The problem of the auxiliary verbs “shall/will” – “should/would”: the “modal future” vs. the “pure future

The system of two verbal tense categories in English: the category of “absolutive”, “retrospective”, or “primary” time (past vs. non-past) and the category of “relative”, or “prospective” time (future vs. non-future).

The general notion of time and lingual temporality; lexical and grammatical means of time expression. Absolutive and non-absolutive time; relative and factual time.

The categories of number and person. Their reflective nature. The blending of their morphemic expression. The forms of person and number of different groups of verbs. The oppositional presentation of the category. The “notional concord” cases.

The participle as a verbal form of mixed processual-qualitative nature. The distinctions between two types of participles. Semi-predicative participial constructions. Functional differences between participle I and the gerund.

The gerund as a verbal form of mixed processual-substantive nature. The infinitive, the gerund and the verbal noun: their correlation in expressing processual semantics (the lexico-grammatical category of processual representation). Semi-predicative gerundial constructions.

The gerund is another verbid that serves as the verbal name of a process and combines verbal features with those of a noun. The gerund, like the infinitive, can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-substantive nature, intermediary between the verb and the noun. It is even closer to the noun, because besides - performing the substantive functions in a sentence like the infinitive, - it can also be modified by an attribute and - can be used with a preposition, which the infinitive can not do, e.g.: Thank you for listening to me; Your careful listening to me is very much appreciated. The functions of the gerund in the sentence are as follows - that of a subject, e.g.: Your listening to me is very much appreciated; It’s no use crying over spilt milk; of a predicative, e.g.: The only remedy for such headache is going to bed; of an object, e.g.: I love reading; of an attribute, e.g.: He had a gift of listening; of an adverbial modifier, e.g.: On entering the house I said “hello ”. In these functions the gerund displays nounal combinability with verbs, adjectives, and nouns, especially in cases of prepositional connections.

As for the verbal features of the gerund, first of all, there is no denying the fact, that - its meaning is basically processual, which is evident when the gerund is compared with the nouns, cf.: Thank you for helping me. – Thank you for your help; in addition, - the gerund distinguishes some aspect and voice forms, e.g.: writing, being written, having written, having been written. Like the finites, - it can be combined with nouns and pronouns denoting the subject and the object of the action, and with modifying adverbs, e.g.: I have made good progress in understanding English; She burst out crying bitterly; Her crying irritated me.

The verbal features distinguish the gerund from the verbal noun, which may be homonymous with the indefinite active form of the gerund, but, first, - it has no other verbal forms (passive or perfect); second, - cannot take a direct object, but only prepositional objects like all other nouns, cf .: reading the letters (gerund) – the reading of the letters (verbal noun); and, third, like most nouns - can be used with an article and in the plural, cf.: my coming (gerund) – his comings and goings (verbal noun).

In the correlation of the three processual-substantive phenomena, which constitute a continuum of transitions between the verb and the noun – the infinitive, the gerund, and the verbal noun, the infinitive is the closest to the verb, as it is more dynamic and possesses fewer substantive features, the gerund is somewhere in between the two, semantically semi-dynamic, and the verbal noun is the closest to the noun, semantically static, possessing practically all the features of normal nouns.

Another difference between the gerund and the infinitive involves the category of so-called ‘modal representation’: the infinitive, unlike the gerund, has a certain modal force, especially in the attributive function, e.g.: There was no one to tell him the truth (= There was no one who could tell him the truth).

The semi-predicative gerundial construction has its own, separate subject. The subject of the secondary predicative part of the sentence can be expressed either by a possessive pronoun or by a noun in the genitive case, if it denotes an animate referent, e.g.: Mike’s coming back was a total surprise to us; Do you mind my smoking?; It can also be expressed by a noun in the common case form or an objective pronoun, e.g.: She said something about my watch being slow. The gerundial semi-predicative constructions can be used as different notional parts of a sentence, cf.: Mike’s coming back was a total surprise to us (the subject); Do you mind my smoking? (object); I couldn’t sleep because of his snoring (adverbial modifier); The thought of him being in Paris now was frustrating (attribute).

Participle I (present participle) is fully homonymous with the gerund: it is also an ‘ing-form’ (or, rather, four ‘ing-forms’, cf.: writing, being written, having written, having been written). But its semantics is different: it denotes processual quality, combining verbal features with features of the adjective and the adverb; participle I can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-qualifying nature, intermediary between the verb and the adjective/adverb. The triple nature of participle I finds its expression in its mixed valency and syntactic functions. The - verb-type combinability of participle I is revealed in its combinations with nouns denoting the subject and the object of the action, e.g.: her entering the room, with modifying adverbs and with auxiliary verbs in the analytical forms of the verb; - the adjective-type combinability of participle I is manifested in its combinations with modified nouns and modifying adverbs of degree, e.g .: an extremely rushing car; - the adverb-type combinability of the participle is revealed in its combinations with modified verbs, e.g.: to speak stumbling at every word. In its free use, participle I can function as a predicative, e.g.: Her presence is extremely maddening to me; as an attribute, e.g.: The fence surrounding the garden was newly painted; and as an adverbial modifier, e.g.: While waiting he read.

Like any other verbid, participle I can form semi-predicative constructions if it is combined with the noun or the pronoun denoting the subject of the action; for example, complex object with participle I, e.g.: I saw her entering the room; complex subject with participle I (the passive transformation of the complex object constructions), e.g.: She was seen entering the room. In addition, participle I can form a detached semi-predicative construction, known as the absolute participial construction, e.g.: The weather being fine, we decided to take a walk; I won’t speak with him staring at me like that.

In complex object and complex subject constructions the difference between the infinitive and participle I lies in the aspective presentation of the process: participle I presents the process as developing, cf.: I often heard her sing in the backyard. – I hear her singing in the backyard.

The absolute homonymy of the gerund and participle I was claimed by some linguists, among them American descriptivists, the Russian linguists V. Y.Plotkin, L. S. Barkhudarov, and some others, who treat them not as two different verbids, but as generalized cases of substantive and qualitative functioning of one and the same “ing-form” verbid. Particularly disputable is the status of the semi-predicative construction, traditionally defined as the “half-gerund” construction, in which the semantics of the “ing-form” is neither clearly processual-substantive nor processual-qualifying and it is combined with the noun in the common case form, e.g .: I remember the boy singing in the backyard.

The obscure cases can be clarified if the gerund and the participle are distinctly opposed as polar phenomena. In gerundial constructions the semantic accent is on the substantivized process itself; the nominal character of the verbid can be shown by a number of tests, for example, by a question-forming test, cf.: I remember the boy’s singing (his singing). - What do you remember?; the noun denoting the subject of the action semantically and syntactically modifies the gerund – Whose singing do you remember? In participial constructions the semantic emphasis is on the doer of the action, e.g.: I remember him singing. - Whom do you remember?; the present participle modifies its subject, denoting processual quality.

In the attributive function, the semantic differences between participle I and the gerund are unquestionable: the noun modified by participle I denotes the actual doer of the action, and the participle denotes its processual qualification; the meaning of the gerund in the attributive function is non-dynamic; the difference can be demonstrated in the following tests, cf.: a sleeping girl - a girl who is sleeping (participle I); a sleeping pill - a pill taken to induce sleep (the gerund).

Participle II, like participle I, denotes processual quality and can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-qualifying nature. It has only one form, traditionally treated in practical grammar as the verbal “third form”, used to build the analytical forms of the passive and the perfect of finites, e.g .: is taken; has taken. The categorial meanings of the perfect and the passive are implicitly conveyed by participle II in its free use, for example, when it functions as a predicative or an attribute, e.g.: He answered through a firmly locked do or (participle II as an attribute); The room was big and brightly lit (participle II as a predicative). The functioning of participle II is often seen as adverbial in cases like the following: When asked directly about the purpose of her visit she answered vaguely. But such constructions present cases of syntactic compression rather than an independent participle II used adverbially, cf.: When asked directly - When she was asked directly … Thus, participle II can be characterized as a verbid combining verbal features (processual semantics and combinability) with the features of the adjective.

Like any other verbid, participle II can form semi-predicative constructions if combined with the inner subject of its own; they include complex object with participle II, e.g.: I’d like to have my hair cut; We found the door locked; complex subject with participle II (the passive transformation of the complex object constructions), e.g.: The door was found firmly locked; and absolute participial construction with participle II, e.g.: She approached us, head half turned; He couldn’t walk far with his leg broken.

The meaning of the perfect is rendered by participle II in correlation with the aspective lexico-grammatical character of the verb: with limitive verbs participle II denotes priority (“relative past”) while participle I denotes simultaneity (“relative present”), cf.: burnt leaves (‘the leaves have already been burnt’; relative past) – burning leaves (‘ the leaves are burning now’; relative present); hence the alternative terms: participle I – present participle, participle II – past participle. With unlimitive verbs this difference is neutralized and participle II denotes simultaneity, e.g.: a brightly lit room. In addition, participle I and participle II are sometimes opposed as the active participle and the passive participle, cf.: the person asked (passive) – the person asking the question (active).

Traditionally, the category of number is treated as the correlation of the plural and the singular, and the category of person as the correlation of three functions, reflecting the relations of the referents to the participants of speech communication: the first person – the speaker, the second person – the person spoken to, and the third person – the person or thing spoken about. In the system of the verb in English these two categories are so closely interconnected, both semantically and formally, that’s why they are often referred to as one single category: the category of person and number.

First, the semantics of both person and number categories is not basically “verbal”, these two categories are reflective:

- the verbal form reflects the person and number characteristics of the subject, denoted by the noun (or pronoun) with which the verb is combined in the sentence.

- in the meaning of the subject the expression of number semantics is blended with the expression of person semantics; for example, in the paradigm of personal pronouns the following six members are distinguished by person and number characteristics combined: first person singular - I, first person plural - we, second person singular – you, second person plural - you, third person singular - he/she/it, third person plural - they.

- formally, the categories of person and number are also fused, being expressed by one and the same verbal form, e.g.: he speaks; this fact supports the unity of the two categories in the system of the verb.

In Old English the verb agreed with the subject in almost every person and number, like in Ukrainian and other inflectional languages, cf.: singular, 1st person - telle, 2nd person - tellest, 3d person - telleð, plural - tellað. There were special person and number forms in the past tense, too. Nowadays most of these forms are extinct.

In modern English all verbs can be divided according to the expression of this category into three groups:

- modal verbs distinguish no person or number forms at all.

- the verb ‘ to be’, on the contrary, has preserved more person-number forms than any other verb in modern English, cf.: I am; we are; you are; he/she/it is; they are; in the past tense the verb to be distinguishes two number forms in the first person and the third person: I, he/she/it was (sing.) – we, they were (pl.); in the second person the form were is used in the singular and in the plural.

- the bulk of the verbs in English have a distinctive form only for the third person singular of the present tense indicative mood.

Thus, the category of person and number in modern English is fragmental and asymmetrical, realized in the present tense indicative mood by the opposition of two forms: the strong, marked member in this opposition is the third person singular (speaks) and the weak member embraces all the other person and number forms, so, it can be called “a common form” (speak).

Some archaic person and number verbal forms are preserved in high flown style, in elevated speech, especially the archaic second person singular forms of all the verbs, including the modal verbs and the verb ‘ to be’, e.g.: Thou shalt not kill; Thou comest to the needy; Thou art omniscient.

Some older grammar textbooks state that the category of person is also expressed in the future and future-in-the-past tenses by the opposition of analytical verbal forms with auxiliary verbs shall/should for the first person and will/would for the rest. But, first of all, this distinction has practically disappeared in American English, especially in colloquial speech, and, second, in British English it is interconnected with certain modal differences, expressing voluntary or non-voluntary future for the first person or modal future for the second and third persons together. Thus, the analytical verbal forms with the auxiliary verbs shall/should - will/would cannot be treated only on the basis of the category of person.

The system of person and number forms of the verb in English plays an important semantic role in contexts in which the immediate forms of the noun do not distinguish the category of number, e.g., singularia tantum nouns or pluralia tantum nouns, or nouns modified by numerical attributes, or collective nouns, when we wish to stress either their single-unit quality or plural composition, cf.: The family was gathered round the table – The family were gathered round the table; Ten dollars is a huge sum of money for me. – There are ten dollars in my pocket. In these cases, traditionally described in terms of “ notional concord ” (смислове узгодження) or “agreement in sense”, the form of the verb reflects not the categorial form of the subject, but the actual personal-numerical interpretation of the referent denoted.

The category of person and number can be neutralized in colloquial speech or in some regional and social variants and dialects of English, cf.: Here’s your keys; It ain’t nobody’s business.

The verbal category of tense in the most general sense expresses the time characteristics of the process denoted by the verb.

It is necessary to distinguish between time as a general category and time as a linguistic category. Time in the general philosophical presentation is the form of existence of matter; it is independent of human perception and is constantly changing. Time is reflected by human beings through their perception and intellect and finds its expression in language, in the meaning of various lexical and grammatical lingual units. The moment of immediate perception and reflection of actual reality, linguistically fixed as “the moment of speech”, makes the so-called “present moment” and serves as the boarderline between the past and the future. Linguistic expression of time may be either oriented toward the moment of speech, “present-oriented”, “absolutive ”, or it may be “non-present-oriented”, “ non-absolutive ”. The “absolutive time” denotation embraces three spheres: the past, the present and the future. The sphere of the present includes the moment of speech and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as this moment, today, this week, this millennium, etc. The sphere of the past precedes the sphere of the present by way of retrospect and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as last week, yesterday, many years ago, etc. The sphere of the future follows the sphere of the present by way of prospect and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as soon, in two days, next week, etc.

The “non-present-oriented” time denotation may be either “ relative” or “ factual ”. The relative time denotation shows the correlation of two or more events and embraces the priority (the relative past), the simultaneity (the relative present) and the posteriority (the relative future) of one event in relation to another. Relative time is lexically expressed by such words and word-combinations as after that, before that, at the same time with, some time later, soon after, etc.

The factual expression of time denotes real astronomical time or historical landmarks unrelated with either the moment of speech or any other time center; it can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as in the morning, in 1999, during World War II, etc. Factual time can be expressed only lexically (as shown above), while absolutive (present-oriented) and relative expressions of time in English can be not only lexical, but also grammatical. The grammatical expression of verbal time through morphological forms of the verbs constitutes the grammatical category of tense (from the Latin word “tempus” – “time”).

The tense category in English differs a lot from the verbal categories of tense in other languages, for example, in Ukrainian. The tense category in Ukrainian renders absolutive time semantics; the three Ukrainian verbal tense forms present the events as developing in time in a linear way from the past to the future, cf.: Він працював учора; Він працює сьогодні; Він працюватиме завтра.

In English there are four verbal tense forms: the present (work), the past (worked), the future (shall/will work), and the future-in-the-past (should/would work).

The two future tense forms of the verb express the future in two separate ways: as an after-event in relation to the present, e.g.: He will work tomorrow (not right noц), and as an after-event in relation to the past, e.g.: He said he would work the next day.

- The future forms of the verb in English express relative time – posteriority in relation to either the present or the past.

- The present and the past forms of the verb render absolutive time semantics, referring the events to either the plane of the present or to the plane of the past; this involves all the finite verb forms, including the perfect, the continuous, and the future forms.

Thus, there is not just one verbal category of tense in English but two interconnected tense categories, one of them rendering absolutive time semantics by way of retrospect (past vs. present) and the other rendering relative time semantics by way of prospect (after-action vs. non-after-action).

1) The first verbal tense category, which can be called “primary time”, “absolutive time”, or “retrospective time ”, is expressed by the opposition of the past and the present forms. The suffix “-ed” of the regular verbs is the formal feature which marks the past as the strong member of the opposition. Besides this productive form, there are some unproductive past forms of verbs, such as suppletive forms (e.g.: eat – ate), or past forms homonymous with the present (cut – cut). The marked forms denote past actions which receive retrospective evaluation from the point of view of the moment of speech. The present, like any other weak member of an opposition, has a much wider range of meanings than its strong counterpart: the present denotes actions taking place in the sphere of the present, during the period of time including the moment of speech, e.g.: What are you doing?; Terrorism is the major threat of the twenty first century; it may denote repeated actions, e.g.: We go out every Friday night; actions unchanged in the course of time, e.g.: Two plus two makes four; universal truths, e.g.: He who laughs last laughs best; momentary actions which begin and end approximately at the moment of speech (as in sports commentaries), e.g.: Smith passes to Brown; etc. To stress its weak oppositional characteristics the present is also referred to as “non-past”.

The opposition of the past and the present can be reduced in certain contexts. For example, the present tense form of the verb can be used to describe past events in order to create a vivid picture of the past, as if to make one’s interlocutor the eyewitness of the past events, e.g.: Yesterday I stopped to greet him and what do you think he does? He pretends he doesn’t know me! This type of transposition is known as “historic present”. It is one of the rare cases when the use of the weak member of the opposition instead of the strong member results in transposition and is stylistically colored. The transposition of past tense forms into the context of the present is used to express various degrees of politeness, e.g.: Could you help me, please?

2) The second verbal tense category, which may be called “ prospective”, or “relative ”, is formed by the opposition of the future and the non-future separately in relation to the present or to the past. The strong member of the opposition is the future, marked by the auxiliary verbs shall/will (the future in relation to the present) or should/would (the future in relation to the past).

The two tense categories interact in the lingual presentation of time: any action in English is at first evaluated retrospectively as belonging to the sphere of the past or to the sphere of the present, and then it is evaluated prospectively as an after-action or a non-after-action to either the past or the present.

In terms of oppositional presentation, the interaction of the two tense categories, which results in the four verbal tense forms, can be presented in the form of a table showing the strong and the weak members and the characteristics of each form in the two oppositions combined:

retrospective prospective

(absolutive) time (relative) time

the present - -

the past + -

the future - +

the future in the past + +

The opposition of the prospective time category can be reduced. Present forms are regularly used to denote future actions planned, arranged or anticipated in the near future: We go to London tomorrow; or in subordinate clauses of time and condition: If you stay, you will learn a lot of interesting things about yourself. These two examples can be treated as cases of neutralization: the weak member of the opposition is used instead of the strong one with no stylistic coloring involved.

One more problem is the analysis of the English future tenses: the status of the verbs shall/will and should/would. Some linguists, O. Jespersen and L. S. Barkhudarov among them, argue that these verbs are not the auxiliary verbs of the analytical future tense forms, but modal verbs denoting intention, command, request, promise, etc. in a weakened form, e.g.: I’ll go there by train. = I intend (want, plan) to go there by train. On this basis they deny the existence of the verbal future tense in English.

As a matter of fact, shall/will and should/would are in their immediate etymology modal verbs: verbs of obligation (shall) and volition (will). But nowadays they preserve their modal meanings in no higher degree than the future tense forms in other languages: the future differs in this respect from the past and the present, because no one can be positively sure about events that have not yet taken place or are not taking place now. A certain modal coloring is inherent to the future tense semantics in any language because future actions are always either anticipated, or foreseen, or planned, or desired, or necessary, etc. On the other hand, modal verbs are treated as able to convey certain future implication in many contexts, cf.: I may/might/ could travel by bus.

This does not constitute grounds to refuse shall/will and should/would the status of auxiliary verbs of the future. The homonymous, though cognate, verbs shall/will and should/would are to be distinguished in contexts, in which they function as purely modal verbs, e.g.: Payment shall be made by cheque.

Older grammar textbooks distinguish the auxiliary verbs shall/will and should/would from their modal homonyms in connection with the category of person in the following way: the auxiliary shall/should are used with first person verbal forms, while the auxiliary will/would - with second and third persons verbal forms to denote pure future; when used otherwise, they express modal meanings, the most typical of which are intention or desire for I will and promise or command on the part of the speaker for you shall, he shall.

It is admitted, though, that in American English will is used as functionally equal for all persons to denote pure future and shall is used only as a modal verb. The contracted form -‘ll further levels the difference between the two auxiliary verbs in colloquial speech. In British English the matter is more complicated: both verbs are used with the first person forms to denote the future. Some linguists treat them as functionally equal “grammatical doublets”, as free variants of the future tense auxiliary.

Still, there is certain semantic difference between shall/should and will/would in the first person verbal forms, which can be traced to their etymological origin: will/would expresses an action which is to be performed of the doer’s free choice, voluntarily, and shall/should expresses an action which will take place irrespective of the doer’s will, cf.: I will come to you. = I want to come to you and; Shall I open the window? = Do you want me to open the window?

The difference between the two auxiliary verbs of the future in British English is further supported by the use of the contracted negative forms won’t and shan’t. Thus, in British English will + infinitive and shall + infinitive denote, respectively, the voluntary future and the non-voluntary future and can be treated as a minor category within the system of the English future tense, relevant only for first person forms.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11