http://www.allbest.

ru
Scientific paper
in Theoretical Graar:
!The proble of the "erfect fors on #o$ern %n&lish!
"repare$ b'
#esh(o) Stanisla)
%G *+/,
-.S/0 12.3/T/%S 45 T6% "%75%0T 547#S
The #o$ern %n&lish perfect fors ha)e been the sub8ect of a len&th'
$iscussion which has not so far brou&ht about a $efinite result. The $ifficulties
inherent in these fors are plain enou&h an$ a' best be illustrate$ b' the present
perfect. This for contains the present of the )erb ha)e an$ is calle$ present
perfect9 'et it $enotes an action which no lon&er ta(es place9 an$ it is :alost
alwa's; translate$ into 7ussian b' the past tense9 e. &. has written < =>?@9 has
arri)e$ < =A>B@9 etc.
The position of the perfect fors in the s'ste of the %n&lish )erb is a
proble which has been treate$ in an' $ifferent wa's an$ has occasione$ uch
contro)ers'. .on& the )arious )iews on the essence of the perfect fors in
#o$ern %n&lish the followin& three ain tren$s shoul$ be entione$:
,. The cate&or' of perfect is a peculiar tense cate&or'9 i.e. a cate&or' which
shoul$ be classe$ in the sae list as the cate&ories !present! an$ !past!. This )iew
was hel$9 for eCaple9 b' D. Eespersen.
+. The cate&or' of perfect is a peculiar aspect cate&or'9 i. e. one which
shoul$ be &i)en a place in the list coprisin& FFcoon aspect! an$ !continuous
aspect!. This )iew was hel$ b' a nuber of scholars9 inclu$in& "rof. G.
Gorontso)a. Those who hol$ this )iew ha)e eCpresse$ $ifferent opinions about the
particular aspect constitutin& the essence of the perfect fors. /t has been )ariousl'
$efine$ as !retrospecti)e!9 !resultati)e!9 !successi)e!9 etc.
H. The cate&or' of perfect is neither one of tense9 nor one of aspect but a
specific cate&or' $ifferent fro both. /t shoul$ accor$in&l' be $esi&nate$ b' a
special ter an$ its relations to the cate&ories of aspect an$ tense shoul$ be
in)esti&ate$. This )iew was eCpresse$ b' "rof. .. Sirnits('. 6e too( the perfect
to be a eans of eCpressin& the cate&or' of !tie relation! :IAJ
K??KL;.
This wi$e $i)er&ence of )iews on the )er' essence of a )erbal cate&or' a'
see astonishin&. 6owe)er9 its causes appear to be clear enou&h fro the point of
http://www.allbest.ru
)iew of presentM$a' lin&uistics. These causes fall un$er the followin& three ain
hea$s:
,. Scholars ha)e been tr'in& to $efine the basic character of this cate&or'
without pa'in& sufficient attention to the s'ste of cate&ories of which it is boun$
to a(e a part. .s we shall see presentl'9 consi$erations of the s'ste as a whole
rule out soe of the propose$ solutions.
+. /n see(in& the eanin& of the cate&or'9 scholars ha)e not alwa's been
careful to $istin&uish between its basic eanin& :the in)ariable; an$ its
o$ifications $ue to influence of conteCt.
H. /n see(in& the basic eanin& of the cate&or'9 scholars ha)e not alwa's
$rawn a clear line of $istinction between the eanin& of the &raatical cate&or'
as such an$ the eanin&s which belon& to9 or are influence$ b'9 the leCical
eanin& of the )erb :or )erbs; use$ in one of the perfect fors.
/f we carefull' eliinate these three sources of error an$ confusion we shall
ha)e a uch better chance of arri)in& at a true an$ ob8ecti)e solution. 3et us now
consi$er the )iews eCpresse$ b' $ifferent scholars in the or$er in which we
entione$ the abo)e.
/f we are to fin$ out whether the perfect can be a tense cate&or'9 i. e. a tense
aon& other tenses9 we ust consi$er its relations to the tenses alrea$' establishe$
an$ not liable to $oubts about their basic character9 i. e. past9 present9 an$ future.
There is no real $ifficult' here. Ne nee$ onl' recollect that there are in #o$ern
%n&lish the fors present perfect9 past perfect9 an$ future perfect. That present9
past9 an$ future are tense cate&ories9 is firl' establishe$ an$ has ne)er been
$oubte$ b' an'one. Oow9 if the perfect were also a tense cate&or'9 the present
perfect woul$ be a union of two $ifferent tenses :the present an$ the perfect;9 the
past perfect woul$ li(ewise be a union of two $ifferent tenses :the past an$ the
perfect; an$ the future perfect9 too9 woul$ be a union of two $ifferent tenses :the
future an$ the perfect;. This is clearl' ipossible. /f a for alrea$' belon&s to a
tense cate&or' :sa'9 the present; it cannot siultaneousl' belon& to another tense
cate&or'9 since two tense cate&ories in one for woul$9 as it wore9 colli$e an$
$estro' each other. 6ence it follows that the cate&or' of perfect cannot be a tense
cate&or'. Ne nee$ not consi$er here )arious )iews eCpresse$ b' those who thou&ht
that the perfect was a tense9 since their )iews9 whate)er the $etails a' be9 are
shown to be untenable b' the abo)e consi$eration. So the )iew that the perfect is a
special tense cate&or' has been $ispro)e$.
/n or$er to fin$ out whether the perfect can be an aspect cate&or'9 we ust
consi$er its relations to the aspects alrea$' establishe$9 )iP. the coon an$ the
continuous aspects. This proble $oes not present an' particular $ifficult'9 either.
Ne nee$ onl' recollect that there are in #o$ern %n&lish such pairs as is writin& <
has been writin&9 was writin& < ha$ been writin&9 will be writin& < will ha)e
been writin&9 i. e. present continuous an$ present perfect continuous9 past
continuous an$ past perfect continuous9 future continuous an$ future perfect
continuous. .ll of these fors belon& to the continuous aspect9 so the $ifference
between the cannot possibl' be base$ on an' aspect cate&or'. 5or eCaple9 since
both was writin& an$ ha$ been writin& belon& to the continuous aspect :as $istinct
fro wrote an$ ha$ written;9 the' cannot be sai$ to $iffer fro each other on an
aspect lineQ otherwise the' woul$ at the sae tie belon& to one aspect an$ to
$ifferent aspects9 which is ob)iousl' ipossible. 6ence the conclusion is
una)oi$able that the perfect is not an aspect. The )iews of those who consi$er the
perfect to be an aspect nee$ not therefore be $iscusse$ here in $etail.
Since the perfect is neither a tense nor an aspect9 it is boun$ to be soe
special &raatical cate&or'9 $ifferent both fro tense an$ fro aspect. This )iew9
thou&h not Ruite eCplicitl' state$9 was first put forwar$ b' "rof. .. Sirnits(' in a
posthuous article. /t is in coplete haron' with the principle of $istributi)e
anal'sis9 thou&h "rof. Sirnits(' $i$ not9 at the tie9 use the ter !$istributi)e
anal'sis!.
The essence of the &raatical cate&or' eCpresse$ b' the perfect9 an$
$ifferin& both fro tense an$ fro aspect9 is har$ to $efine an$ to fin$ a nae for.
"rof. Sirnits(' propose$ to call it !the cate&or' of tie relation!9 which is not a
)er' happ' ter9 because it sees to brin& us bac( to the ol$ )iew that the perfect
http://www.allbest.ru
is a special (in$ of tense M a )iew which "rof. Sirnits(' Ruite ri&htl' cobate$.
/n a paper publishe$ in ,STU %. .Ciutina9 while a$optin& Sirnits('Fs )iew of the
perfect9 propose$ to replace his ter of !tie relation! b' that of !correlation!
:?K?>K@L?KL;9 which has the a$)anta&e of eliinatin& the un$esirable
ter !tie!.This is $eci$e$l' the ter to be preferre$.
.s to the opposition in such pairs as writes< has written9 wrote< ha$
written9 will write < will ha)e written9 is writin& < has
been writin&9 was writin& < ha$ been writin&9 will be writin& <
will ha)e been writin&9 "rof. Sirnits(' propose$ to $enote it b' the
correlati)e ters !nonMperfect! an$ !perfect!. Nhile this latter proposal a' be
full' accepte$9 the $efinition of the eanin& of the cate&or' presents consi$erable
$ifficult'. /ts essence appears to be prece$ence: an action eCpresse$ b' a perfect
for prece$es soe oent in tie. Ne cannot sa' that it alwa's prece$es
another action: the present perfect for is ost coonl' use$ in sentences which
contain no ention of an' other action.
4n the other han$9 the use of a nonMperfect for $oes not necessaril' ipl'
that the action $i$ not prece$e soe oent in tie. /t a'9 or it a' not9 ha)e
prece$e$ it. To fin$ this out9 the rea$er or hearer has to ta(e into account soe
other feature of the conteCt9 or9 possibl'9 the situation9 that is9 an eCtralin&uistic
factor. Thus9 the opposition between perfect an$ nonMperfect fors is shown to be
that between a ar(e$ an$ an unar(e$ ite9 the perfect fors bein& ar(e$ both
in eanin& :$enotin& prece$ence; an$ in orpholo&ical characteristics :ha)eV
secon$ participle;9 an$ the nonMperfect fors unar(e$ both in eanin&
:prece$ence not iplie$; an$ in orpholo&ical characteristics :purel' ne&ati)e
characteristic: the collocation !ha)e V secon$ participle! not use$;. 4n the whole9
as a &eneral ter to $enote the basic eanin& of the perfect the ter !correlation!
in the abo)eMentione$ eanin& sees Ruite acceptable an$ we propose to a(e
use of it until a better ter is foun$9 which a' ta(e soe tie to happen.
/f this )iew is ta(en9 the s'ste of )erbal cate&ories illustrate$ b' the fors
writes9 is writin&9 has written9 has been writin&9 wrote9 was writin&9 ha$ written9
ha$ been writin&9 will write9 will be writin&9 will ha)e written9 will ha)e been
writin&9 < is base$ on three perfect for en&lish o$ern
&roups of notions9 )iP. tense: present )s. past )s. futureQ aspect:
coon )s. continuousQ correlation: nonMperfect )s. perfect.
.s is seen fro this list9 the latter two of the three oppositions are
$ouble :or !$ichotoic!;9 i. e. the' consist of onl' two ites each whereas
the first :the tense opposition; is triple :or !trichotoic!;9 i. e. it consists of three
ites.
Ne will accept this state of thin&s without enterin& into a $iscussion of the
Ruestion whether e)er' opposition ust necessaril' be $ichotoic9 i.e. consist of
two ebers onl'.
Thus9 the opposition between writes an$ wrote is one of tense9 that between
wrote an$ was writin& one of aspect9 an$ that between wrote an$ ha$ written one
of correlation. /t is ob)ious that two oppositions a' occur to&etherQ thus9 between
writes an$ was writin& there are siultaneousl' the oppositions of tense an$
aspectQ between wrote an$ will ha)e written there are siultaneousl' the
oppositions of tense an$ correlation9 an$ between wrote an$ ha$ been writin& there
are siultaneousl' the oppositions of aspect an$ correlation. .n$9 finall'9 all three
oppositions a' occur to&ether: thus9 between writes an$ ha$ been writin& there
are siultaneousl' the oppositions of tense9 aspect9 an$ correlation.
/f9 in a s'ste of fors9 there is onl' one opposition9 it can ob)iousl' be
represente$ &raphicall' on a line. /f there are two oppositions9 the' can be
represente$ on a plane. Oow9 if there are three oppositions9 the s'ste ob)iousl'
cannot be represente$ on a plane. To represent it9 we shoul$ ha)e recourse to a
threeM$iensional soli$9 )iP. a parallelepipe$. "rof. .. Sirnits(' has &i)en a
s(etch of such a parallelepipe$ in his boo(. 6owe)er9 a $rawin& of a parallelepipe$
cannot &i)e the $esire$ $e&ree of clarit'.
2S%S 45 T6% "%75%0T 547#S
Ne ha)e accepte$ the $efinition of the basic eanin& of the perfect fors as
that of !prece$ence!. 6owe)er9 this $efinition can onl' be the startin& point for a
http://www.allbest.ru
stu$' of the )arious uses of the perfect fors. /n$ee$9 for ore than one case this
$efinition of its eanin& will see wholl' ina$eRuate9 because its actual eanin&
in a &i)en conteCt will be influence$ b' )arious factors. Thou&h a )er' &reat
aount of in)esti&ation has been carrie$ on in this fiel$ an$ an' phenoena
ha)e b' now been eluci$ate$9 it is onl' fair to sa' that a coplete solution of all
the probles in)ol)e$ in the uses an$ sha$es of eanin& of the perfect fors in
#o$ern %n&lish is not 'et in si&ht.
3et us first as( the Ruestion: what (in$s of lin&uistic factors can be eCpecte$
to ha)e an influence on the use an$ sha$es of eanin& of the perfect forsW Ne
will tr' to answer this Ruestion in a &eneral wa'9 before procee$in& to in)esti&ate
the possible concrete cases.
These factors9 then9 woul$ see to be the followin&:
:,; the leCical eanin& of the )erbQ
:+; the tense cate&or' of the for9 i.e. whether it is the present perfect9 past
perfect9 or future perfect :we cannot be certain in a$)ance that the tense relation is
irrele)ant here;Q
:H; the s'ntactical conteCt9 i. e. whether the perfect for is use$ in a siple
sentence9 or the ain clause9 or a&ain in a subor$inate clause of a copleC
sentence.
To these shoul$ be a$$e$ an eCtralin&uistic factor9 )iP.
:*; the situation in which the perfect for is use$.
3et us now consi$er each of these factors separatel' an$ then coe to the
Ruestion of their possible interaction.
:,; The eanin& of the )erb use$ can affect the eanin& of the perfect for
in so far as the )erb a' $enote either an action which is apt to pro$uce an
essential chan&e in the state of the ob8ect :e. &. 6e has bro(en the cup; or a process
which can last in$efinitel' without brin&in& about an' chan&e :e. &. 6e has li)e$ in
this cit' since ,S*T;9 etc. Nith the )erb brea(9 for instance9 the sha$e of eanin&
woul$ then be the result of the action :the cup is no lon&er a cup but a collection of
fra&ents;9 whereas with the )erb li)e no result in this eCact sense can be foun$Q
we i&ht infer a resultati)e eanin& onl' in a soewhat roun$about wa'9 b'
sa'in& that he has now so an' 'ears of life in this cit' behin$ hi. Thus the
eanin& of result9 which we in$ee$ $o fin$ in the sentence 6e has bro(en the cup9
appears to be the effect of the cobine$ eanin&s of the )erb as such :in whate)er
for; an$ the perfect for as such. /t is Ruite natural that this eanin& shoul$ ha)e
ore than once been ta(en to be the eanin& of the perfect cate&or' as such9
which was a isconception.
To &i)e another eCaple9 if the )erb $enotes an action which brin&s about
soe new state of thin&s9 its perfect for is liable to acRuire a sha$e of eanin&
which will not be foun$ with a )erb $enotin& an action unable to brin& about a new
state. Ne a'9 for instance9 copare the sentences Ne ha)e foun$ the boo( :this
iplies that the boo(9 which ha$ been lost9 is now once ore in our possession;
an$ Ne ha)e searche$ the whole roo for the boo( :which $oes not ipl' an' new
state with reference to the boo(;. 4f course an' ore eCaples of this (in$
i&ht be &i)en. The basic reRuireent is clear enou&h: we ust fin$ the eanin&
of the for itself9 or its in)ariable9 an$ not the eanin& of the for as o$ifie$ or
coloure$ b' the leCical eanin& of the )erb. /f this reRuireent is clearl' (ept in
in$9 an' errors which ha)e been coitte$ in $efinin& the eanin& of the for
will be a)oi$e$.
:+; The possible $epen$ence of the eanin& of perfect fors on the tense
cate&or' :present9 past or future; is one of the ost $ifficult probles which the
theor' of the perfect has ha$ to face. /t is Ruite natural to suppose that there ou&ht
to be an in)ariable eanin& of the phrase !ha)e V secon$ participle!9 no atter
what the tense of the )erb ha)e happens to be9 an$ this in$ee$ is the assuption we
start fro. 6owe)er9 it woul$ be $an&erous to consi$er this h'pothesis as
soethin& ascertaine$9 without un$erta(in& an ob8ecti)e in)esti&ation of all the
facts which a' throw soe li&ht on the proble. Ne a'9 for instance9 suspect
that the present perfect9 which $enotes !prece$ence to the present!9 i.e. to the
oent of speech9 a' pro)e $ifferent fro the past perfect9 $enotin& prece$ence
to a oent in the past9 or the future perfect9 $enotin& prece$ence to a oent in
http://www.allbest.ru
the future: both the past an$ the future are9 of course9 thesel)es relate$ in soe
wa' to the present9 which appears as the centre to which all other oents of tie
are referre$ in soe wa' or other. 4ne of the chief points in this sphere is the
followin&. /f an action prece$es another action9 an$ the eanin& of the )erb is such
a one that the action can ha)e a $istinct result9 the present perfect for9 to&ether
with the leCical eanin& of the )erb :an$9 we shoul$ a$$9 possibl' with soe
eleent of the conteCt; a' pro$uce the eanin& of a result to be soon at the )er'
oent the sentence is uttere$9 so that the spea(er can point at that result with his
fin&er9 as it were. Oow with the past perfect an$ with the future perfect thin&s are
boun$ to be soewhat $ifferent. The past perfect :to&ether with the factors
entione$ abo)e; woul$ ean that the result was there at a certain oent in the
past9 so that the spea(er coul$ not possibl' point at it with his fin&er. Still less
coul$ he $o that if the action he spo(e about was in the future9 an$ the future
perfect :a&ain9 to&ether with all those factors; $enote$ a result that woul$ be there
in the future onl' :that is9 it woul$ onl' be an eCpecte$ result;. .ll this has to be
carefull' &one into9 if we are to achie)e reall' ob8ecti)e conclusions an$ if we are
to a)oi$ unfoun$e$ &eneraliPations an$ haphaPar$ assertions which a' be
$ispro)e$ b' eCainin& an eCaple or two which $i$ not happen to be at our
$isposal at the oent of writin&.
:H; The s'ntactical conteCt in which a perfect for is use$ is occasionall' a
factor of the hi&hest iportance in $eterinin& the ultiate eanin& of the
sentence. To illustrate this point9 let us consi$er a few eCaples: There was a halfM
hearte$ attept at a aintenance of the properties9 an$ then Nilbraha 6all ran&
with the lau&hter of a 8o(e which the neCt $a' ha$ becoe the coon precious
propert' of the 5i)e Towns. :-%OO%TT; 4)erton waite$ Ruietl' till he ha$
finishe$. :3/OXS.Y; -ut before he ha$ answere$9 she a$e a &riace which
#ar( un$erstoo$. :7. N%ST; The action $enote$ b' the past perfect in these
sentences is not thou&ht of as prece$in& the action $enote$ b' the past tense.
.nother possibilit' of the conteCt influencin& the actual eanin& of the
sentence will be seen in the followin& eCaples. The Ruestion 6ow lon& ha)e 'ou
been hereW of course iplies that the person a$$resse$ still is in the place eant b'
the a$)erb here. .n answer li(e , ha)e been here for half an hour woul$ then
practicall' ean9 F/ ha)e been here for half an hour an$ / still a here an$ a' sta'
here for soe tie to coeF. 4n the other han$9 when9 in G. -. ShawFs pla'9 !#rs.
NarrenZs "rofession! :.ct /;9 Gi)ie coes into the roo an$ #rs. Narren as(s her9
FNhere ha)e 'ou been9 Gi)ieW F it is Ruite e)i$ent that Gi)ie no lon&er is in the
place about which #rs. Narren is inRuirin&Q now she is in the roo with her
other an$ it woul$ be pointless for #rs. Narren to as( an' Ruestion about that.
These two uses of the present perfect :an$ siular uses of the past perfect9 too;
ha)e soeties been classe$ un$er the hea$in&s !present :or past; perfect
inclusi)e! an$ !present :or past; perfect eCclusi)e!. This terinolo&' cannot be
recoen$e$9 because it su&&ests the i$ea that there are two $ifferent eanin&s of
the present :or past; perfect9 which is surel' wron&. The $ifference $oes not lie in
the eanin&s of the perfect for9 but $epen$s on the situation in which the
sentence is use$. The sae consi$eration applies to the present :or past; perfect
continuous9 which is also occasionall' classifie$ into present :or past; perfect
continuous inclusi)e an$ present :or past; perfect continuous eCclusi)e. The
$ifference in the eanin& of sentences is a )er' real one9 as will be seen fro the
followin& eCaples. !Sa9 'ou (now e)er'bo$' ! she sai$9 !who is that terrible
an /F)e been tal(in& toW 6is nae is 0apofiore.! :7. N%ST; / ha)e been sa)in&
one' these an' onths. :T6.0[%7.Y9 Ruote$ b' "outsa; Xo 'ou ean to
sa' that Eac( has been pla'in& with e all the tieW That he has been ur&in& e
not to arr' 'ou because he inten$s to arr' 'ou hiselfW :S6.N; 6owe)er9 this
is not a $ifference in the eanin& of the )erbal for itself9 which is the sae in all
cases9 but a $ifference $epen$in& on the situation or conteCt. /f we were to ascribe
the two eanin&s to the for as such9 we shoul$ be losin& its &raatical
in)ariable9 which we are tr'in& to $eterine.
4f course it cannot be sai$ that the anal'sis here &i)en eChausts all possible
uses an$ applications of the perfect fors in #o$ern %n&lish. Ne shoul$ alwa's
bear in in$ that eCtensions of use are possible which a' soeties &o be'on$
http://www.allbest.ru
the strict liits of the s'ste. Thus9 we occasionall' fin$ the present perfect use$
in copleC sentences both in the ain an$ in the subor$inate clause < a use
which $oes not Ruite fit in with the $efinition of the eanin& of the for. %.&. /F)e
soeties won$ere$ if / ha)enFt seee$ a little too fran( an$ free with 'ou9 if 'ou
i&ht not ha)e thou&ht / ha$ !F&one &a'!9 consi$erin& our frien$ship was so far
fro intiate. :7.N%ST; Ne shall best un$erstan$ this use if we substitute the
past tense for the present perfect. The sentence then woul$ run li(e this: / ha)e
soeties won$ere$ if / ha$nFt seee$ a little too fran( an$ free with 'ou... .n
iportant sha$e of eanin& of the ori&inal sentence has been lost in this )ariant9
)iP. that of an eCperience sue$ up an$ rea$' at the tie of spea(in&. Nith the
past tense9 the sentence erel' $eals with e)ents of a past tie unconnecte$ with
the present9 whereas with the present perfect there is the a$$itional eanin& of all
those past e)ents bein& ali)e in the spea(erFs in$.
4ther eCaples i&ht of course be foun$ in which there is soe peculiarit'
or other in the use of a perfect for. /n the course of tie9 if such )arie$ uses
accuulate9 the' a' in$ee$ brin& about a o$ification of the eanin& of the
for itself. This9 howe)er9 lies be'on$ the scope of our present stu$'.
52O0T/4O.3 #%.O/OG 45 T6% "%75%0T 0.T%G47Y
The functional eanin& of perfect cate&or' has been interprete$ in lin&uistic
literature in four $ifferent wa's9 each contributin& to the e)olution of the &eneral
theor' of retrospecti)e coor$ination.
The first coprehensi)el' represente$ &raatical eCposition of the perfect
)erbal for was the !tense )iew!: b' this )iew the perfect is approache$ as a
peculiar tense for. The tense )iew of the perfect is presente$ in the wor(s of 6.
Sweet9 G. 0ure9 #. -r'ant an$ E. 7. .i(en9 an$ soe other forei&n scholars. /n
the So)iet lin&uistic literature this )iew was consistentl' $e)elope$ b' O. 5.
/rten'e)a. The tense interpretation of the perfect was also en$orse$ b' the wellM
(nown course of %n&lish Graar b' #. .. Ganshina an$ O. #. Gasile)s(a'a.
The $ifference between the perfect an$ nonMperfect fors of the )erb9
accor$in& to the tense interpretation of the perfect9 consists in the fact that the
perfect $enotes a secon$ar' teporal characteristic of the action. Oael'9 it shows
that the $enote$ action prece$es soe other action or situation in the present9 past9
or future. This secon$ar' tense Rualit' of the perfect9 in the conteCt of the !tense
)iewFF9 is naturall'
contraste$ a&ainst the secon$ar' tense Rualit' tense of the continuous9 which
latter9 accor$in& to O.5. /rten'e)a9 intensel' eCpresses siultaneit' of the $enote$
action with soe other action in the present9 past9 or future.
The i$ea of the perfect con)e'in& a secon$ar' tie characteristic of the
action is Ruite a soun$ one9 because it shows that the perfect9 in fact9 coeCists with
the other9 priar' eCpression of tie. Nhat else9 if not a secon$ar' tie eanin&
of priorit'9 is ren$ere$ b' the perfect for in the followin& eCaple: Gran$father
has ta(en his ornin& stroll an$ now was ha)in& a rest on the )eran$a.
The secon$ &raatical interpretation of the perfect was the !aspect )iew!:
accor$in& to this interpretation the perfect is approache$ as an aspecti)e for of
the )erb. The aspect )iew is presente$ in the wor(s of #. Xeutschbein9 %...
Sonnenschein9 ..S. Nest9 an$ other forei&n scholars. /n the So)iet lin&uistic
literature aspecti)e interpretation of the perfect was coprehensi)el' $e)elope$ b'
G.O. Gorontso)a.This subtle obser)er of intricate inter$epen$encies of lan&ua&e
asterl' $eonstrate$ the i$ea of the successi)e connection of two e)ents
eCpresse$ b' the perfect9 proinence &i)en b' the for to the transference or
!transMission! of the accessories of a preMsituation to a postMsituation. The &reat
erit of G. O. Gorontso)aFs eCplanation of the aspecti)e nature of the perfect lies
in the fact that the resultati)e eanin& ascribe$ b' soe scholars to the perfect as
its $eterinin& &raatical function is un$erstoo$ in her conception within a
ore &eneral $estination of this for9 nael' as a particular anifestation of its
transissi)e functional seantics.
/n$ee$9 if we copare the two followin& )erbal situations9 we shall easil'
notice that the first of the eCpresses result9 while the secon$ presents a
connection of a past e)ent with a later one in a broa$ sense9 the &eneral inclusion
of the posterior situation in the sphere of influence of the anterior situation:
http://www.allbest.ru
The win$ has $roppe$9 an$ the sun burns ore fiercel' than e)er.
!6a)e 'ou reall' ne)er been to a ball before9 3eilaW -ut9 ' chil$9 how too
weir$ <! crie$ the Sheri$an &irls.
The resultati)e iplication of the perfect in the first of the abo)e eCaples
can be &raphicall' shown b' the $ia&nostic transforation9 which is not applicable
to the secon$ eCaple: The sun burns ore fiercel' than e)er as a result of the
win$ ha)in& $roppe$.
.t the sae tie9 the plain resultati)e seantics Ruite e)i$entl' appears as a
particular )ariet' of the &eneral transissi)e eanin&9 b' which a posterior e)ent
is treate$ as a successor of an anterior e)ent on )er' broa$ lines of connection.
7eco&niPin& all the erits of the aspect approach in Ruestion9 howe)er9 we
clearl' see its two serious $rawbac(s. The first of the is that9 while ephasiPin&
the aspecti)e si$e of the function of the perfect9 it un$erestiates its teporal si$e9
con)incin&l' $eonstrate$ b' the tense )iew of the perfect $escribe$ abo)e. The
secon$ $rawbac(9 thou&h9 is 8ust the one characteristic of the tense )iew9 repeate$
on the respecti)el' $ifferent aterial: the $escribe$ aspecti)e interpretation of the
perfect fails to strictl' forulate its oppositional nature9 the cate&orial status of the
perfect bein& left un$efine$.
The thir$ &raatical interpretation of the perfect was the !tenseMaspect
blen$ )iew!: in accor$ with this interpretation the perfect is reco&niPe$ as a for
of $ouble teporal aspecti)e character9 siilar to the continuous. The tenseMaspect
interpretation of the perfect was $e)elope$ in the wor(s of /. ". /)ano)a. .ccor$in&
to /. ". /)ano)a the two )erbal fors eCpressin& teporal an$ aspecti)e functions
in a blen$ are contraste$ a&ainst the in$efinite for as their coon counterpart
of neutraliPe$ aspecti)e properties.
The achie)eent of the tenseMaspect )iew of the perfect is the fact that it
$eonstrates the actual $ouble nature of the anal'se$ )erbal for9 its inherent
connection with both teporal an$ aspecti)e spheres of )erbal seantics. Thus9 as
far as the perfect is concerne$9 the tenseMaspect )iew o)ercoes the oneMsi$e$
approach to it peculiar both to the first an$ the secon$ of the note$ conceptions.
/n$ee$9 the teporal eanin& of the perfect is Ruite apparent in
constructions li(e the followin&: / ha)e li)e$ in this cit' lon& enou&h. / ha)enFt et
0harlie for 'ears.
The actual tie eCpresse$ b' the perfect )erbal fors use$ in the eCaples
can be a$e eCplicit b' tieMtest Ruestions: 6ow lon& ha)e 'ou li)e$ in this cit'W
5or how lon& ha)enZt 'ou et 0harlieW
Oow9 the purel' aspecti)e seantic coponent of the perfect for will
ie$iatel' be a$e proinent if the sentences were continue$ li(e that: / ha)e
li)e$ in this cit' lon& enou&h to show 'ou all that is worth seein& here. / ha)enFt
et 0harlie for 'ears9 an$ can har$l' reco&niPe hi in a crow$.
The aspecti)e function of the perfect )erbal fors in both sentences9 in its
turn9 can easil' be re)eale$ b' aspectMtest Ruestions: Nhat can 'ou $o as a result of
'our ha)in& li)e$ in this cit' for 'earsW Nhat is the conseRuence of 'our not
ha)in& et 0harlie for 'earsW
The cate&orial in$i)i$ualit' of the perfect was shown as a result of stu$'
con$ucte$ b' the einent So)iet lin&uist .. /. Sirnits('. 6is conception of the
perfect9 the fourth in our enueration9 a' be calle$ the !tie correlation )iew!9
to use the eCplanator' nae he &a)e to the i$entifie$ cate&or'. Nhat was achie)e$
b' this brilliant thin(er9 is an eCplicit $eonstration of the fact that the perfect
for9 b' eans of its oppositional ar(9 buil$s up its own cate&or'9 $ifferent fro
both the !tense! :present M past Mfuture; an$ the !aspect! :continuous < in$efinite;9
an$ not re$ucible to either of the. The functional content of the cate&or' of !tie
correlation! :!IAJ K??KL!; was $efine$ as priorit' eCpresse$ b' the
perfect fors in the present9 past or future contraste$ a&ainst the nonMeCpression of
priorit' b' the nonMperfect fors. The ie$iate factor that &a)e cause to .. /.
Sirnits(' to a$)ance the new interpretation of the perfect was the peculiar
structure of the perfect continuous for in which the perfect9 the for of
prece$ence9 i.e. the for &i)in& proinence to the i$ea of two ties brou&ht in
contrast9 coeCists s'nta&aticall' with the continuous9 the for of siultaneit'9
i.e. the for eCpressin& one tie for two e)ents9 accor$in& to the !tense )iew!
http://www.allbest.ru
conception of it. The &ist of reasonin& here is that9 since the two eCpressions of the
sae cate&orial seantics are ipossible in one an$ the sae )erbal for9 the
perfect cannot be either an aspecti)e for9 &rante$ the continuous eCpresses the
cate&or' of aspect9 or a teporal for9 &rante$ the continuous eCpresses of tense.
The inference is that the cate&or' in Ruestion9 the $eterinin& part of which is
ebo$ie$ in the perfect9 is $ifferent fro both the tense
cate&orial ter !tie correlation!.
The anal'sis un$erta(en b' ../. Sirnits(' is of outstan$in& si&nificance
not onl' for i$entif'in& the cate&orial status of the perfect9 but also for specif'in&
further the &eneral notion of a &raatical cate&or'. /t $e)elops the )er' techniRue
of this (in$ of i$entification.
Still9 the !tie correlation )iew! is not $e)oi$ of certain liitations. 5irst9 it
soehow un$erestiates the aspecti)e plane of the cate&orial seantics of the
perfect9 )er' con)incin&l' $eonstrate$ b' G. O. Gorontso)a in the conteCt of the
!aspect )iew! of the perfect9 as well as b' /. ". /)ano)a in the conteCt of the !tenseM
aspect tense )iew! of the perfect. Secon$9 an$ this is far ore iportant9 the
reasonin& b' which the cate&or' is i$entifie$9 is not alto&ether coplete in so far
as it confuses the &eneral &raatical notions of tie an$ aspect with the
cate&orial status of concrete wor$Mfors in each particular lan&ua&e con)e'in& the
correspon$in& eanin&s. Soe lan&ua&es a' con)e' teporal or aspecti)e
eanin&s within the functionin& of one inte&ral cate&or' for each :as9 for instance9
the 7ussian lan&ua&e;9 while other lan&ua&es a' con)e' the sae or siilar (in$
of eanin&s in two or e)en ore cate&ories for each :as9 for instance9 the %n&lish
lan&ua&e;. The onl' true criterion of this is the character of the representation of
the respecti)e cate&orial fors in the actual speech anifestation of a leCee. /f a
leCee norall' $ispla's the s'nta&atic coeCistence of se)eral fors $istinctl'
i$entifiable b' their own peculiar ar(s9 as9 for eCaple9 the fors of person9
nuber9 tie9 etc.9 it eans that these fors in the s'ste of lan&ua&e a(e up
$ifferent &raatical cate&ories. The inte&ral &raatical eanin& of an' wor$M
for :the concrete speech entr' of a leCee; is $eterine$ b' the whole
cobination :!bunch!; of the cate&ories peculiar to the part of speech the leCee
belon&s to. 5or instance9 the )erbMfor !has been spea(in&! in the sentence !The
7e$ 0hief has 8ust been spea(in&! eCpresses9 in ters of ie$iatel' :positi)el';
presente$ &raatical fors9 the thir$ person of the cate&or' of person9 the
sin&ular of the cate&or' of nuber9 the present of the cate&or' of tie9 the
continuous of the cate&or' of $e)elopent9 the perfect of the cate&or' un$er
anal'sis. .s for the character of the $eterinin& eanin& of an' cate&or'9 it a'
either be relate$ to the eanin& of soe a$8oinin& cate&or'9 or a' not M it
$epen$s on the actual cate&orial correlations that ha)e shape$ in the lan&ua&e in
the course of its historical $e)elopent. /n particular9 in #o$ern %n&lish9 in accor$
with our (nowle$&e of its structure9 two a8or purel' teporal cate&ories are to be
i$entifie$9 i.e. priar' tie an$ prospecti)e tie9 as well as two a8or aspecti)e
cate&ories. 4ne of the latter is the cate&or' of $e)elopent. The other9 as has been
$eci$e$ abo)e is the cate&or' of retrospecti)e coor$ination featurin& the perfect as
the ar(e$ coponent for an$ the iperfect as its unar(e$ counterpart. Ne
ha)e consi$ere$ it a$)isable to reMnae the in$icate$ cate&or' in or$er9 first9 to
stress its actual retrospecti)e properl' :in fact9 what is stron&l' eCpresse$ in the
teporal plane of the cate&or'9 is priorit' of action9 not an' other relati)e tie
si&nification;9 an$ secon$9 to reser)e such a &eneral ter as !correlation! for ore
unrestricte$9 free anipulations in nonMspecifie$ uses connecte$ with &raatical
anal'sis.
http://www.allbest.ru
3iterature
,. -lo(h #.Y. 0ourse in Theoretical %n&lish Graar.M#.9,SUH
+./l'ish -... The Structure of #o$ern %n&lish.M 3.9,S\,
.llbest.ru