Basic qualities of the perfect tenses

The Modern English perfect forms have been the sub-ject of a lengthy discussion which has not so far brought about a definite result. The difficulties inherent in these forms are plain enough and may best be illustrated by the present perfect. This form contains the present of the verb have and is called present perfect, yet it denotes an action which no longer takes place, and it is (almost always) translated into Russian by the past tense, e. g. has written — написал, has arrived — приехал, etc. The position of the perfect forms in the system of the English verb is a problem which has been treated in many different ways and has occasioned much controversy. Among the various views on the essence of the perfect forms in Modern English the following three main trends should be mentioned/1.The category of perfect is a peculiar tense category, i. e. a category which should be classed in the same list as the categories "present" and "past". This view was held, for example, by O. Jespersen. 22The category of perfect is a peculiar aspect category, i. e. one which should be given a place in the list comprising "common aspect" and "continuous aspect". This view was held by a number of scholars, including Prof. G. Voron-tsova.2 Those who hold this view have expressed different opinions about the particular aspect constituting the es-sence of the perfect forms. It has been variously defined as "retrospective", "resultative", "successive", etc.33.The category of perfect is neither one of tense, nor one of aspect but a specific category different from both. It should accordingly be designated by a special term and its rela-tions to the categories of aspect and tense should be investi-gated. This view was expressed by Prof. A. Smirnitsky. He took the perfect to be a means of expressing the category of "time relation" (временная отнесенность).4This wide divergence of views on the very essence of a verbal category may seem astonishing. However, its causes ap-pear to be clear enough from the point of view of present-day linguistics.

47. Uses of perfect tenses. We have accepted the definition of the basic meaning of the perfect forms as that of "precedence". However, this definition can only be the starting point for a study of the various uses of the perfect forms. Indeed, for more than one case this definition of its meaning will seem wholly inad-equate, because its actual meaning in a given context will be influenced by various factors. Though a very great amount of investigation has been carried on in this field and many phenomena have by now been elucidated, it is only fair to say that a complete solution of all the prob-lems involved in the uses and shades of meaning of the perfect forms in Modern English is not yet in sight. The basic requirement is clear enough: we must find the meaning of the form itself, or its invariable, and not the meaning of the form as modified or coloured by the lexical meaning of the verb. If this requirement is clearly kept in mind, many errors which have been committed in defining the meaning of the form will be avoided. (2) The possible dependence of the meaning of perfect forms on the tense category (present, past or future) is one of the most difficult problems which the theory of the perfect has had to face. It is quite natural to suppose that there ought to be an invariable meaning of the phrase "have + second participle", no matter what the tense of the verb have happens to be, and this indeed is the assumption we start from. However, it would be dan-gerous to consider this hypothesis as something ascertained, without undertaking an objective investigation of all the facts which may throw some light on the problem. We may, for instance, suspect that the present perfect, which denotes "precedence to the present", i. e. to the moment of speech, may prove different from the past per-fect, denoting precedence to a moment in the past, or the future perfect, denoting precedence to a moment in the future: both the past and the future are, of course, them-selves related in some way to the present, which appears as the centre to which all other moments of time are referred in some way or other. One of the chief points in this sphere is the following. If an action precedes another action, and the meaning of the verb is such a one that the action can have a distinct result, the present perfect form, togeth-er with the lexical meaning of the verb (and, we should add, possi-bly with some element of the context) may produce the meaning of a result to be seen at the very moment the sentence is uttered, so that the speaker can point at that result with his finger, as it were. Now with the past perfect and with the future perfect things are bound to be somewhat different. The past perfect (together with the factors mentioned above) would mean that the result was there at a certain moment in the past, so that the speaker could not possibly point at it with his finger. Still less could he do that if the action he spoke about was in the future, and the future perfect (again, together with all those factors) denot-ed a result that would be there in the future only (that is, it would only be an expected result). 1 All this has to be care-fully gone into, if we are to achieve really objective conclusions and if we are to avoid unfounded generalisations and haphazard assertions which may be disproved by examining an example or two which did not happen to be at our disposal at the moment of writing. (3) The syntactical context in which a perfect form is used is occasionally a factor of the highest importance in determining the ultimate meaning of the sentence.

48. The Verb. The category of mood, the problems within the indicative mood. The category of mood in the present English verb has given rise to so many discussions, and has been treated in so many different ways, that it seems hardly possible to arrive at any more or less convincing and universally acceptable conclusion concerning it. Indeed, the only points in the sphere of mood which have not so far been disputed seem to be these: (a) there is a category of mood in Modern English, (b) there are at least two moods in the modern English verb, one of which is the indic-ative. As to the number of the other moods and as to their meanings and the names they ought to be given, opinions to-day are as far apart as ever. It is to be hoped that the new methods of objective linguistic investigation will do much to improve this state of things"Mood expresses the relation of the action to reality, as stated by the speaker." This definition seems plausible on the whole, though the words "relation of the action to reality" may not be clear enough. What is meant here is that different moods express different degrees of reality of an action, viz. one mood represents it as actually taking (or having taken) place, while another represents it as merely conditional or desired, etc. Doutchsben Owing to the difference of approach to moods, grammarians have been vacillating between two extremes — 3 moods (indicative, subjunctive and imperative), put forward by many grammarians, and 16 moods.

The imperative mood.

The imperative mood in English is represented by one form only, viz. come(!), without any suffix or ending.It differs from all other moods in several important points. It has no person, number, tense, or aspect distinctions, and, which is the main thing, it is limited in its use to one type of sentence only, viz. imperative sentences. Most usually a verb in the imperative has no pronoun acting as subject. However, the pronoun may be used in emotional speech, as in the following example: "But, Tessie—" he pleaded, going towards her. "You leave me alone!" she cried out loudly. (E. CALDWELL) These are essential peculiarities distinguishing the imperative, and they have given rise to doubts as to whether the imperative can be numbered among the moods at all. This of course depends on what we mean by mood. If we accept the definition of mood given above (p. 99) there would seem to be no ground to deny that the impera-tive is a mood. The definition does not say anything about the pos-sibility of using a form belonging to a modal category in one or more types of sentences: that syntactical problem is not a problem of defining mood. If we were to define mood (and, indeed, the oth-er verbal categories) in terms of syntactical use, and to mention the ability of being used in various types of sentences as pre-requisite for a category to be acknowledged as mood, things would indeed be different and the imperative would have to go. Such a view is possible but it has not so far been developed by any scholar and until that is convincingly done there appears no ground to ex-clude the imperative.A serious difficulty connected with the imperative is the ab-sence of any specific morphological characteristics: with all verbs, including the verb be, it coincides with the infinitive, and in all verbs, except be, it also coincides with the present indicative apart from the 3rd person singular. Even the absence of a subject pronoun you, which would be its syntactical characteristic, is not a reliable feature at all, as sentences like You sit here! occur often enough.

Oblique moods.

The function of the oblique moods is to represent something in the speaker’s mind not as a real fact but as a wish, purpose, supposition, doubt or contradiction, problematic or contrary to fact. When the speaker expresses his wish by using one of the oblique moods, he merely communicates to the hearer what he considers desirable. This is the main difference between the oblique moods and the imperative. When using the imperative mood the speaker directly urges the person addressed to fulfill his order or request. Now we come to a very difficult set of problems, namely those connected with the subjunctive, conditional, or whatever other name we may choose to give these moods. The chief difficulty analysis has to face here is the absence of a straightforward mutual relation between meaning and form. Some-times the same external series of signs will have two (or more) dif-ferent meanings depending on factors lying outside the form itself, and outside the meaning of the verb; sometimes, again, the same modal meaning will be expressed by two different series of exter-nal signs. The first of these two points may be illustrated by the sequence we should come, which means one thing in the sentence I think we should come here again to-morrow (here we should come is equivalent to we ought to come); it means another thing in the sen-tence If we knew that he wants us we should come to see him (here we should come denotes a conditional action, i. e. an action de-pending on certain conditions), and it means another thing again in the sentence How queer that we should come at the very moment when you were talking about us! (here we should come de-notes an action which has actually taken place and which is consid-ered as an object for comment). In a similar way, several meanings may be found in the sequence he would come in different contexts. The second of the two points may be illustrated by comparing the two sentences, I suggest that he go and I suggest that he should go, and we will for the present neglect the fact that the first of the two variants is more typical of American, and the second of British English. It is quite clear, then, that we shall arrive at different systems of English moods, according as we make our classifica-tion depend on the meaning (in that case one should come will find its place under one heading, and the other should come under another, whereas (he) go and (he) should go will find their place under the same heading) or on form (in that case he should come will fall under one heading, no matter in what context it may be used, while (he) go and (he) should go will fall under different headings).This difficulty appears to be one of the main sources of that wide divergence of views which strikes every reader of English grammars when he reaches the chapter on moods.

51.? The category of Voice. The meaning of the construction “to be +Participle II”

As to the definition of the category of voice, there are two main views. According to one of them this category expresses the rela-tion between the subject and the action. Only these two are mentioned in the definition. According to the other view, the cat-egory of voice expresses the relations between the subject and the object of the action. In this case the object is introduced into the definition of voice.2 We will not at present try to solve this question with reference to the English language. We will keep both variants of the definition in mind and we will come back to them afterwards.

Before we start on our investigation, however, we ought to de-fine more precisely what is meant by the expression "relation between subject and action". Let us take two simple examples: He invited his friends and He was invited by his friends. The relations between the subject (he) and the action (invite) in the two sentences are different since in the sentence He invited his friends he performs the action, and may be said to be the doer, whereas in the sentence He was invited by his friends he does not act and is not the doer but the object of the action. There may also be other kinds of relations, which we shall mention in due course.

From the point of view of form the passive voice is the marked member of the opposition: its characteristic is the pattern "be + second participle", whereas the active voice is unmarked: its characteristic is the absence of that pattern. It should be noted that some forms of the active voice find no parallel in the passive, viz. the forms of the future continuous, present perfect continuous, past perfect continuous, and future perfect continuous. Thus the forms will be inviting, has been inviting, had been inviting, and will have been inviting have nothing to correspond to them in the passive voice.With this proviso we can state that the active and the passive constitute a complete system of oppositions within the category of voice.The question now is, whether there are other voices in the English verb, besides active and passive. It is here that we find doubts and much controversy.

At various times, the following three voices have been suggested in addition to the two already mentioned:

(1) the reflexive, as in he dressed himself,

(2) the reciprocal, as in they greeted each other, and

(3) the middle voice, as in the door opened (as distinct from I opened the door).

It is evident that the problem of voice is very intimately connected with that of transitive and intransitive verbs, which has also been variously treated by different scholars. It seems now universally agreed that transitivity is not in itself a voice, so we could not speak of a "transitive voice"; the exact relation between voice and transitivity remains, however, somewhat doubtful. It is far from clear whether transitivity is a grammatical notion, or a characteristic of the lexical meaning of the verb.

In view of such constructions as he was spoken of, he was taken care of, the bed had not been slept in, etc., we should perhaps say that the vital point is the objective character of the verb, rather than its transitivity: the formation of a passive voice is possible if the verb denotes an action relating to some object.

51.? The category of Voice. The meaning of the construction “to be +Participle II”

Like the finite forms of the verb, the verbals have a distinction between active and passive, as will readily be seen from the follow-ing oppositions:

(to) read       — (to) be read

(to) have read — (to) have been read reading   — being read

having read — having been read

As to other possible voices (reflexive, reciprocal, and middle) there is no reason whatever to treat the verbals in a different way from the finite forms. Thus, if we deny the existence of these voices in the finite forms, we must also deny it in the verbals.

To sum up, then, what we have found out concerning the categories in the verbals, we can say that all of them have the categories of correlation and voice; the infinitive, in addition, has the category of aspect. None of the verbals has the categories of tense, mood, person, or number.