Criticism by Korneeva E . E (Пособие по морфологии современного английского языка. - М., 1964):
However, Ivanova’s category of tense model is also vulnerable in the way that the principle of introducing temporal centers has not been brought to the logical end. This principle being properly applied, it would be required to introduce one more temporal center – the temporal center of the Future-in-the-Past (or that of depedent Future). The point is thatthe actions expressed by the Future-Continuous-in-the Past, Future Perfect-in-the-Past, Future Perfect Continuous-in-the-Past forms are as a matter of fact, directly connected with a special temporal center, and onlythrough the medium of it they are connected with the temporal center of the Past, which is directly connectedwith the moment of speech.
In this way, this model includes not one but two degrees of dependence.
4) prof. Irtenyeva N.F.
4) According to prof. Irtenyeva N.F. the system of English tenses is divided into 2 halves: that of tenses centering in the present, and that of tenses centering in the past.
| Tenses centering in the present | Tenses centering in the past |
| The present Indefinite, the present perfect, Present Continuous Present Perfect Continuous Future | The Past Indefinite, The Past Perfect, The Future -in- the- Past The Past Continuous The Past Perfect Continuous. |
The right-hand half is characterized by specific features: a) the root vowel (e.g. sang vs sing);
b) the suffix –d (or -t) : (e.g. looked, had sung, would sing.
This view has much to recommend it. It has the advantage of reducing the usual threefold division of tenses (past, present and future) to a twofold division (past and present). However the cancellation of the Future as a tense in its own right ( по праву ) would seem to require a more detailed justification.
Tense systems
5) A. Korsakov (The use of tenses in English. – Lvov, 1969) propounded
a 6 tense system. He establishesa system of absolute and anterior tenses (=are what we call tenses of perfect correlation), andof static and dynamic tenses (=are what we call tenses of the continuous aspect).
Tenses here represent a linear system , the components of which reflect not only 3
natural phases of time (Past, present and future), but they are alsorepresented in a more detailed fashion. Besides the above meanings they convey also the so-called before-present, before-past and before- future. This model does not give room to the Future-in-the –Past.
|
|
|
The evaluation of this system in its relation to other views provided by Korneeva and Kobrina et alia is as follows:
From the theoretical point of view this model is of no interest because it ignores the facts of language directly connected with the problem under consideration but which do not go in the Procrustean bed of the model’s framework, they are forcefully fitted or adapted to produce conformity
Tenses systems
6) A 3-tenses system (Present, Past, Future) was worked out by A.I. Smirnitski ( Морфология английского языка . – М ., 1959. – С . 332-341). He considered that Future-in-the –Past forms are conditional mood forms and not tense forms. 1) According to A.I. Smirnitski: In their meaning we can see a certain similarity which provides grounds for identifying their categorical appurtenance.2) From the purely formal point of view Future-in-the –Past forms are absolutely identical with the Cnditional mood forms.
In this case the arguments put forward by Smirnitski are unconvincing, and weak.
6a) B.A. Ilyish (The Structure of MnE. – L., 1971. –P 93), most likely, regarded the system of English tenses as a 3-tenses system. His attitude to the Future –in –the –Past is not clear. Is it included into this system or is it left out beyond the system but is connected with it as a part of a more general system was left unanswered.
Tense systems.
6) A 2 tense system by O. Jespersen (The philosophy of grammar, p. 50).
In 1924 Some doubts were expressed about the existence of the Future tense by O. Jespersen (The philosophy of grammar, p. 50)who
denied the existence of a future tense in English because it is expressed by the phrase “shall/will + Infinitive”. According to O. Jespersen shall and will preserve some of their original modal meanings (shall – an element of obligation and will - an element of volition). Thus, According to O. Jespersen, English has no way of expressing pure futurity.
Other 2 –tense systems.
Attempts to represent the English system of tenses as a strictly dichotomous one are characteristic for L.S. Barkhudarov (who denied the existence of a future tense and future-in-the-past tense in English either), V. F. Mauler.
|
|
|
L.S. Barkhudarov
L.S. Barkhudarov ( Очерки по морфологии совр англ языка . – М ., 1975. – С .126-128) gives the following arguments of “shall/will + Inf“ being modal and not an analytical form.
1) combination “shall/will + Inf“ formally does not differ from “can +Inf”, “may+ Inf”. It is impossible to single out a grammatical form, relying only on the meaning, if this meaning does not have a special form of expression. But according to their meaning
“shall/will + Inf“ cannot be separated from other modal constructions. Verbs shall/will
always retain modal meanings.
2)The meaning of the Future tense is not always expressed by “shall/will + Inf“. There are many different ways of expressing futurity: - (The train is leaving in 5 minutes.
I am going to help you. I can do it to-morrow).
In this way “shall/will + Inf“ are different from Perfect or Cntinuous forms which are the only way of expressing the corresponding meanings.
3) Combinations “shall/will + Inf“ do not fit the above definition of analytical forms. They are based on discontinuous morphemes.
4) A strong argument against “shall/will + Inf“ being analytical forms is the existence of Future in the Past (= should/would + Inf). One and the same form cannot BELONG to two tenses simultaneously (future and past).
Conclusion: So in English there is no categorical form of the Future.
V.F. Mauler
V.F. Mauler (L.S. Barkhudarov’s post-graduate student)In his doctoral,basing on 40 000 strong sampling for shall/will + Inf showed that only in 5 % of shall usages, shall realized its temporal meaning of Futurity, while in 95% of cases it was modal.
So in English there is no categorical form of the Future.
The idea that in English there are 2 tenses was expressed by:
M. Joos. The English verb.- UWP, 1964;
F.R. Palmer. A linguistic study of the English verb. –L., 1965;
A. Hill. Introduction to linguistic structures. 1958.
O. Jespersen. The Phylosophy of grammar.
|
|
|
NB!
A morphological opposition is a contrast of two morphological units possessing a ground for comparison and a basis for distinction.
In the category of tense we have two oppositions: 1) present vs past and 2) present vs future. The ground for comparison in these oppositions is the relation to the present moment. The present tense includes the present moment. The past tense excludes the present moment. The future tense excludes the present moment.
Each member of tense oppositions has a specific form. The present tense is homonymous with the base of the verb [in the 3rd pers. sing. the inflexion –(e)s is added]; The past tense has the dental suffix –(e)d; The future tense is formed by means of the word will+ Inf.
Since all the members of tense oppositions are characterized by their own specific meaning and form, tense oppositions are referred by I.B. Khlebnikova to equipollent oppositions.(p.85).
Lecture10.
The category of Perfect.
Among the various views on the essence of the Perfect forms in MnE the following 4 main trends should be mentioned:
1.The category of Perfect is a peculiar ( специфический , особенный) tense category like present or past (H.Sweet, O. Jespersen, M. Ganshina & N. Vasilevskaya).
2. It is a peculiar aspect category (G. Vorontsova). She described it as retrospective, resultative, successive (G. Vorontsova, +R.Quirk, D. Biber).
3. Perfect is a part of tense-aspect system (V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofic).
4. It is neither tense, nor aspect, but a specific category different from both.(Smirnitsky)
It is the category of time correlation (Smirnitsky). It is the category of phase (M. Joos).
I.Can the Perfect be a tense category? We must consider its relaions to the Past, Present and Future.
NB. In MnE there are forms of Present Perfect, Past Perfect, Future Perfect. That Present, past and Future are tense categories is firmly established.
a) Now if the Perfect were a tense category, the Present Perfect would be a union of 2 different tenses – the Present and the Perfect.
|
|
|
B) The Past Perfect would be likewise a union of 2 different tenses – the Past and the Perfect.
c) The Future Perfect would be likewise a union of 2 different tenses – The Future and the Perfect.
If a form belongs to a tense category (say, the Present), it cannot simultaneously belong to another tense category since 2 categories in 1 form collide and destroy each other. So, the view that the Perfect is a special tense category has been disproved ( опровергнут ).
II. To find out whether the Perfect can be an aspect category we must consider its relationsto the aspects already established: the Common and the Continuous Aspects.
We need only to recollect that in MnE there are such pairs as:
| Is writing – has been writing | PresentContinuous::Present Perfect Continuous |
| Was writing – had been writing | Past Continuous :: Past Perfect Continuous |
| Will be writing – will have been writing | Future Continuous:: Future Perfect Continuous. |
All these forms belong to the continuous Aspect, If Perfect forms were aspect forms we would have two aspects in Perfect Continuous forms. So the difference between them cannot be based on any aspect category. They cannot be said to differ on an aspect line. Otherwise they would at the same time belong to one aspect and to different aspects. It has been postulated that one grammatical form cannot express several grammatical meanings of the same grammatical category.
Hence, the conclusion is unavoidable that the perfect is not an Aspect.
III. So the Perfect then is bound to be some special grammatical categorydifferent from both tense and from aspect. This view was formulated by A.I. Smirnitsky in a posthumous article « Перфект и категория временной отнесенности » ( ИЯ в школе , 1955, № 2).
Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky called this new category as “the category of time correlation”.
The opposition in such pairs as:
| a)Writes – has written wrote - had written will write – will have written | b) is writing – has been writing was writing - had been writing will be writing - will have been writing |
Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky proposed to denote by the terms Non-Perfect:: Perfect. But the definition of the meaning of the category presents some difficulty.
Its essence appears to be precedence: an action expressed by a Perfect form precedes some moment in time.
The opposition between Perfect :: Non-Perfect forms is shown to be that between marked and unmarked item. The Perfect forms are marked both in meaning (denoting precedence) and in morphological characteristics (have + P II).
The non-perfect forms are unmarked both in meaning (precedence is not implied) and in morphological characteristics (the collocation have + P II- is not used).
If this view is taken, the system of the verbal categories illustrated by the forms:
Present:writes, is writing, has written, has been writing
Past: wrote, was writing, had written, had been writing
Future: will write, will be writing, will have written, will have been writing
is based on 3 groups of notions , viz.:
tense (present::past:: future) - e.g. writes, wrote, will write
aspect (common :: continuous) - e.g. writes, is writing,
correlation (non-perfect:: Perfect.) - e.g: wrote, had written
The aspect and correlation are double or di’chotomic oppositions, while the tense opposition is triple or tri’chotomic [trai’kotomik].
Secondly, 2 oppositions may occur together.
a)Thus in writes :: was written there are tense and aspect simultaneously.
b)between wrote :: will have written there are simultaneously the oppositions of tense and correlation;
c) between wrote :: had been writing there are simultaneouslythe oppositions of aspect and correlation;
d) all 3 oppositions may occur together between writes :: had been writing. There are simultaneouslythe oppositions of tense, aspect and correlation.
It stands to reason, one opposition can be shown on a line, 2 oppositions can be represented on a plane, 3 oppositions can be represented in the shape of a 3-dimensional solid – a paralle’lepiped [,perele’lepiped][‘pere,lele’paiped].
The American linguist M. Joos calls Perfect a grammatical category of phase.
a) The non-Perfect phase shows that the action and its effect are in one phase, e.g.:
When she was youngshe lived in a small flat.
b) The Perfect phase shows that the action and its effect are in different phases, e.g.:
She had already left when I got home.
Formally (PF= ПВ ), the opposition of perfect :: 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 consider meaning [=PC (=ПС)], we shall see that both members are logically equall which is characteristic of equipollent oppositions:
The non-Perfect phase expresses simultaneity, The Perfect phase expresses priority. That is why I.B. Khlebnikova qualifies the opposition built up by The Perfect & The non-Perfect phases as equipollento-privative.
Lecture 11
The category of Voice
There are 2 main definitions of the Voice.
1) The category of voice expresses the relation between the subject and the action.2)The category of voice expresses the relation between the subject and the object.
The category of voice in MnE is based on a binary opposition between active and passive. This has never been disputed by anybody. But views may differ concerning other voices. This opposition may be illustrated by a number of parallel forms involving different categories of aspect, tense, correlation & mood, e.g.:
Invites – is invited
Дата добавления: 2018-10-26; просмотров: 565; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!