Categories of English Verb: Tense

МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ  И НАУКИ 
РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ 
ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ 
ВЫСШЕГО ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ 
«РОССИЙСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ПЕДАГОГИЧЕСКИЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ им. А.И. ГЕРЦЕНА» 
Волховский филиал 
Кафедра гуманитарного образования 

Реферат

По дисциплине «Теоритическая грамматика»

на тему «Categories of English Verb: Tense»

 

Выполнила: 
Студентка 4 курса 
очной формы обучения 
направления 
«Филологическое образование: 
иностранный язык (английский)» 
группы И-42(АЯ) 
Семенова Юлия Олеговна 
Проверила: 
Старший преподаватель, Губанова Виктория Петровна  
Оценка _________ 
Подпись ________ 
Дата ___________ 

 

 

 

 

Волхов

2013

Content

 

Introduction…………………………………………………………………3

1. The category of tense: general information……………………………..4
2. Different views of English tense system………………………………..5
3. Two main tense oppositions ……………………………………………7
4. The problem of the verbs “shall/will” and “should/would” …………..10

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………..13

Bibliography……………………………………………………………....14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Grammatically the verb is the most complex part of speech. This is due to the central role it performs in the expression of the predicative functions of the sentence, i.e. the functions establishing the connection between the situation (situational event) named in the utterance and reality [4, 112]. A verb is often defined as a word which shows action or state of being. The verb is one of the principle parts of the sentence. Recognizing the verb is often the most important step in understanding the meaning of the sentence. From the morphological point of view the verb is characterised by a complex system of categories the main of which is the category of tense. It serves for expression of time-distinctions. With this category presents the most troublesome problems for a foreign student to master. So this category should be thoroughly investigated to escape problems with the use the right verb form in one or another situation.

 

1. The category of tense: general information

The immediate expression of grammatical time, or "tense" (Lat. tempus), is one of the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical because the meaning of process, inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme, finds its complete realisation only if presented in certain time conditions [3, 137]. That is why the expression or non-expression of grammatical time, together with the expression or non-expression of grammatical mood in person-form presentation, constitutes the basis of the verbal category of finitude, i.e. the basis of the division of all the forms of the verb into finite and non-finite.

The category of tense may be defined as a verb form that indicates, or can indicate, a relationship between the time the action in a verb occurs and the time the verb is uttered. A verb tense can also give an indication of the duration of the verb's action and when or if it is completed [8].

It is necessary to distinguish between time as a general category and time as a linguistic category. Time in the general philosophical presentation along with space is the form of existence of matter; it is independent of human perception and is constantly changing. Time is reflected by human beings through their perception and intellect and finds its expression in language, in the meaning of various lexical and grammatical lingual units. The moment of immediate perception and reflection of actual reality, linguistically fixed as “the moment of speech”, makes the so-called “present moment” and serves as the demarcation line between the past and the future [7, 59].  Linguistic expression of time may be either oriented toward the moment of speech, “present-oriented”, “absolutive”, or it may be “non-present-oriented”, “non-absolutive” [3, 137].

The “absolutive time” denotation embraces three spheres: the past, the present and the future. The sphere of the present includes the moment of speech and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as this moment, today, this week, this millennium, etc. The sphere of the past precedes the sphere of the present by way of retrospect and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as last week, yesterday, many years ago, etc [7, 59]. The sphere of the future follows the sphere of the present by way of prospect and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as soon, in two days, next week, etc.

The “non-present-oriented” time denotation may be either “relative” or “factual” [3, 138]. The “relative time” denotation shows the correlation of two or more events and embraces the priority (the relative past), the simultaneity (the relative present) and the posteriority (the relative future) of one event in relation to another. Relative time is lexically expressed by such words and word-combinations as after that, before that, at the same time with, some time later, soon after, etc. The factual expression of time denotes real astronomical time or historical landmarks unrelated with either the moment of speech or any other time center; it can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as in the morning, in 1999, during World War II, etc.

Factual time can be expressed only lexically (as shown above), while absolutive and relative expressions of time in English can be not only lexical, but also grammatical.

So, the grammatical expression of verbal time through morphological forms of the verbs constitutes the grammatical category of tense [7, 60].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Different views of English tense system

  The existence of the tense category is universally recognised. Nobody has ever suggested to characterise the distinction, for example, between wrote, writes, and will write as other than a tense distinction. So the question is how to define the category as such, and what distinctions within the category of tense can be found, in other words how many tenses there are in English.

B.A. Ilyish defines the category of tense as a verbal category which reflects the objective category of time and expresses on this background the relations between the time of the action and the time of the utterance. [5, 87]

According to his point of view the main divisions of time are represented in the English verbal system by the three tenses (past, present and future). Each of them may appear in the common and in the continuous aspect. Thus we get six tense-aspect forms.

Besides these six B.A. Ilyish separately distinguishes two more, namely, the future-in-the-past and the future-continuous-in-the-past. It is common knowledge that these forms are used chiefly in subordinate clauses depending on a main clause having its predicate verb in one of the past tenses, e. g., This did not mean that she was content to live. It meant simply that even death, if it came to her here, would seem stale [5, 89]. However, they can be found in independent clauses as well.

A. A. Rivlina on the contrary does not distinguish the future-in-the-past as a separate tense form. She says that the English tense system consists of four verbal tense forms: the present, the past, the future, and the future-in-the-past. As for definition of the category A. A. Rivlina gives wide and narrow ones. So the verbal category of tense in the most general sense is an expression of the time characteristics of the process denoted by the verb [7, 59]. The narrow definition is the following: the category of tense is the grammatical expression of verbal time through morphological forms of the verbs constitutes.

A different view of the English tense system has been put forward by N. Irtenyeva. According to this view, the system is divided into two halves: that of tenses centring in the present, and that of tenses centring in the past [2,77]. The former would comprise the present, present perfect, future, present continuous, and present perfect continuous, whereas the latter would comprise the past, past perfect, future-in-the-past, past continuous, and past perfect continuous. The latter half is characterised by specific features: the root vowel (e.g. sang as against sing), and the suffix -d (or -t), e.g. looked, had sung, would sing, had been singing. This view has the advantage of reducing the usual threefold division of tenses (past, present, and future) to a twofold division (past and present) with each of two future tenses (future and future-in-the-past) included into the past or the present system, respectively. However, the cancellation of the future as a tense in its own right would seem to require a more detailed justification.

A new theory of English tenses has been put forward by A. Korsakov. His definition is rather short and simple. He considers the category of tense as verbal forms denoting different time relations [6, 12]. A. Korsakov offers new division within the English tense system into absolute and anterior tenses, and static and dynamic tenses. By dynamic tenses he means what we call tenses of the continuous aspect, and by anterior tenses what we call tenses of the perfect correlation.

So in spite of the fact that the category of tense itself is not a debatable question in the theory of English grammar, there are different approaches to the division within the category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Two main tense oppositions

The tense category in English differs a lot from the verbal categories of tense in other languages, for example, in Russian. The tense category in Russian renders absolutive time semantics; the three Russian verbal tense forms present the events as developing in time in a linear way from the past to the future, cf.: Он работал вчера; Он сегодня работает; Он будет работать завтра. In English there are the present (work), the past (worked), the future (shall/will work), and the future-in-the-past (should/would work) tense forms. The future-in-the-past is not easily fit into a system of tenses represented by a straight line running out of the past into the future. It is a deviation from this straight line: its starting point is not the present, from which the past and the future are reckoned, but the past itself [5, 89]. With reference to this tense it may be said that the past is a new centre of the system. The idea of temporal centres as an essential element of the English tense system seems therefore fully justified in analysing the “future-in-the-past” tenses [1, 109]. It should be noted that the relation between the action denoted by the verb form and the time of the utterance remains uncertain: the action may or may not have taken place already. What is certain is that it was future from the point of view of the time when the action denoted by the verb form took place.

Thus two future tense forms of the verb express the future in two separate ways: as an after-event in relation to the present, e.g.: He will work tomorrow (not right not), and as an after-event in relation to the past, e.g.: He said he would work the next day. The future forms of the verb in English express relative time – posteriority in relation to either the present or the past. The present and the past forms of the verb render absolutive time semantics, referring the events to either the plane of the present or to the plane of the past; this involves all the finite verb forms, including the perfect, the continuous, and the future forms. Thus, there is not just one verbal category of tense in English but two interconnected tense categories, one of them rendering absolutive time semantics by way of retrospect (past vs. present) and the other rendering relative time semantics by way of prospect (after-action vs. non-after-action) [3, 139 – 140].

This approach is vindicated by the fact, that logically one and the same category cannot be expressed twice in one and the same form: the members of the paradigm should be mutually exclusive; the existence of a specific future-in-the-past form shows that there are two tense categories in English.

The first verbal tense category, which can be called “primary time”, “absolutive time”, or “retrospective time”, is expressed by the opposition of the past and the present forms. The suffix “-ed” of the regular verbs is the formal feature which marks the past as the strong member of the opposition. Besides this productive form, there are some unproductive past forms of verbs, such as suppletive forms (e.g.: eat – ate), or past forms homonymous with the present (cut – cut). The marked forms denote past actions which receive retrospective evaluation from the point of view of the moment of speech. The present, like any other weak member of an opposition, has a much wider range of meanings than its strong counterpart: the present denotes actions taking place in the sphere of the present, during the period of time including the moment of speech, e.g.: What are you doing?; Terrorism is the major threat of the twenty first century; it may denote repeated actions, e.g.: We go out every Friday night; actions unchanged in the course of time, e.g.: Two plus two makes four; universal truths, e.g.: He who laughs last laughs best; instantaneous actions which begin and end approximately at the moment of speech (as in sports commentaries), e.g.: Smith passes to Brown; etc [7, 63]. To stress its weak oppositional characteristics the present is also referred to as “non-past”.

The opposition of the past and the present can be reduced in certain contexts. For example, the present tense form of the verb can be used to describe past events in order to create a vivid picture of the past, as if to make one’s interlocutor the eyewitness of the past events, e.g.: I stopped to greet him and what do you think he does? He pretends he doesn’t know me! This type of transposition is known as “historic present” (or, “preterite present”) [2, 84]. It is one of the rare cases when the use of the weak member of the opposition instead of the strong member results in transposition and is stylistically colored. The transposition of past tense forms into the context of the present is used to express various degrees of politeness, e.g.: Could you help me, please? These cases are known as “preterite of modesty”, or “attitudinal past” [2, 84].

The second verbal tense category, which may be called “prospective”, or “relative”, is formed by the opposition of the future and the non-future separately in relation to the present or to the past. The strong member of the opposition is the future, marked by the auxiliary verbs shall/will (the future in relation to the present) or should/would (the future in relation to the past). It is used to denote posterior actions, after-actions in relation to some other actions or to a certain point of time in the present or in the past.

The two tense categories interact in the lingual presentation of time: any action in English is at first evaluated retrospectively as belonging to the sphere of the past or to the sphere of the present, and then it is evaluated prospectively as an after-action or a non-after-action to either the past or the present [7, 67]. In terms of oppositional presentation, the interaction of the two tense categories, which results in the four verbal tense forms, can be presented in the form of a table showing the strong and the weak members and the characteristics of each form in the two oppositions combined: 

 

	retrospective  (absolutive)  time	prospective  (relative) time
the present	-	-
the past	+	-
the future	-	+
the future in the past	+	+

[7, 67]

The opposition of the prospective time category can be reduced. Present forms are regularly used to denote future actions planned, arranged or anticipated in the near future: We go to London tomorrow; or in subordinate clauses of time and condition: If you stay, you will learn a lot of interesting things about yourself. These two examples can be treated as cases of neutralization: the weak member of the opposition is used instead of the strong one with no stylistic coloring involved. Transposition takes place when the future forms are used to express insistence, e.g.: When he needs something, he will talk and talk about it for days on end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The problem of the verbs “shall/will” and “should/would”

One more problem is to be tackled in analyzing the English future tenses: the status of the verbs shall/will and should/would. Some linguists, O. Jespersen and L. S. Barkhudarov among them, argue that these verbs are not the auxiliary verbs of the analytical future tense forms, but modal verbs denoting intention, command, request, promise, etc. in a weakened form, e.g.: I’ll go there by train. = I intend (want, plan) to go there by train. On this basis they deny the existence of the verbal future tense in English.

As a matter of fact, shall/will and should/would are in their immediate etymology modal verbs: verbs of obligation (shall) and volition (will). But nowadays they preserve their modal meanings in no higher degree than the future tense forms in other languages: the future differs in this respect from the past and the present, because no one can be positively sure about events that have not yet taken place or are not taking place now [5, 87]. A certain modal coloring is inherent to the future tense semantics in any language as future actions are always either anticipated, or foreseen, or planned, or desired, or necessary, etc. On the other hand, modal verbs are treated as able to convey certain future implication in many contexts, cf.: I may/might/ could travel by bus.

This does not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse shall/will and should/would the status of auxiliary verbs of the future. The homonymous, though cognate, verbs shall/will and should/would are to be distinguished in contexts, in which they function as purely modal verbs, e.g.: Payment shall be made by cheque; Why are you asking him? He wouldn’t know anything about it, and in contexts in which they function as the auxiliary verbs of the future tense forms with subdued modal semantics, e.g.: I will be forty next month. 

Older grammar textbooks distinguish the auxiliary verbs shall/will and should/would from their modal homonyms in connection with the category of person in the following way: the auxiliary shall/should are used with first person verbal forms, while the auxiliary will/would – with second and third persons verbal forms to denote pure future; when used otherwise, they express pure 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.  It is admitted, though, that in American English will is used as functionally equal for all persons to denote pure future and shall is used only as a modal verb. The contracted form -‘ll further levels the difference between the two auxiliary verbs in colloquial speech.

In British English the matter is more complicated: in refined British English both verbs are used with the first person forms to denote the future. Some linguists treat them as functionally equal “grammatical doublets”, as free variants of the future tense auxiliary. Still, there is certain semantic difference between shall/should and will/would in the first person verbal forms, which can be traced to their etymological origin: will/would expresses an action which is to be performed of the doer’s free choice, voluntarily, and shall/should expresses an action which will take place irrespective of the doer’s will [2, 89], cf.: I will come to you. = I want to come to you and I will do that; Shall I open the window? = Do you want me to open the window? The almost exclusive use of the auxiliary shall in interrogative constructions in British English is logically determined by the difference outlined: it is quite natural that a genuine question shows some doubt or speculation rather than the speaker’s wish concerning the prospective action [2, 89]. The difference between the two auxiliary verbs of the future in British English is further supported by the use of the contracted negative forms won’t and shan’t. Thus, in British English will + infinitive and shall + infinitive denote, respectively, the voluntary future and the non-voluntary future and can be treated as a minor category within the system of the English future tense, relevant only for first person forms.

 

 

 

Conclusion

The category of tense in English may be defined as a grammatical expression of the relationship between the time of the action and the time of speaking. There are four tense-forms in English: past, present, future and future-in-the-past. It should be noticed that there is not just one verbal category of tense in English but two interconnected tense categories, one of them rendering absolutive time semantics by way of retrospect (past vs. present) and the other rendering relative time semantics by way of prospect (after-action vs. non-after-action).

 

Bibliography

1. Жигадло В. Я., Иванова И. Я., Иофик Л. Л. Современный

английский язык. М., 1956.

2. Иртеньева Я. Ф. Грамматика современного английского языка (теоретический курс). М., 1956.
3. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar – М.: Высшая школа, 2008
4. Blokh M.Y. Theoretical English Grammar. Seminars. – М.: Высшая школа, 2007
5. Ilyish B. A. Structure of the English Language – Л.: Просвещение, 1971
6. Korsakov A. K. The use of  Tenses in English – Lvov University Press, 1969
7. Rivlina A.A. Theoretical English Grammar. – Благовещенск: БГПУ, 2009
8. http://spanish.about.com/cs/verbs/g/tenseglos.html