The Category of Posteriority

The forms 'should/would + infinitive', used to denote a future action from the point of view of the past, present a debatable problem. They are not aspect forms because they can be used in the continuous aspect, e.g.:

Little did we know that we would still be waiting in three hours' time (M. Foley, D. Hall).

Neither are they phase forms because they ran be used in the perfect phase, e.g.:

The Cabinet thought the crisis would have finished before the elec­tion (M.Foley, D. Hall).

No wonder that V. N.Zhigadlo, I. P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofik, G.N. Vorontsova and B.A. llyish qualify them as the fourth tense in the system of the English verb. However, the difference between shall wait/finish — should wait/finish and will wait/finish — would wait/finish is not that of tense: both are future.

According to A. I. Smirnitsky, the forms 'should/would + infinitive' are not tense forms, but mood forms. A detailed study of the forms in question shows that they are not mood forms. If we compare the sentences Alex said she would meet us there again the next day at 3.30 (M. Foley, D. Hall) and If I had more money, I would move (M. Fuchs, M. Bonner), it will become evident that formal iden­tity {'would + infinitive' in both cases) does not signal identity in mean­ing and function. In the 1^st sentence “would meet” is opposed to “will meet” and denotes a real action following some other action in the past. In the 2^nd “would move” cannot be opposed to “will move”. It denotes an imaginary action simultaneous with or following the moment of speech.

In the opinion of B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya, the opposi­tion 'shall/will +infinitive —should/would + infinitive' forms a category of posteriority. The forms 'shall/will + infinitive' show that the action is posterior to the present moment; the forms 'should/would + infinitive' indicate posteriority to some moment in the past. Cf: ГII see you later (V. Evans). He said he would see me later (ibid).

When posteriority is expressed in relation to the moment of speech it is called absolute. If posteriority is with regard to some other moment then it is relative. If we accept this category, according to the definition of the grammatical category it is expressed by auxiliary verbs shall and will for absolute posteriority and should and would for relative.

Shall and will cannot denote at the same time, two meanings: those of tense and posteriority, if in this case - there are two meanings then we must admit that the auxiliaries will- would, shall-should consist of two morphemes each. Applying the usual procedure we cut the words into w-ill and w-ould; sh-all and sh-ould; w-w and sh-sh are combined into morphemes of tense, and ill-all as allmorphs of the morpheme of absolute posteriority while ould-ould - as morpheme of relative posteriority.

Дата добавления: 2013-12-13