The Category of Aspect

§ 218. The category of aspect is a system of two-member opposemes such as works – is working, has worked – has been working, to work – to be working showing the character of the action, i.e. whether the action is taken in its progress, in its development (‘continuous’) or it is simply stated, its nature being unspecified (‘non-continuous’).

§ 219. The problem of aspect is controversial in English grammar. There is but little consensus of opinion about this Category in Modern English.

One meets with different lines of approach to English aspect, which can be briefly summarized as follows:

1. Aspect is interpreted as a category of semantics rather than that of grammar.

2. Aspect is not recognized at all as a category of Modern English grammar.

3. Aspect is blended with tense and regarded as an inalienable part of the tense-aspect system.

4. Aspect and tense are recognized as two distinct grammatical categories.

Typical of the first line are the views advanced by M.Deut-sclibein A.G.Kennedy, G.Curme and some other grammarians.

Thus according to Kennedy the Modern English aspect system comprises:

1) The ‘terminate’ aspect representing an action as a whole, as in He w e n t to town.

2) The ‘ingressive’ aspect which points to the beginning of the action as in He b e g a n t о work.

3) The ‘effective’ aspect showing the conclusion of an action. She c e a s e d s p e a k i n g.

4) The ‘durative’ aspect presenting an action as continuous, as in Wheat g r о w s in Canada. He i s w a l k i n g along the street.

5) The ‘iterative’ aspect, Each night the old man w o u l d w a l k to town.

It is self-evident that this classification has nothing to do with grammar, being based exclusively upon semantic principles.

Those who do not recognize the existence of aspect in Modern English treat the ‘continuous’ forms as tense forms (termed ‘progressive’, ‘expanded’, ‘long’, ‘durative’, or ‘relative’ tense forms) expressing actions simultaneous with some other actions or situations.

Our objections to this point of view are as follows:

1. The forms wrote – was writing are opposed not as tense forms. Both of them express the same tense – the past.

2. The idea of simultaneity does not go very well with the ‘perfect continuous’ forms which are a necessary part of the system of ‘continuous’ forms.

3. Even the ‘non-perfect continuous’ forms may be used without special indications of simultaneity.

E. g. Once in his early life, surprised reading by a night-light, he had said fatuously, «I w a s just t u r n i n g over the leaves, Mum». (J.Galsworthy). I’ т s t а у i n g with his sister – who married my cousin. (J.Galsworthy).

4. Simultaneous actions are very often expressed by the non-continuous forms of the verb.

E. g. Her voice pursued him as he walked up and down. (J. Galsworthy).

5. Sentences like Moonlight was f r о s t i n g the dew, and an old sundial

t h r e w a long shadow. (Ib.).

Soames passed into the corner where side by side hung his real Goya and the copy of the fresco «La Vendimia». (J.Galsworthy).

And next to it w a s h a n g i n g the copy of «La Vendimia». (Ib.) show that the continuous and the non-continuous forms may express exactly the same relation of the action to time.

All this bears testimony to the fact that the category expressed by the opposition of the continuous and the non-continuous forms is not that of tense.

Likewise we disagree with those who, though recognizing aspect as a grammatical category, think, nevertheless, that it cannot be severed from tense.

As we know, in actual speech all the grammatical meanings of a word always go together in a bunch. Thus in tells we find a) present tense, b) active voice, c) indicative mood, d) singular number, etc.

It does not follow, however, that we are unable to separate the category of mood from the category of tense or the category of voice from that of aspect.

By opposing tells to told and will tell we single out the category of tense; by contrasting tells with is telling we bring to light the category of aspect. Thus aspect is as closely connected with tense, as it is with voice, order, mood, person, number, etc.

It is perhaps, less closely connected with tense than with order since in the infinitive we find aspect linked with order but not with tense. Cf. to write – to be writing, to have written – to have been writing.

At any rate, the infinitive proves that aspect can be and is separated from tense.

Consequently, we follow the views advanced by B.A.Ilyish, A.I.Smirnitsky, V.N.Yartseva, and some other linguists and treat tense and aspect as different grammatical categories.

§ 220. The categories of tense and aspect characterize an асtion from different points of view. The tense of a verb shows the time of the action, while the aspect of a verb deals with the development of the action.

The term aspect describes to some extent the contents of the category. It really shows what aspect of the action is considered: whether the action is taken in its progress or without that specification. Was writing presents the action in its progress, in its continuity (the ‘continuous’ aspect), wrote may present the same action without indications of continuity, on the one hand, or accomplishment, on the other, though both may be gathered from the context, e. g. wrote to him yesterday. I often wrote to him last year.

§ 221. With regard to the category of aspect verbs divide into those that have aspect opposites and those that have not. The latter are united, by the oblique or lеxico-grammatical, or potential meaning of ‘non-continuous aspect’. As usual, «the neutralization of ‘aspect’ opposemes depends on the lexical meanings of the corresponding verbs.

Here is a brief enumeration of some groups of verbs usually having no aspect орроsites.

a) Verbs presenting diverse r e l a t i o n s as actions – belong, contain, consist, date, possess, resemble, result, suffice, etc.

b) Certain link-verbs (mostly those of ‘seeming’) such as appear, look, prove, seem, turn out, etc.

The ‘actions’ denoted by the two groups have little or no dynamic force. This is at the bottom of their not being used with the ‘continuous’ meaning.

c) Verbs of ‘physical perceptions’ (see, hear, feel, smell) denoting constant properties viewed as actions.

d) Verbs of ‘mental perceptions’ (believe, dislike, distrust, hate, hope, know, like, trust, understand, etc.). which are likewise, verbs of weak dynamic force.

e) ‘Point-action’ verbs denoting instantaneous acts of very short duration, unless such acts are repeated (burst, jump, drop, pick up, etc.).

Sometimes, however, the potential meanings are actualized by the use of a ‘continuous aspect’ opposite showing the progress of the action at a given moment or during a certain period and stressing its temporary, transient nature, as in She w a s not h a t i n g him any more at that crucial moment. (Ruck); You a r e not s e e i n g him to advantage now. (Daily Worker).

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 2509