Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






The category of tense

 

§ 230. The category of tense is a system of three-member opposemes such as writes – wrote – will write, is writing – was writing – will be writing showing the relation of the time of the action denoted by the verb to the moment of speech.

§ 231. The time of an action or event can be expressed lexically with the help of such words and combinations of words as yesterday, next week, now, a year ago, at half past seven, on the fifth of March, in 1957, etc. It can also be shown grammatically by means of the category of tense.

The difference between the lexical and the grammatical expression of time is somewhat similar to the difference between the lexical and the grammatical expression of number.

a) Lexically it is possible to name any definite moment or period of time: a century, a year, a day, a minute. The grammatical meaning of ‘tense’ is an abstraction from only three particular tenses: the ‘present’, the ‘past’ and the ‘future’.

b) Lexically a period of time is named directly (e. g. on Sunday). The grammatical indication of time is indirect: it is not time that a verb like asked names, but an action that took place before the moment of speech.

c) As usual, the grammatical meaning of ‘tense’ is relative. Writes denotes a ‘present’ action because it is contrasted with wrote denoting a ‘past’ action and with will write naming a ‘future’ action. Writing does not indicate the time of the action because it has not tense opposites. Can has only a ‘past tense’ opposite, so it cannot refer to the past, but it may refer to the present and future (*can do it yesterday is impossible, but can do it today, to-morrow is normal).

N o t e. By analogy with can, must has acquired the oblique meaning of ‘present-future’ tense, but sometimes it refers to the past.

§ 232. It is usual to express the notions of time graphically by means of notions of space. Let us then imagine the limitless stretch of time – a very long railway along which we are moving in a train.

 

________A________B________C________D________E________

past present future

 

Let us further suppose that the train is now at station C. This is, so to say, the present. Stations À, Â and all other stations passed by the train are the past, and stations D, E and all other stations the train is going to reach are in the future.

It would seem that the present is very insignificant, a mere point in comparison with the limitless past and future. But this point is of tremendous importance to the people in the train, because they are always in the present. When the train reaches station D, it ceases to be the future and becomes the present, while station Ñ joins the past.

In reality, and accordingly in speech, the relation between the present, the past and the future is much more complicated. The present is reflected in speech not only as a mere point, the moment of speaking or thinking, but as a more or less long period of time including this moment. Compare, for instance, the meanings of the word now in the following sentences:



1. A minute ago he was crying, and n î w he is laughing.

2. A century ago people did not even dream of the radio, and n î w we cannot imagine our life without it.

The period of time covered by the second ïîò is much longer, without definite limits, but it includes the moment of speaking.

In the sentence The Earth rotates round the Sun we also deal with the present. But the present in this case not only includes the present moment, but it covers an immense period of time stretching in both directions from the present moment.

Thus the ‘present’ is a variable period of time including the present moment or the moment of speech.

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 grammemes.

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:

Îí ðàáîòàåò íà çàâîäå.

Îí ðàáîòàë íà çàâîäå.

Îí áóäåò ðàáîòàòü íà çàâîäå.

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.

îí ðàáîòàåò íà çàâîäå.
Îí ñêàçàë, ÷òî îí ðàáîòàë íà çàâîäå.
îí áóäåò ðàáîòàòü íà çàâîäå.

or

îí ðàáîòàåò íà çàâîäå.
Îí ñêàæåò, ÷òî îí ðàáîòàë íà çàâîäå.
îí áóäåò ðàáîòàòü íà çàâîäå.

 

Íårå the tenses of the principal clauses ñêàçàë and ñêàæåò are used absolutely, while all the tenses of the subordinate clauses are used relatively. The present tense of ðàáîòàåò does not refer to the present time but to the time of the action ñêàçàë in the first case and ñêàæåò in the second. The future tense of áóäåò ðàáîòàòü does not indicate the time following the present moment, but the time following the moment of the action ñêàçàë in the first case and ñêàæåò in the second. The same holds true with regard to the past tense of ðàáîòàë.

In English such relative use of tenses is also possible with regard to some future moment.

he works at a factory.
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 said that *he worked at a factory.
*he will work at a factory.

Instead of that an Englishman uses:

he worked at a factory.
He said 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 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 î i l s at 100o C), in clauses of comparison (Last year he spoke much worse .than he d î e 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 s h a l l 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 Îí ñêàçàë, ÷òî ðàáîòàë íà çàâîäå), but with regard to the moment of speech.

Since English has special forms of the verb to express ‘precedence’ or ‘priority’ – the 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.

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, but simply in accordance with its meaning of ‘past tense’.

 


Date: 2015-02-28; view: 1806


<== previous page | next page ==>
The Category of Mood | The category of posteriority
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.008 sec.)