The Grammatical Category of Phase
The category of phase is constituted by the opposition of perfect and non-perfect forms. The perfect form goes back to the Old English construction 'habban + direct object + attributive Participle IT'. The verb habban first weakened and then lost its lexical meaning. As for Participle II, it gained in importance. Its verbal nature was strengthened and it became syntactically connected immediately with the verb habban. The word order was changed, too. The perfect form came into existence:
1have/hadwritten my letter.
The perfect form admits of four interpretations:
1) perfect is a tense form,
2) perfect is an aspect form,
3) perfect is part of the tense-aspect system,
4) perfect is a specific form of the category of phase.
H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya look upon perfect forms as tense forms. If perfect were a tense form, the present perfect, for instance, would represent a unity of two
105
|
|
tenses: present and perfect. But one grammatical form cannot express two grammatical meanings of the same grammatical category. Hence, perfect is not a tense form.
In the opinion of G.N. Vorontsova, R. Quirk and his co-authors, D. Biber and his co-authors, perfect is an aspect form. The grammatical meanings of completion and lack of completion of events or states do form the grammatical category of aspect in Russian. Cf.;
dejiamb - cdejiamb,
nucamb - ttanucamb, etc.
In English, they can hardly be regarded as constituting the grammatical category of aspect. If perfect forms were aspect forms, we would have two aspects in perfect continuous forms, and it has been postulated that one grammatical form cannot express several grammatical meanings of the same grammatical category. So, perfect should be excluded from the grammatical category of aspect.
V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik qualify perfect as part of the tense-aspect system. However, perfect is neither a tense nor an aspect, although it is closely connected with the two.
A new approach to the problem is suggested by A.I. Smirnitsky. He thinks that the opposition of perfect and non-perfect forms builds up a specific grammatical category, a category of time relation. The term is not a happy one since it fails to differentiate the new category from the category7 of tense, which also realizes time relations.
The American linguist M. Joos suggests that the category in question should be called a grammatical category of phase. The term phase is borrowed from physics. The non-perfect phase shows that the action and its effect are in one phase. Cf.:
|
|
|
When she was young she lived in a small flat (V. Evans).
The perfect phase emphasizes that the action and its effect are in different phases, e.g.:
She had already left when I got home (V. Evans).
Formally, the opposition of perfect and non-perfect phases is a privative opposition: the perfect phase is based on the pattern 'have + Participle II', the non-perfect phase lacks this pattern. But if we take meaning into consideration, we shall see that both members are logically equal, which is characteristic of equipollent oppositions: the non-perfect phase expresses simultaneity, the perfect phase
106
expresses priority. That's why I.B. Khlebnikova qualifies the opposition built up by perfect and non-perfect phases as equipollento-privative.
The Grammatical Category of Posteriority
The forms 'should/would + infinitive', used to denote a future action from the point of view of the past, present a debatable problem. They are not aspect forms because they can be used in the continuous aspect, e.g.:
Little did we know that we would still be waiting in three hours' time (M. Foley, D. Hall).
Neither are they phase forms because they can be used in the perfect phase, e.g.:
The Cabinet thought the crisis would have finished before the election (M. Foley, D. Hall).
No wonder that V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik, G.N. Vorontsova and B.A. Ilyish qualify them as the fourth tense in the system of the English verb. However, the difference between shall wait/finish - should wait/finish and will wait/finish - would wait/finish is not that of tense: both are future.
According to A.I. Smirnitsky, the forms 'should/would + infinitive' are not tense forms, but mood forms. Here is his way of reasoning. In the first place, they are formally identical with the conditional mood. In the second place, they occur in indirect speech, and in indirect speech the meanings of future in the past and dependent unreality come close together.
A detailed study of the forms in question shows that they are not mood forms. If we compare the sentences djlex said she would meet us there again the next day at 3.30 (M. Foley, D. Hall) and If I had more money. I would move (M. Fuchs, M. Bonner), it will become evident that formal identity ('would + infinitive' in both cases) does not signal identity in meaning and function. In the sentence 'Alex said she would meet us there again the next day at 3.30', would meet is opposed to will meet and denotes a real action following some other action in the past. In the sentence 'If I had more money, I would move', would move cannot be opposed to will move. It denotes an imaginary action simultaneous with or following the moment of speech.
|
|
|
107
In the opinion of B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya, the opposition 'shall/will + infinitive — should/would' + infinitive' forms a category of posteriority. The forms 'shall/will + infinitive' show that the action is posterior to the present moment; the forms 'should/would + infinitive' indicate posteriority to some moment in the past. Cf:
I'll see you later (V. Evans).
He said he would see me later (V. Evans).
Since all the members of the posteriority opposition are characterized by their own specific meaning and form, the posteriority opposition should be referred to permanent equipollent oppositions.
The Grammatical Category of Mood
H. Sweet thinks that mood expresses different relations between the subject and the predicate. Criticizing H, Sweet, O. Jespersen points out that it would be much more correct to say that mood expresses certain attitudes of the mind of the speaker towards the content of the sentence.
The expression of the speaker's attitude may be different. First of all," it may be rendered with the help of this or that intonation pattern. In the second place, we can make use of lexical means, such as modal words and modal verbs. And, finally, there are grammatical devices - special forms of predicate-verbs.
Taking all this into consideration, O. Jespersen remarks that we speak of mood only if this attitude of mind is shown in the form of the verb. Thus, mood is a grammatical, or rather a morphological category.
V.M. Nikitevich considers that the morphological category of mood has a number of syntactic characteristics, too.
|
|
|
1. The typical meanings of moods undergo various modifications in different syntactic constructions, i.e. sentences. For instance, depending on the context, the imperative mood can express a command, a request, an entreaty, etc. Cf.:
Don't smoke in your room! (V. Evans).
Open the window, pleasel (V. Evans).
Do forgive me-1 didn 't mean to interrupt (M. Swan).
2. The syntactic character of the category of mood also manifests itself in the fact that it is common to one of the principal parts of the sentence, namely the predicate.
Hence, we can draw the conclusion that mood is a grammatical category realizing the attitude of the speaker to the thought expressed in the sentence which finds its expression in the morphological forms of the verb and at the same time has a number of syntactic properties.
Depending on the attitude of the speaker to the thought expressed in the sentence, all moods, in the opinion of O. Jespersen, fall into three main groups: fact-mood (indicative), will-mood (imperative), and thought-mood (conjunctive).
The Indicative Mood
The indicative mood is a fact-mood. Using it, the speaker presents something as a fact, e.g.:
The moon goes round the earth and the earth goes round the sun (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).
Sentences of the type: If it snows, we 'II make a snowman (V. Evans) pose a serious problem. Some linguists say that the action denoted by the verb snows in the indicative mood is represented here not as a fact but as a possibility.
B.A. Ilyish, however, thinks that the hypothetical meaning is introduced into the clause by the conjunction if and does not affect the meaning of the verbal form snows.
Since the indicative mood represents an action as real, it seems to lack the seme of subjective evaluation common to the category of mood. No wonder that D."N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, A.M. Peshkovsky and some other linguists exclude the indicative mood from the grammatical category of mood.
The majority of linguists, however, recognize the existence of the indicative mood as a specific grammatical form opposed to the imperative and the conjunctive moods, because using the predicate-verb in the indicative mood, the speaker also expresses his attitude to the action in question by qualifying it as real. Morphologically, the indicative mood is the most developed system including all the categories of the verb.
|
|
|
108
109
The Imperative Mood
The imperative mood is a will-mood. It is a direct expression of the speaker's will. Therefore, it is much more subjective than the indicative mood. Morphologically, the imperative mood is the least developed of all moods.
Old English had two synthetic forms of the imperative mood: for the second person singular and plural. Nowadays, there is one synthetic form that is homonymous with the infinitive without the marker to. The continuous and passive forms are very rare,
Since the imperative mood is homonymous with the infinitive, E. Kruisinga and D. Bolinger identify it with the infinitive. However, the imperative and the infinitive differ in several points.
1. They build up their negative forms on different patterns.
Negative imperative is formed with the help of don't; negative
infinitive is formed by means of not. Cf.:
Don't wake up the haby\ (V. Evans).
To be or not to be, that is the question.,. (W. Shakespeare).
2, They are characterized by diverse distribution: the
imperative usually has no left-hand connection, while the infinitive
has both right-hand and left-hand connections. Cf.;
Listen carefully (R. Murphy).
I want you to listen carefully (R. Murphy).
Still controversial is the problem of forms of the imperative mood. If synthetic forms are recognized by the majority of linguists, the problem of analytical forms is still open to discussion;
Some linguists (G.N. Vorontsova is one of them) think that the verb let with the following infinitive forms an analytical construction because let in such cases is devoid of its primary lexical meaning and performs the function of an auxiliary element.
G.N. Vorontsova's conception, however, is criticized by a number of linguists. V.N. Zhigadlo, IP. Ivanova and L.L. Tofik deny the existence of analytical forms of the imperative mood in the English language because the verb let, in their opinion, can be used in accordance with its primary lexical meaning of allow.
They are right. There are, at least, two different 'lets' in Modern English. When the verb let combines with a personal pronoun in the first person plural, us, it loses its lexical meaning and can be regarded as an imperative mood auxiliary, e.g.:
110
Let's play in the gardenl (V. Evans).
When the verb let combines with a personal pronoun in the first person singular, me, or with a personal pronoun in the third person (singular or plural), him, her, and them, it retains its primary lexical meaning. However, since these constructions also comprise an element of inducement and taking into consideration that with the first person plural personal pronoun us the verb let has already turned into a pure auxiliary, we follow B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya and look upon the combinations of let with first person singular and third person singular and plural personal pronouns as analytical imperative mood forms in the making.
N.F. Irtenyeva denies the existence of the imperative mood in English on the following grounds:
1) the imperative mood has no tense forms,
2) the imperative mood lacks person distinctions,
3) the imperative mood cannot be used in interrogative
sentences.
N.F. Irtenyeva is right: the imperative mood has no tense forms. However, it is but natural. Imperative sentences realize non-real modality; and in the domain of non-real modality tense characteristics are irrelevant.
As for the lack of person distinctions in the imperative mood, we do not think N.F. Irtenyeva is right. Both synthetic and analytical forms of the imperative mood are united by the meaning of 'second person' because it is always to his interlocutor that the speaker addresses his command or request expressed by imperative mood forms. The fixed nature of person characteristics does not require the use of special person markers.
According to G.N. Vorontsova, analytical imperative mood forms with let comprise first or third person characteristics.
In our opinion, analytical imperative forms are heterogeneous. Those forms that combine with personal pronouns in the first person singular and with personal pronouns in the third person (singular or plural) are addressed to the second person. The latter becomes evident when imperative sentences are made two-member, e.g.:
You let me run thisl (W. Faulkner).
Those forms that combine with a personal pronoun in the first person plural address the inducement both to the interlocutor and
ill
|
|
the speaker, i.e. constructions with let's are characterized by a synthesis of second and first person characteristics.
In questions, the imperative mood is not used. But the definition of mood, according to B.A. Ilyish, does not say anything about the possibility of using a form belonging to this or that mood in one or more types of sentences.
So, there seem to be no grounds for denying the existence of the imperative mood in English as N.F. Irtenyeva does.
Characterizing the imperative mood, V.V. Vinogradov writes that it belongs to the periphery of the verbal system, for it is constantly acquiring more and more features in common with interjections. Although both the imperative mood and interjections express volition directly, we cannot identify them. First, interjections are invariable. The imperative mood has affirmative and negative forms. Secondly, interjections give only a general idea of volition, sentences with the imperative mood of a verb are semantically concrete: they name the necessary action. Cf.:
Sh! You'll wake the baby (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Stop making such a noise\ (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
The Conjunctive Mood
The conjunctive mood is a thought-mood. It expresses supposition, possibility, desire, etc.
I.B. Khlebnikova regards the conditional mood (would do, should do, would have done, should have done) and the subjunctive mood (were, did, had been, had done) as constituents of the conjunctive mood paradigm, e.g.:
S C
Why, Lester, if I were in her position, I would let you go (Th. Dreiser),
Historically, the subjunctive and the conditional were two different moods. Now, they have become varieties of a single conjunctive mood. Their common nature is evident enough.
1. Although the subjunctive expresses a condition and the
conditional - the consequence of that condition, the general
categorical meaning of both moods in English is the same: it is the
problematic supposition of an action.
2. Neither the subjunctive nor the conditional possesses the
category of tense because in the domain of non-real modality tense
characteristics are irrelevant.
3. The aspect opposition is characterized by a low frequency
of occurrence.
4. Both the subjunctive and the conditional draw a distinction
between simultaneity (non-perfect forms) and priority (perfect
forms). Non-perfect forms place the unreal action in the temporal
plane of the present-future. Cf.:
I wish he were with us now (V. Evans).
/ -wish my father would give me more pocket money (V. Evans).
Perfect forms place the unreal action in the temporal plane of the past, e.g.:
If he had passed his exams, he would have gone to university (V. Evans).
In other words, there is no opposition between the subjunctive and the conditional, but there is syntactically motivated coexistence: the conditional occurs in the subordinating clause, the subjunctive - in the subordinate clause, e.g.:
S C
If I were you, I wouldn't be in a hurry to do anything, Lester (Th. Dreiser).
The use of the conditional in the subordinating clause, which is more independent than the subordinate clause, makes the conditional a free category. As a free category, the conditional mood is sometimes used independently, with the condition implicitly included in various parts of the sentence or inferred from the context, e.g.:
In the circumstances any one would have done the same (W.S. Maugham).
112
113
The subjunctive is generally used in the subordinate clause. Therefore, it is a subordinate category. The independent use of the subjunctive is rare, e.g.:
If only I were young again (M. Foley, D. Hall).
In object clauses, after verbs of desire, both moods can be found, but with a difference in meaning. 'Wish 4- subjunctive' expresses a desire for something to be different in the present, e.g.:
1 wish I had more time (M. Foley, D. Hall).
'Wish + conditional' expresses a desire for someone to change their deliberate behaviour in the present or future, e.g.:
I wish you'd stop shouting. I'm not deaf you know (M. Foley, D. Hall).
We cannot use would for an impossible change, one which the subject has no control over, e.g.:
/ wish sports cars weren 't so expensive (M. Foley, D. Hall).
So, the verbs would and should are conjunctive mood auxiliaries. But what about combinations with modal verbs? According to I.B. Khlebnikova, the conjunctive mood is based on the format!ves of the past tense. Among the English modal verbs, only can and may display the present - past dichotomy (can - could; may — might), and at the same time combine with the non-perfect and perfect infinitive.
On closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that could and might can hardly be considered auxiliaries of the conjunctive mood.
1. They retain their lexical meaning of possibility, while the
conjunctive mood auxiliaries should and would are devoid of lexical
meaning.
2. They carry stress, while the first component in the
conjunctive mood grammeme (should/would) is unstressed.
3. Contractions like I'd hove come are impossible with the
verbs could and might and are quite common with the conjunctive
mood auxiliaries should and would.
The so-called present conjunctive [/ suggest we go to the theatre (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson)] also stands outside the paradigmatic system of the conjunctive mood.
First, it has neither aspect nor phase.
Second, it is interchangeable with other variants of the conjunctive mood. Cf.:
114
My uncle suggested that I get a job in a bank (M. Swan).
My uncle suggested that I should get a Job in a bank (M. Swan).
Third, it has a stylistic colouring in British English, where it sounds rather official.
Thus, the conjunctive mood in Modern English comprises two basic moods: the conditional and the subjunctive with the further subdivision of each into non-perfect (Conditional 1, Subjunctive I) and perfect (Conditional II, Subjunctive n).
The grammatical category of mood comprises two oppositions: indicative - imperative, indicative - conjunctive. In the opinion of I.B. Khlebnikova, they are privative oppositions. As far as grammatical meaning is concerned, they can be regarded as privative because the indicative mood is a fact-mood, while the imperative and the conjunctive are non-fact moods. Formally, they are rather equipollent, for all the members of the mood oppositions have their own specific forms. That's why it seems better to refer mood oppositions to equipollento-privative oppositions.
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 2296; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!