past and future); it is because it manifests not one, but two
expressions of aspect (for instance, continuous and perfect), that we have
to recognise these expressions as categorially different. In other words,
such universal grammatical notions as "time", "tense", "aspect", "mood" and
others, taken by themselves, do not automatically presuppose any unique
categorial systems. It is only the actual correlation of the corresponding
grammatical forms in a concrete, separate language that makes up a
grammatical category. In particular, when certain forms that come under the
same meaningful grammatical heading are mutually exclusive, it means that
they together make up a grammatical category. This is the case with the
three Russian verbal tenses. Indeed, the Russian verbal form of the future
cannot syntagmatically coexist with the present or past forms — these forms
are mutually exclusive, thereby constituting
157
one unified category of time (tense), existing in the three categorial
forms: the present, the past, the future. In English, on the contrary, the
future form of the verb can freely re-occur with the strongly marked past
form, thereby making up a category radically different from the category
manifested by the system of "present — past" discrimination. And it is the
same case with the forms of the continuous and the perfect. Just because
they can freely coexist in one and the same syntagmatic manifestation of
the verb, we have to infer that they enter (in the capacity of oppositional
markers) essentially different categories, though related to each other by
their general aspective character.
§ 3. The aspective category of development is constituted by the
opposition of the continuous forms of the verb to the non-continuous, or
indefinite forms of the verb. The marked member of the opposition is the
continuous, which is built up by the auxiliary be plus the present
participle of the conjugated verb. In symbolic notation it is represented
by the formula be...ing. The categorial meaning of the continuous is
"action in progress"; the unmarked member of the opposition, the
indefinite, leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. expresses the non-
continuous.
The evolution of views in connection with the interpretation of the
continuous forms has undergone three stages.
The traditional analysis placed them among the tense-forms of the verb,
defining them as expressing an action going on simultaneously with some
other action. This temporal interpretation of the continuous was most
consistently developed in the works of H. Sweet and O. Jespersen. In point
of fact, the continuous usually goes with a verb which expresses a
simultaneous action, but, as we have stated before, the timing of the
action is not expressed by the continuous as such — rather, the immediate
time-meaning is conveyed by the syntactic constructions, as well as the
broader semantic context in which the form is used, since action in
progress, by definition, implies that it is developing at a certain time
point.
The correlation of the continuous with contextual indications of time is
well illustrated on examples of complex sentences with while-clauses. Four
combinations of the continuous and the indefinite are possible in principle
in these constructions (for two verbs are used here, one in the principal
clause and one in the subordinate clause, each capable
158
of taking both forms in question), and all the four possibilities are
realised in contexts of Modern English. Cf.:
While I was typing, Mary and Tom were chatting in the
adjoining room. While I typed, Mary and Tom were
chatting in the adjoining room. While I was typing,
they chatted in the adjoining room. While I typed, they
chatted in the adjoining room.
Clearly, the difference in meaning between the verb-entries in the cited
examples cannot lie in their time denotations, either absolutive, or
relative. The time is shown by their tense-signals of the past (the past
form of the auxiliary be in the continuous, or the suffix -{e)d in the
indefinite). The meaningful difference consists exactly in the categorial
semantics of the indefinite and continuous: while the latter shows the
action in the very process of its realisation, the former points it out as
a mere fact.
On the other hand, by virtue of its categorial semantics of action in
progress (of necessity, at a definite point of time), the continuous is
usually employed in descriptions of scenes correlating a number of actions
going on simultaneously — since all of them are actually shown in progress,
at the time implied by the narration. Cf.:
Standing on the chair, I could see in through the barred window into the
hall of the Ayuntamiento and in there it was as it had been before. The
priest was standing, and those who were left were kneeling in a half circle
around him and they were all praying. Pablo was sitting on the big table in
front of the Mayor\'s chair with his shotgun slung over his back. His legs
were hanging down from the table and he was rolling a cigarette. Cuatro
Dedos was sitting in the Mayor\'s chair with his feet on the table and he
was smoking a cigarette. All the guards were sitting in different chairs of
the administration, holding their guns. The key to the big door was on the
table beside Pablo (E. Hemingway).
But if the actions are not progressive by themselves (i.e. if they are
not shown as progressive), the description, naturally, will go without the
continuous forms of the corresponding verbs. E. g.:
Inland, the prospect alters. There is an oval Maidan, and a long sallow
hospital. Houses belonging to Eurasians stand on the high ground by the
railway station. Beyond the railway — which runs parallel to the river —
the land sinks,
159
then rises again rather steeply. On the second rise is laid out the little
civil station, and viewed hence Chandrapore appears to be a totally
different place (E. M. Forster ).
A further demonstration of the essentially non-temporal meaning of the
continuous is its regular use in combination with the perfect, i.e. its use
in the verb-form perfect continuous. Surely, the very idea of perfect is
alien to simultaneity, so the continuous combined with the perfect in one
and the same manifestation of the verb can only be understood as expressing
aspectuality, i.e. action in progress.
Thus, the consideration of the temporal element in the continuous shows
that its referring an action to a definite time-point, or its expressing
simultaneity irrespective of absolutive time, is in itself an aspective,
not a temporal factor.
At the second stage of the interpretation of the continuous, the form was
understood as rendering a blend of temporal and aspective meanings — the
same as the other forms of the verb obliquely connected with the factor of
time, i.e. the indefinite and the perfect. This view was developed by I. P.
Ivanova.
The combined temporal-aspective interpretation of the continuous, in
general, should be appraised as an essential step forward, because, first,
it introduced on an explicit, comprehensively grounded basis the idea of
aspective meanings in the grammatical system of English; second, it
demonstrated the actual connection of time and aspect in the integral
categorial semantics of the verb. In fact, it presented a thesis that
proved to be crucial for the subsequent demonstration, at the next stage of
analysis, of the essence of the form on a strictly oppositional foundation.
This latter phase of study, initiated in the works of A. I.Smirnitsky, V.
N. Yartseva and B. A. Ilyish, was developed further by B. S. Khaimovich and
B. I. Rogovskaya and exposed in its most comprehensive form by L. S.
Barkhudarov.
Probably the final touch contributing to the presentation of the category
of development at this third stage of study should be still more explicit
demonstration of its opposition working beyond the correlation of the
continuous non-perfect form with the indefinite non-perfect form. In the
expositions hitherto advanced the two series of forms — continuous and
perfect — have been shown, as it were, too emphatically in the light of
their mutual contrast against the
160
primitive indefinite, the perfect continuous form, which has been placed
somewhat separately, being rather interpreted as a "peculiarly modified"
perfect than a "peculiarly modified\'\' continuous. In reality, though, the
perfect continuous is equally both perfect and continuous, the respective
markings belonging to different, though related, categorial
characteristics.
§ 4. The category of development, unlike the categories of person,
number, and time, has a verbid representation, namely, it is represented in
the infinitive. This fact, for its part, testifies to another than temporal
nature of the continuous.
With the infinitive, the category of development, naturally, expresses
the same meaningful contrast between action in progress and action not in
progress as with the finite forms of the verb. Cf.:
Kezia and her grandmother were taking their siesta together. It was
but natural for Kezia and her grandmother
to be taking their siesta together. What are you complaining about?——Is
there really anything for you to be complaining about?
But in addition to this purely categorial distinction, the form of the
continuous infinitive has a tendency to acquire quite a special meaning in
combination with modal verbs, namely that of probability. This meaning is
aspectual in a broader sense than the "inner character" of action: the
aspectuality amounts here to an outer appraisal of the denoted process.
Cf.:
Paul must wait for you, you needn\'t be in a hurry. Paul must be waiting
for us, so let\'s hurry up.
The first of the two sentences expresses Paul\'s obligation to wait,
whereas the second sentence renders the speaker\'s supposition of the fact.
The general meaning of probability is varied by different additional
shades depending on the semantic type of the modal verb and the
corresponding contextual conditions, such as uncertainty, incredulity,
surprise, etc. Cf.:
But can she be taking Moyra\'s words so personally? If the flight went
smoothly, they may be approaching the West Coast. You must be losing money
over this job.
The action of the continuous infinitive of probability,
11-1499 161
in accord with the type of the modal verb and the context, may refer not
only to the plane of the present, but also to the plane of the future. Cf.:
Ann must be coming soon, you\'d better have things put in order.
The gerund and the participle do not distinguish the category of
development as such, but the traces of progressive meaning are inherent in
these forms, especially in the present participle, which itself is one of
the markers of the category (in combination with the categorial auxiliary).
In particular, these traces are easily disclosed in various syntactic
participial complexes. Cf.:
The girl looked straight into my face, smiling enigmatically. > The girl
was smiling enigmatically as she looked straight into my face. We heard the
leaves above our heads rustling in the wind. > We heard how the leaves
above our heads were rustling in the wind.
However, it should be noted, that the said traces of meaning are still
traces, and they are more often than not subdued and neutralised.
§ 5. The opposition of the category of development undergoes various
reductions, in keeping with the general regularities of the grammatical
forms functioning in speech, as well as of their paradigmatic
combinability.
The easiest and most regular neutralisational relations in the sphere
continuous — indefinite are observed in connection with the subclass
division of verbs into limitive and unlimitive, and within the unlimitive
into actional and statal.
Namely, the unlimitive verbs are very easily neutralised in cases where
the continuity of action is rendered by means other than aspective. Cf.:
The night is wonderfully silent. The stars shine with a fierce
brilliancy, the Southern Cross and Canopus; there is not a breath of wind.
The Duke\'s face seemed flushed, and more lined than some of his recent
photographs showed. He held a glass in his hand.
As to the statal verbs, their development neutralisation amounts to a
grammatical rule. It is under this heading that the "never-used-in-the-
continuous" verbs go, i. e. the uniques be and have, verbs of possession
other than have, verbs of relation, of physical perceptions, of mental
perceptions. The opposition of development is also neutralised easily with
162
verbs in the passive voice, as well as with the infinitive, the only
explicit verbid exposer of the category.
Worthy of note is the regular neutralisation of the development
opposition with the introductory verb supporting the participial
construction of parallel action. E. g.: The man stood smoking a pipe. (Not
normally: The man was standing smoking a pipe.)
On the other hand, the continuous can be used transpositionally to denote
habitual, recurrent actions in emphatic collocations. Cf.: Miss Tillings
said you were always talking as if there had been some funny business about
me (M. Dickens).
In this connection, special note should be made of the broadening use of
the continuous with unlimitive verbs, including verbs of statal existence.
Here are some very typical examples:
I only heard a rumour that a certain member here present has been seeing
the prisoner this afternoon (E. M. Forster). I had a horrid feeling she was
seeing right through me and knowing all about me (A. Christie). What
matters is, you\'re being damn fools, both of you (A. Hailey).
Compare similar transpositions in the expressions of anticipated future:
Dr Aarons will be seeing the patient this morning, and I wish to be ready
for him (A. Hailey). Soon we shall be hearing the news about the docking of
the spaceships having gone through.
The linguistic implication of these uses of the continuous is indeed very
peculiar. Technically it amounts to de-neutralising the usually neutralised
continuous. However, since the neutralisation of the continuous with these
verbs is quite regular, we have here essentially the phenomenon of reverse
transposition — an emphatic reduction of the second order, serving the
purpose of speech expressiveness.
We have considered the relation of unlimitive verbs to the continuous
form in the light of reductional processes.
As for the limitive verbs, their standing with the category of
development and its oppositional reductions is quite the reverse. Due to
the very aspective quality of limitiveness, these verbs, first, are not
often used in the continuous form
163
in general, finding no frequent cause for it; but second, in cases when the
informative purpose does demand the expression of an action in progress,
the continuous with these verbs is quite obligatory and normally cannot
undergo reduction under any conditions. It cannot be reduced, for otherwise
the limitive meaning of the verb would prevail, and the informative purpose
would not be realised. Cf.:
The plane was just touching down when we arrived at the airfield. The
patient was sitting up in his bed, his eyes riveted on the trees beyond the
window.
The linguistic paradox of these uses is that the continuous aspect with
limitive verbs neutralises the expression of their lexical aspect, turning
them for the nonce into unlimitive verbs. And this is one of the many
manifestations of grammatical relevance of lexemic categories.
§ 6. In connection with the problem of the aspective category of
development, we must consider the forms of the verb built up with the help
of the auxiliary do. These forms, entering the verbal system of the
indefinite, have been described under different headings.
Namely, the auxiliary do, first, is presented in grammars as a means of
building up interrogative constructions when the verb is used in the
indefinite aspect. Second, the auxiliary do is described as a means of
building up negative constructions with the indefinite form of the verb.
Third, it is shown as a means of forming emphatic constructions of both
affirmative declarative and affirmative imperative communicative types,
with the indefinite form of the verb. Fourth, it is interpreted as a means
of forming elliptical constructions with the indefinite form of the verb.
L. S. Barkhudarov was the first scholar who paid attention to the lack of
accuracy, and probably linguistic adequacy, in these definitions. Indeed,
the misinterpretation of the defined phenomena consists here in the fact
that the do-forms are presented immediately as parts of the corresponding
syntactic constructions, whereas actually they are parts of the
corresponding verb-forms of the indefinite aspect. Let us compare the
following sentences in pairs:
Fred pulled her hand to his heart. Did Fred pull her
hand to his heart? You want me to hold a smile. You
don\'t want me to hold a smile. In dreams people change
164
into somebody else. - In dreams people do change into
somebody else. Ask him into the drawing-room. Do
ask him into the drawing-room. Mike liked the show immensely, and Kitty
liked it too. Mike liked the show immensely, and so did Kitty.
On the face of the comparison, we see only the construction-forming
function of the analysed auxiliary, the cited formulations being seemingly
vindicated both by the structural and the functional difference between the
sentences: the right-hand constituent utterances in each of the given pairs
has its respective do-addition. However, let us relate these right-hand
utterances to another kind of categorial counterparts:
Did Fred pull her hand to his heart? Will Fred pull
her hand to his heart? You don\'t want me to hold a smile.
You won\'t want me to hold a smile. In dreams people do
change into somebody else. In dreams people will change
into somebody else. Mike liked the show immensely, and
so did Kitty. Mike will like the show immensely, and
so will Kitty.
Observing the structure of the latter series of constructional pairs, we
see at once that their constituent sentences are built up on one and the
same syntactic principle of a special treatment of the morphological
auxiliary element. And here lies the necessary correction of the
interpretation of Jo-forms. As a matter of fact, do-forms should be first
of all described as the variant analytical indefinite forms of the verb
that are effected to share the various constructional functions with the
other analytical forms of the verb placing their respective auxiliaries in
accented and otherwise individualised positions. This presentation, while
meeting the demands of adequate description, at the same time is very
convenient for explaining the formation of the syntactic constructional
categories on the unified basis of the role of analytical forms of the
verb. Namely, the formation of interrogative constructions will be
explained simply as a universal word-order procedure of partial inversion
(placing the auxiliary before the subject for all the categorial forms of
the verb); the formation of the corresponding negative will be described as
the use of the negative particle with the analytical auxiliary for all the
categorial forms of the verb; the formation of the corresponding emphatic
constructions will be described as the accent of the analytical
auxiliaries,
165
including the indefinite auxiliary; the formation of the corresponding
reduced constructions will be explained on the lines of the representative
use of the auxiliaries in general (which won\'t mar the substitute role of
do).
For the sake of terminological consistency the analytical form in
question might be called the "marked indefinite", on the analogy of the
term "marked infinitive". Thus, the indefinite forms of the non-perfect
order will be divided into the pure, or unmarked present and past
indefinite, and the marked present and past indefinite. As we have pointed
out above, the existence of the specifically marked present and past
indefinite serves as one of the grounds for identifying the verbal primary
time and the verbal prospect as different grammatical categories.
§ 7. The category of retrospective coordination (retrospect) is
constituted by the opposition of the perfect forms of the verb to the non-
perfect, or imperfect forms. The marked member of the opposition is the
perfect, which is built up by the auxiliary have in combination with the
past participle of the conjugated verb. In symbolic notation it is
expressed by the formula have ... en.
The functional meaning of the category has been interpreted in linguistic
literature in four different ways, each contributing to the evolution of
the general theory of retrospective coordination.
The first comprehensively represented grammatical exposition of the
perfect verbal form was the "tense view": by this view the perfect is
approached as a peculiar tense form. The tense view of the perfect is
presented in the works of H. Sweet, G. Curme, M. Bryant and J. R. Aiken,
and some other foreign scholars. In the Soviet linguistic literature this
view was consistently developed by N. F. Irtenyeva. The tense
interpretation of the perfect was also endorsed by the well-known course of
English Grammar by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Vasilevskaya.
The difference between the perfect and non-perfect forms of the verb,
according to the tense interpretation of the perfect, consists in the fact
that the perfect denotes a secondary temporal characteristic of the action.
Namely, it shows that the denoted action precedes some other action or
situation in the present, past, or future. This secondary tense quality of
the perfect, in the context of the "tense view", is naturally contrasted
against the secondary tense quality of the
166
|
