Adjective Grammemes in Speech 14 страница
The 'past' is the time preceding the present moment, and the 'future' is the time following the present moment. Neither of them includes the present moment.
§ 233. The correlation of time and tense is connected with the problem of the absolute and relative use of tense gram-memes.
We say that some tense is absolute if it shows the time of the action in relation to the present moment (the moment of speech).
This is the case in the Russian sentences: Он работает на заводе . Он работал на заводе . Он будет работать на заводе .
The same in English: He works at a factory. He worked at a factory. He will work at a factory.
But very often tense reflects the time of an action not with regard to the moment of speech but to some other moment in the past or in the future, indicated by the tense of another verb.
E . g .
он работает на заводе.
от
Он сказал, что работал на заводе.
он будет работать на заводе, он работает на заводе.
Он скажет, что он работал на заводе.
будет работать на заводе .
Here the tenses of the principal clauses сказал and скажет are used absolutely, while all the tenses of the subordinate clauses are used relatively. The present tense of работает does not refer to the present time but to the time of the action сказал in the first case and скажет in the second. The future tense of будет работать does not indicate the time following the present moment, but the time following the moment of the action сказал in the first case and скажет in the second. The same holds true with regard to the past tense of работал .
In English such relative use of tenses is also possible with regard to some future moment.
,he works at a factory 1. He will say that/- — he worked at a factory.
^he will work at a factory.
But as a rule, this is impossible with regard to a moment in the past, as in -
,*he works at a factory.
*he worked at a factory.
^*he will work at a factory.
Instead of that an Englishman uses:
,he worked at a factory.
He «aid that^- — he had worked at a factory.
^he would work at a factory.
Why is the first version impossible, or at least uncommon? Because the tenses of works, worked, will work cannot be used relatively with regard to the past moment indicated by the verb said (as it would be in Russian, for instance). In English
|
|
|
He said that?
1 In English the present tense is also used relatively in adverbial
clauses of time and condition (7 shall stay here until he returns),
and more rarely, in other subordinate clauses (e. g. / shall let yau know
how I g e t о n). *
145
they are, as a rule, used absolutely, i. e. with regard to the moment of speech.
Therefore a 'present tense' verb may be used here only if the time of the action it expresses includes the moment of speech, which occurs, for instance, in clauses expressing general statements (He said that water b о i I s at 100^ C), in clauses of comparison (Last year he spoke much worse than he d о е s now), and in some other cases.
Similarly, a 'future tense' verb may be used here if the action it expresses refers to some time following the moment of speech.
E. g. Yesterday I heard some remarks about the plan we shall discuss tomorrow.
The past tense of worked in the sentence He said that he worked at a factory also shows the past time not with regard to the time of the action of saying (as would be the case in the Russian sentence Он сказал , что работал на заводе ), but with regard to the moment of speech.
Since English has special forms of the verb to express 'precedence' or 'priority' — fhe perfect forms — the past perfect is used to indicate that an action preceded some other action (or event) in the past. He said that he h a d worked at a factory. But both in the principal and in the subordinate clause the tense of the verb is the same — the past tense used absolutely (see § 503).
Summing up, we may say that a 'past tense' verb is used
in an English subordinate clause not because there is a 'past
tense' verb in the principal clause, i. e. as a result of the
so-called sequence of tenses (see § 503), but simply in accord
ance with its meaning of 'past tense'. *
The Category of Posteriority
|
|
|
§ 234. The category of posteriority is the system of two-member opposemes, like shall come — should come, will be writing — would be writing, showing whether "an action is posterior with regard to the moment of speech or to some moment in the past.
As we know, a 'past tense' verb denotes an action prior
to the moment of speech and a 'future tense' verb names
a posterior action with regard to the moment of speech.
"When priority or posteriority is expressed in relation to the
146
moment of speech, we call it absolute. But there may be relative priority or posteriority, with regard to some other moment. A form like had written, for instance, expresses an action prior to some moment in the past, i. e. it expresses relative piiority. The form should enter expresses posteriority with regard to sone past moment, i. e. relative posteriority.
The first member of the opposeme shall enter — should enter has the meaning of 'absolute posteriority', and the second member possesses the meaning of 'relative posteriority'. These two meanings are the particular manifestations of the general meaning of the category, that of 'posteriority'.
The grammemes represented by should come, would come are traditionally called the future in the past, a name which reflects their meaning of 'relative posteriority'. But there is no agreement as to the place these grammemes occupy in the system of the English verb.
Some linguists * regard them as isolated grammemes, outside the system of morphological categories. Others 2 treat them as some kind of 'dependent future tense' and classify them with those 'finite verb forms' which depend on the nature of the sentence. A. I. Smirnitsky 3 tries to prove that they are not 'tense forms' but 'mood forms', since they are homonymous with the so-called 'conditional mood forms'. Cf. / thought it wo и I d rain.I think it wou Id rain if it were not so windy 4.
In our opinion none of these theories are convincing.
1. The grammemes discussed are not isolated. As shown
above they belong to the morphological category of poster
iority.
2. They are not "tense forms". In the sentences
|
|
|
/ know she will come.
I knew she would come.
I had known she would come.
neither will come — would come, nor knew — had known is a tense opposeme, because the difference between the members of the opposemes is not that of tense. The members
1 See Л. С. Бархударов, Д. А. Штелинг, op. cit.,
p. 202.
2 В. Н. Ж и г а д л о, И. П. И в а н о в а, Л. Л. И о ф и к,
op. cit., p. 109—110.
30р. cit., 160, 173. 4 lb., p. 335.
147
of the first opposeme share the meaning of 'future' tense, those of the second opposeme — the meaning of 'past tense'. The only meanings the members of the first opposeme distinguish are those of 'absolute' and 'relative' posteriority. The members of the second opposeme distinguish only the meanings of 'perfect' — 'non-perfect' order.
3. The grammemes in question are not 'mood forms'.
As we know (see § 226) all the grammemes of the subjunctive mood (with the exception of be) are homonymous with those of the indicative mood. So the fact that would rain is used in both moods proves nothing.
The examples produced by A. I. Smirnitsky clearly show the difference between would rain in the sentence / thought it would rain and in the sentence / think it would rain, if it were not so windy. The first would rain is opposed to will rain (I think it will rain) and denotes a real action following some other action in the past (I thought...). In other words, it possesses the meanings of 'indicative' mood and 'relative' posteriority. The second would rain cannot be opposed to will rain. It denotes an imaginary action simultaneous with or following the moment of speech (I think ...). Hence, it has the meanings of 'non-perfect' order and 'subjunctive mood'.
The Category of Person
§ 235. The category of person in the Indo-European languages serves to present an action as associated by the speaking person with himself (or a group of persons including the speaker), the person or persons addressed, and the person or thing (persons or things) not participating in the process of speech. (Cf. with the meanings of the personal pronouns.) Thus in Russian it is represented in sets of three-member opposemes such as
|
|
|
читаю — читаешь — читает читаем — читаете — читают
Likewise in Modern German we have
ge/ ге — gehst — geht gehen — geht — gehen
§ 236. In Modern English the category of person has certain peculiarities.
148
1. The second member of the opposemes (
speak — speakest — speaks am — art — is
is not used colloquially. It occurs in Modern English only in poetry, in solemn or pathetic prose with a distinct archaic flavour J, e. g.:
Kind nature, thou art >
to all a bountiful mother. (Carlyle).
The category of person is practically represented by two-member opposemes: speak — speaks, am — is.
2. Person opposemes are neutralized when associated
with the 'plural' meaning.
A. I. Smirnitsky 2 thinks that owing to the presence of the plural personal pronouns (we, you, they) person distinctions are felt in the plural of the verb as well.
E. g. we know — you know — they know.
This idea is open to criticism. If the verb itself (in the plural) does not show any person distinctions we are bound to admit that in Modern English ths verb in the plural has no person.
Thus if we overlook the archaic writest or speakest, we should say that in all verbs (but the defective verbs having no person distinctions at all: he can, she may) the person opposeme is found only in the singular, and it consists of two members (speak — speaks), the third person with a positive morpheme being opposed to the first person with a zero morpheme.
3. Person distinctions do not go with the meaning of the
'past tense' in the English verb, e^ g. / (he) asked... (cf.
the Russian я (ты, он) спросил).
4. As regards all those groups of grammemes where the
word-morphemes shall and should are opposed to the word-
morphemes will, would, one has to speak of the first person
expressed by forms with shall (should) as opposed to the non-
first person expressed by the forms with will (would). The
person distinctions in such opposemes (shall come — will
come) are not connected with number meanings.
1 The second person sg of the 'past tense' is likewise archaic and
uncolloquial: thou wrotest, thou wert. (
2 А. И. С м и p н и ц к и и, op. cit, p 358
149
These distinctions, however, are being gradually obliterated through the spreading of -'// and the extensive use of will and would for shall and should (see § 265).
The Category of Number
§ 237. The category of number shows whether the action is associated with one doer or with more than one. Accordingly it denotes something fundamentally different from what is indicated by the number of nouns. We see here not the 'oneness' or 'more-than-oneness' of actions, but the connection with the singular or plural doer. As M. Bryant l puts it, "He eats three times a day" does not indicate a single eating but a single eater.
The category is represented in its purity in the opposeme was — were and accordingly in all analytical forms containing was — were, (was writing — were writing, was writ ten — were written).
In am — are, is — are or am, is — are it is blended with person 2. Likewise in speaks — speak we actually have the 'third person singular' opposed to the non-'third-person-singular'.
Accordingly the category of number is but scantily represented in Modern English.
§ 238. Some verbs do not distinguish number at all because of their peculiar historical development: / (we) can... , he (they) must ..., others are but rarely used in the singular because the meaning of 'oneness' is hardly compatible with their lexical meanings, e. g. to crowd, to conspire 3, etc.
It is natural, therefore, that in Modern English the verb is most closely connected with its subject, which may be left out only when the doer of the action is quite clear from the context.
The Subjunctive Mood
§ 239. Probably the only thing linguists are unanimous about with regard to the subjunctive mood is that it represents an action as a 'non-fact', as something imaginary,
1 M. Bryant, op. cit., p. 20.
2 А. И Смирницкий, op cit , p 361.
3 О Есперсен. Философия грамматики. M., 1958, p.
243.
150
desirable, problematic, contrary to reality. In all other respects opinions differ.
To account for this difference of opinion it is necessary to take into consideration at least two circumstances:
1) The system of the subjunctive mood in Modern English
has been and still is in a state of develompent. There are many
elements in it which are rapidly falling into disuse and there
are new elements coming into use.
2) The authors describing the subjunctive mood often
make no distinction between language and speech, system
and usage. The opposition of the three moods as systems is
mixed up with detailed descriptions of the various shades
of meaning certain forms express in different environments.
§ 240. The development of the modal verbs and that of the subjunctive mood — the lexical and morphological ways of expressing modality ] — have much in common.
The original 'present tense' forms of the modal verbs were ousted by the 'past tense' forms (may, can). New 'past tense' forms were created (could, might, must, ought). The new 'past tense' forms must and ought have again superseded their 'present tense' opposites and are now the only forms of these verbs.
The forms be, have, write, go, etc., which were originally forms of the 'present tense', 'subjunctive mood' grammemes, have suffered a similar process and are now scarcely used in colloquial English. They have become archaic and are found as survivals in poetry, high prose, official documents and certain set expressions like Long live ..., suffice it to say..., etc. The former 'past tense subjunctive' has lost its 'past' meaning, and its forms'are mostly used to denote an action not preceding the moment of speech.
The new analytical forms with should have replaced the former present subjunctive in popular speech. Compare the archaic Take heed, lest t ho и fall (Maxwell) and the usual Take heed, lest you should fall.
In American English where many archaic features are better preserved (Cf. gotten for got) the former present tense forms are more common.
•
E. g. She demanded furiously that the old man be left alone. (Dreiser).
See § 330.
151
§ 241. Some new elements have come and are still coming inte the system of the subjunctive mood. In Old English the subjunctive mood system did not contain any 'person' opposemes. They were introduced later together with should and would, but these distinctions are observed only in a few types of sentences.
With the loss of the -en suffix of the plural the subjunctive mood system lost all number opposemes in Middle English. At present such opposemes are being introduced together with the word was as opposed to were.
E. g. You'd\be glad if I w a s dead. (Bennett).
§ 242. Barring the archaic 'present tense' forms, the subjunctive mood system of Modern English makes use of those forms which express a 'past tense' meaning in the indicative mood system. Since they-are not opposed to the 'present tense' and 'future tense' grammemes, they have no 'tense' meaning. What unites them is the meaning of 'irreality' as opposed to the meaning of 'reality' common to all the indicative mood gra'mmemes."
Having no 'tense' opposemes the subjunctive mood system makes extensive use of 'order' opposemes. The 'perfect' forms are used to express an action imagined as prior to some other action or event.
E. g. The'Married Woman's Property Act would so have interfered with him if he hadn't mercifully married before it was passed. (Galsworthy).
The 'perfect' forms, naturally, express actions imagined as prior to the event of speaking, i. e. actions imagined in the past.
E.g. If I had known that, I should have acted differently. It is strange that he s ho ul d have spoken so.
The non-perfect forms do not express priority. The action they denote may be thought of as simultaneous with some event or even following it. The order of the action in such cases is expressed not by the form of the verb but by the whole situation or lexically.
Cf. / wish he were here now. I wish he w e r e here to morrow. Even if he с а т e to-morrow that will be too lerte. (Ruck).
152
§ 243. The 'passive voice' and 'continuous aspect' meanings are expressed much m the same way as in the indicative mood system.
E. g. In a moment he would have b e e n drewned. (Braddon).
She sat not reading, wondering if he w e r e с в т - i n g in... (Galsworthy).
§ 244. The various shades of meaning subjunctive mood grammemes may acquire in certain environments, and the types of sentences and clauses they are used in, are not part of the morphological system of moods and need not be treated here. Still an exception can be made.
Some linguists 1 think that would help in the sentence // he were here he w о и I d h e I p us represents a separate mood called 'conditional'.
Дата добавления: 2019-02-12; просмотров: 220; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!