In Modern English

THE CATEGORY OF ASPECT

1. The definition of aspect as a verbal category.
2. Different approaches to the category of aspect:

v Semantic interpretation of the aspect (G. Curme, M. Deutschbein, A.G. Kennedy).

v The approach denying the existence of aspect in Modern English (H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, L. Alexander), or: the interpretation of aspect within the category of tense.

v The so-called “blend” approach to the category of tense, aspect and perfect (I.P. Ivanova, V.L. Kaushanskaya et al, V. V. Gurevich).

v Dual interpretation of the semantic content of aspect (Quirk et al, G. Leech, J. Svartvik, Longman grammar).

v Interpretation of aspect as a separate grammatical category (A.I. Smirnitsky, V.N. Yartseva, B.A. Ilyish, B.S. Khaimovich, B.J. Rogovskaya, M.Y. Blokh, Leipzig grammar of English).

v Differentiating between grammaticalized and lexicalized aspects in English (B. Comrie).

1. The connection of the aspect interpretation with lexicological issues: terminative and durative verbs.
2. The correlation of English aspect forms and Russian aspect forms of the verb.

1. The definition of aspect as a verbal category

The grammatical analysis of aspect has proved to be one of the most complex areas of English linguistics. The definition of aspect as a verbal category presents certain difficulties due to a number of reasons. The first is interlingual, the second refers to semantics, i.e. content of this category in English, and the third is connected with the way this category can be expressed comprising concrete grammatical forms in combination with the lexical meaning of verbs.

The interlingual difficulty may be explained as the one arising from the comparison of two languages. The point is that the Russian aspect has a different expression and a different meaning. Its meaning may be described as expression of completeness or incompleteness of an action. In terms of form it is presented by means of derivation. On the whole, it makes one of the most typical features of the grammatical structure of the Russian verb, governing its tense both formally and semantically [Блох 1983: 155].

In English the aspective meaning is of a different nature. The simple transference of the interpretation of the Russian aspect into English may be misleading. Is it the opposition of completeness or incompleteness that constitutes the grammatical meaning of the English category? Or is it something different? Completeness can be expressed by a simple verb form: He felt better when he woke. He came home at 6. He finally built his house.

The nature of English aspect per se poses difficulties for linguists who aim at disclosing its content. Thus, O.S. Akhmanova defines the English category of aspect as a grammatical category designating peculiar properties, the character of the given process, i.e. in its relationship to the inner limit, result, continuity, repeatedness, etc. [Ахманова 1969: 75]. According to M.Y. Blokh, «the aspective meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal meaning, reflects the inherent mode of the process irrespective to its timing” [Блох 1983: 155]. The Linguistic Encyclopedia defines aspect as a grammatical category identifying the way the given action proceeds in time or is distributed in time (“как протекает во времени или распределяется во времени” (А.М. Пешковский) обозначенное глаголом действие) [ЛЭС: 83]. Very close to this definition is the approach to aspect interpretation taken by B. Comrie. He understands aspect as a way the internal temporal constituency of a situation is viewed [Comrie 1998: 3].

According to V.V. Gurevich, the aspective meanings cover the range of completeness (resultativeness) and incompleteness (duration) [Гуревич 2003: 37-38] and are inseparable from tense characteristics.

The Leipzig Grammar of English emphasizes that “the category of aspect has to be grouped together with those linguistic means indicating the focus of the speaker’s interest in the sentence. <…> The categorical meaning of aspect indicates that the speaker wants to attract attention to the process/state described in the sentence itself. In this connection the special features of actual progress/continuation, temporariness or incompletion at a given time often come to the foreground” [English Grammar Leipzig 1977: 165-166]. Thus the category of aspect consists of two forms: the plain and the expanded.

David Crystal in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language points out that “aspect refers to how the time of action of the verb is regarded – such as whether it is complete, in progress, or showing duration” [Crystal 1995: 225]. A similar definition is given in Longman Grammar. The authors of this fundamental project come out with the idea that “aspect relates to considerations such as the completion or lack of completion of events or states described by a verb” [Longman Grammar 2000: 460] which leads to the recognition of two aspects: perfective and progressive.

The complexity of the interpretation of aspect in English is aggravated by the fact that the aspective meaning can be in-built in the semantic nature of the verb. All these factors contribute to the controversial character of this category and to the existence of a number of different interpretations of aspect.

1) Aspect may be interpreted as a category of semantics rather than that of grammar.

2) Aspect is not recognized as a grammatical category at all.

3) Aspect is seen as “blended” with tense and is regarded as a part of the tense-aspect system.

4) Aspect and tense are recognized as two distinct grammatical categories with aspect comprising continuous and common aspect forms.

5) Aspect is represented by two sets of forms: progressive and perfective.

6) Aspect in English comprises an opposition of Perfective ÷ non-Perfective, with the Perfective aspect being not grammaticalized.

1. Different approaches to the interpretation of aspect

v The first approach is represented by such grammarians as M. Deutschbein (Germany), A.G. Kennedy (USA), G. Curme. Thus, according to G.Curme, the English aspect system comprises the following classes:

1. Durative aspect. This type represents the action as continuing, e.g. He is eating. This group also includes such verbs as t o remain, to keep, to keep on, to go on, to continue with a present participle, gerund or infinitive, e.g. to keep going, to continue reading. They express different shades of the idea of continuance.
2. Point-action aspect. The point action aspects call attention not to an act as a whole, but to only one point, either the beginning or the final point. Accordingly there are two classes in this group:

ü Ingressive aspect that points to the initial stage of the action or state, e.g. He awoke early, i.e. he came into a waking state early. The ingressive aspect is very often expressed by such verbs as to begin, to commence, to start in connection with an infinitive or gerund. E.g.: They began working /to work. The ingressive idea is very often expressed by ingressives as G. Curme calls them. These are such verbs as to get, to grow, to fall, to turn, to become, to run, to go, to come, to set, to take (take up as a habit) in connection as a predicate adjective, participle, noun, or a prepositional phrase, e.g. He often gets sick. He turned pale. He grew old.

ü Effective aspect. This aspect directs the attention to the final point of the action or state, to a result that has been reached, e.g. The two friends fell out. He knocked him out in the fourth round.

1. The third aspect, according to G. Curme, is Terminate aspect. Here belong verbs that indicate an action as a whole. Such verbs are called terminates. This aspect is especially associated with the simple form of the verb just as the durative aspect is associated with the progressive form. In terminates the action often begins and terminates within a limited period, e.g. He motioned to me. He didn’t even wince. He handed me a book. She misunderstood me. According to G. Curme, any verbal form that represents the act as a finished whole is a terminate whether the duration of the act be long or short, e.g. He went to church this morning (here thought of as a finished whole, not as continuing). Last summer I built a fine new house. Next summer I expect to build a fine new house.
2. Iterative aspect indicates an indefinitely prolonged succession of like acts, e.g. He threw his head back and haw-hawed. He pooh-poohs at everything. Outside the wind blew gustily and set a loquacious tassel tap-tapping against a pane.

As can be seen, this classification is based exclusively upon semantic principles and hardly has anything to do with grammar.

v The second approach, or the second point of view on the category of aspect denies the existence of aspect as it is in Modern English.

Among the proponents of this approach there are such linguists as H. Sweet and O. Jespersen. They treat the continuous form as a tense form. Tense forms are termed “progressive”, “expanded”, “long”, “durative” or “relative” tense forms expressing actions simultaneous with some other actions or situations.

H. Sweet, for one, speaks about tense-aspect. By tense-aspect he understands distinctions of time independent of any reference to past, present, or future. H. Sweet distinguishes between long tenses (as regards duration): I have been writing letters all day, and short tenses that are neutral as regards duration: I have written only one letter today.

According to H. Sweet, long tenses may be either (a) continuous or (b) recurrent, denoting repetition, habit, etc. Thus, we have a continuous present in the sentence He lives in the country, and a recurrent present in the sentence He goes to Germany twice a year.

H. Sweet also distinguishes the so-called point-tenses. They denote points in a series, e.g. in describing a journey we say: We passed through, we stopped a minute, we stopped three days, we set out for, etc.

In the system of tenses suggested by O. Jespersen there is a class of the so-called expanded tenses. Here belong such forms as is writing, has been writing, will be writing, was writing, would have been writing and the like. According to O. Jespersen, the purpose of the expanded tenses is not to express duration in itself, but to express relative duration, compared with the shorter time occupied by some other action.

E.g. He (Methuselah) lived to be more than nine hundred years old – here we have the unexpanded “lived” indicating a very long time.

He was raising his hand to strike her, when he stopped short – an action of a very short duration is expressed by means of the expanded tense.

So, according to the second approach (H. Sweet, O. Jespersen) such forms as is writing, has been writing are treated not as aspect forms, the category of aspect being absolutely denied. This viewpoint is supported by one of our contemporaries, Louis Alexander. He differentiates between simple and progressive tenses. “Both simple and progressive forms usually give a general idea of when an action takes place. But the progressive forms also tell us that an activity is (or as, or will be, etc.) in progress, or thought of as being in progress. <…> Our decision which tense to use depends on the context or the impression we wish to convey” [Alexander 1995: 159-160].

v According to the third point of view, aspect is blended with tense and perfectiveness and regarded as part of the tense-aspect system.

Within this approach aspect is recognized as a grammatical category, but it cannot be separated from tense. The continuous form is understood as rendering a blend of temporal and aspective meanings, the same as the other verb-forms are obliquely connected with the factor of time, i.e. the indefinite and the perfect. It was I.P. Ivanova who developed this view. V.L. Kaushanskaya et al also present it in their grammar book of English. The blended approach is presented in “Theoretical grammar” (2003) by V.V. Gurevich.

So, I.P. Ivanova recognizes the existence of the aspect category in English, but treats it in a peculiar way. According to I.P. Ivanova, is writing is an aspect form, namely that of the continuous aspect. But writes is not an aspect form at all because its meaning is vague and cannot be clearly defined. So the linguist reaches the conclusion that some finite forms of the English verb have the category of aspect and are tense-aspect forms, while others have no aspect and are therefore pure tense forms. So, the distinction between the type writes and the type is writing is a distinction of aspect. But Professor I.P. Ivanova denies the existence of the Common aspect due to the difficulty in formulating the meaning of the Common aspect. The only possible way is to describe it as “non-continuous”. But this solution does not prove to be grounded for Prof. I.P. Ivanova. The Common aspect is non-marked both in meaning and in form (in the opposition the continuous aspect ÷ the common aspect). She points out that in English no aspective meaning can be conveyed without referring to tense characteristics. They find mutual expression in the verb-form. In addition to that they may be supplied with an expression of completeness or incompleteness, i.e. another aspective characteristic that is expressed by perfect verb forms. Prof. I.P. Ivanova by way of argument says that she understands how tempting it is to describe language in terms of dichotomous oppositions to prove the existence of the opposition of the continuous ÷ common aspect. But she argues that the relationships of linguistic signs are more complicated than those of sound characteristics in phonology. Prof. I.P. Ivanova will not recognize the inevitability of dichotomous oppositions.

V.V. Gurevich also sees tense and aspective (covering duration and completeness) meanings closely tied together. He believes that the aspective meanings can be expressed in combination with tenses. V.V. Gurevich considers this category as expressing some relative time. The composite forms constituting this category (is writing ÷ has/had written ÷ has/had been writing) indicate the correlation of the action with some moment (simultaneity, precedence or take-up of some period up to this very moment). Thus he handles all the four verbal forms as the category of time correlation (NB! do not mix it up with A.I. Smirnitsky’s time correlation which referred only to perfect forms).

On the strength of all the aforementioned arguments aspect may be interpreted as blended with tense or with perfectiveness and is treated as part of the tense-aspect system. According to this approach some forms of the verb have the category of aspect while others do not. The former are tense-aspect forms (is writing), and the latter are pure tense forms (writes).

v The fourth approach to the problem of aspect is the view according to which aspect and tense are recognized as two distinct grammatical categories.

Among the proponents of this view are such outstanding linguists as A.I. Smirnitsky, V.N. Yartseva, B.A. Ilyish, L.S. Barkhudarov, L.A. Shteling, B.S. Khaimovich, B.J. Rogovskaya, M.Y. Blokh, R.V. Reznik, T.S. Sorokina, and T.A. Kazaritskaya, the authors of the Leipzig Grammar of English. These linguists treat the category of aspect as a separate category. They are inclined to think that the categories of tense and aspect are closely connected but they characterize an action from different points of view. The tense of a verb shows the time of the action, while the aspect of the verb deals with the development of the action.

The term aspect itself describes to some extent the content of the category. It shows what aspect of the action is considered: whether the action is taken in its progress, or without this specification. Was writing, for instance, presents an 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.: I wrote to him yesterday. I often wrote to him last year.

If we take two forms is writing and writes we can say that is writing denotes an action proceeding continuously at a definite period of time, within certain time limits. On the other hand, writes denotes an action not thus limited but either occurring repeatedly or everlasting, without any notion of lasting duration at a given moment.

So, the basic difference between the two sets of forms appears to be this: an action going on continuously during a given period of time, and an action not thus limited and not described by the very form of the verb as proceeding in such a manner.

Thus, the grammatical meaning of the category of aspect can be identified as the difference in the way the action is shown to proceed. Sometimes the whole category is called as the aspective category of development [Блох 2004: 169]. The opposition of the continuous forms of the verb to the non-continuous, or indefinite forms of the verb represents the category. The marked member of the opposition is the continuous form, which is built up by the auxiliary be plus the present participle of the conjugated verb. The categorical meaning of the continuous is “action in progress”. The unmarked member of the opposition is the indefinite, it leaves the meaning unspecified, i.e. expresses the non-continuous.

v The representatives of the fifth approach are D. Crystal, the authors of Longman Grammar, G. Leech, J. Svartvik, R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum.

Though these linguists distinguish both tense and aspect, by aspect they understand “the manner in which a verbal action is experienced or regarded (for example as complete or in progress)” [Leech, Svartvik 1983: 285]. Accordingly, English has two marked aspects: the progressive aspect and the perfective aspect. The progressive aspect expresses an event in progress at a given time. It is used with tenses and both (present and past) perfective aspects (jump ÷ are jumping, jumped ÷ were jumping, have jumped ÷ have been jumping, had jumped ÷ had been jumping). The usual implication of the progressive is that the activity is taking place over a limited period, and is not necessarily complete. The perfective aspect is related to the completedness of an action. The present perfective has the meaning of current relevance contrasting with the past tense meaning:

E.g. I’ve lived in Paris for a year (and I still do).

I lived in Paris for a year (but I don’t now).

The past perfective also expresses “anterior time” but in an earlier time frame. Specific events, states, and habitual actions can all be expressed using the perfective aspect [Crystal 1995: 225].

v Bernard Comrie presents his own approach to the highly confusing problem of aspect interpretation. He states that English aspect is based on two aspectual oppositions with Imperfective being grammaticalized and Perfective being represented lexically.

In his book ‘Aspect’ (first published in 1976) B. Comrie spells out his position on this knotty problem. First of all, he underlines the distinction of tense and aspect. B. Comrie points out that “tense locates situations in time”, whereas aspect presents the situation in regard to its inner constituency. Thus the difference is “as one between situation-internal time (aspect) and situation-external time (tense)” [Comrie 1998: 5]. Another difficulty arises from the confusion of grammaticalized and lexicalized relations. B. Comrie sets up the first-stage opposition between Perfective and Imperfective aspects. Perfective and Imperfective can be rendered by one and the same form depending on the semantics of the verb that’s why their distinction is semantically based. The Perfective aspect presents the situation as a single unanalyzable whole, with “the beginning, middle and end rolled into one”: it denotes a completed action. “The Imperfective looks at the situation from inside”. E.g. in John was reading when I entered the first verb-form was reading shows the situation “from inside” while entered does not distinguish the internal structure of the situation [Comrie 1998: 3-4]. Imperfective aspect, in its turn, is represented by the opposition of a separate Habitual aspect (John used to work) and Continuous which is based on the opposition of Progressive (John was working when I entered) and non-Progressive (John worked here) [Comrie 1998: 25]. As is seen, Habitual aspect describes a recurring event in the past. Obviously, the semantic characterizations of Habitual and Progressive are grammaticalized in English. Interestingly, B. Comrie does not consider Perfect an aspectual category as it expresses a relation between two time-points [Comrie 1998: 52].

All this argument over aspect, its semantic description and concrete manifestation, different approaches to this issue prove that aspect remains one of the most intriguing areas of grammar.

1. The connection of the aspect interpretation with other lexicological issues: terminative and durative verbs

The interpretation of aspect is closely connected with lexicology. This connection may be illustrated by the following examples:

E.g. A young man sat in the corner of the room. ÷ A young man was sitting in the corner of the room.

The change of the verb form does not affect the basic meaning of the sentence. The same situation may be described in both ways, the only difference between them being that of stylistic colouring: the variant with the common aspect form is more matter-of-fact, whereas the one with the continuous aspect form is more descriptive.

On the other hand we can analyze another set of sentences:

E.g. He brought her some flowers.

If we alter the verb-form, this will undoubtedly affect the meaning. With the aspect form brought the sentence means that the flowers actually reached her, whereas the continuous aspect forms would mean that he had the flowers with him but something prevented him from giving them to her.

The natural question arises why there is some change in meaning in the second case while there is none in the first one? The answer lies in the lexical character of the corresponding verbs. The verb to sit differs from the verb to bring because the former denotes an action, which can go on indefinitely without necessarily reaching the final point. Unlike it, the verb to bring implies some limit; it denotes an action, which must come to an end owing to its very nature. Verbs like to sit are called durative and verbs like to bring are called terminative. With durative verbs the difference between the Common and the Continuous aspects may be neutralized whereas with terminative verbs it cannot.

The theory of durative and terminative verbs with reference to English was put forward by Prof. Vorontsova[58] and it was adopted with some modifications by some other authors. Prof. I.P. Ivanova considers durativeness and terminativeness to be grammatical categories of the verb[59]. The opposition of terminative and non-terminative verbs can be tracked down in a great number of English grammar books.

Nevertheless it should be noted that the verb may be terminative in one meaning and durative in another meaning. Thus, the verb to sit would be terminative in its secondary meaning “to sit down”.

In A University Grammar of English by R. Quirk et al the verbs are divided into stative and dynamic. Dynamic verbs indicate “action, activity, and temporary or changing conditions” [Quirk et al 1983: 28]. But since one of the greatest values of language lies in its flexibility, these primary distinctions can be violated.

G. Leech and J. Svartvik in their Communicative Grammar of English assert that verbs may relate either to an event (i.e. a happening thought of as a single occurrence, with a definite beginning and end: be, live, stay, know, etc.), or to a state (i.e. a state of affairs which continues over a period, and need not have a well-defined beginning and end: get, come, leave, hit, etc.). Nevertheless this distinction is more conceptual than real. The same verb can change from one category to another, and the distinction is not always clear: Did you remember his name? could refer either to a state or to an event. That’s why the linguists warn that it is more advisable we speak about “state uses of verbs” and “event uses of verbs”. Nevertheless, they admit that it is more convenient to keep to the simpler terms “state verb” and “event verb” [Leech, Svartvik 1983: 46]. Furthermore the authors of the Communicative Grammar enlarge upon the verbs denoting activities (walk, read, drink, write, work, etc.) or progress (change, grow, widen, improve, etc.) and verbs denoting momentary events (knock, jump, nod, kick, etc.), which typically take the progressive aspect. State verbs (verbs of perceiving, referring to a state of mind or feeling or referring to a relationship: feel, hear, see, smell, taste; believe, adore, desire, forget, hate, hope; be, belong to, concern, consist of, contain, cost, etc.) often cannot be used with the progressive at all, because the notion of “something in progress” cannot be easily applied to them. Nevertheless there are special circumstances when these verbs are used with the progressive. Thus the state verb has changed into an activity verb [Leech, Svartvik 1983: 52-53].

1. The correlation of the English aspect forms

Дата добавления: 2017-01-14