As an independent grammatical category

A.I. Smirnitsky pointed out that analytical Perfect forms emerged in the verbal system in Middle English. They first appeared in Old English but were not developed to the full. The grammatical meaning of the Perfect was to designate the precedence of some action to another action in the past, present, or future. This predetermines the new opposition of non-perfect to perfect forms. Non-perfect forms change their meaning and refer the action to the moment of speaking. This opposition lays the foundation of a new grammatical category – the category of time correlation (категория временной соотнесенности) [Смирницкий 2000: 123]. This category indicates neither a tense or an aspect or a blend of the two. This view was first put forward by A.I. Smirnitsky and was for a long time supported by the majority of Russian linguists.

The essence of the grammatical category expressed by the perfect and differing both from tense and from aspect, is hard to define and to find a name for. Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky originally proposed to call it “the category of time relation ” (категория временной отнесенности). This term was criticized by a number of Soviet linguists. For instance, B.A. Ilyish considers this term not to be a very happy one because it seems to bring us back to the old view that the perfect is a special kind of tense, the view that A.I. Smirnitsky criticized himself. Later it was proposed to replace the term “time relation” by that of “ correlation ” (соотнесенность), which has the advantage of eliminating the undesirable term “time”. B.A. Ilyish considers this term the most suitable one.

Other linguists come up with their ideas about the label for the newly coined category. Thus, B.S. Khaimovich and B.J. Rogovskaya use the term “the category of order ”. They suggest this term because they identify the general meaning of the category as that of order. They emphasize the fact that the notion of priority is the most essential notion when speaking about the perfect forms. In their opinion the category of order presents a process as prior to some action or situation.

Other linguists come up with a range of different terms. For instance, M.Y. Blokh prefers the term “the category of retrospective coordination”, or just “the category of retrospect”.

Mention should be made of another approach to perfect forms as an independent grammatical category. Within this approach linguists explore perfect forms as the category of phase. George L. Trager and Henry Lee Smith in ‘An Outline of English structure’ suggested this unconventional name. Martin Joos explains that this name derives from special relation between cause and effect signified by verbs in the perfect phase. The perfect-marked verbs are used for the sake of the effects of the events they designate, and that is their essential meaning. The verbs in the current phase are “in phase with each other”; the effect is never delayed behind the recurrent phase. Quite unlike it, “the meaning of perfect phase is that the principal effects of the event are out of phase with it <…>. The perfect phase means that the event is not mentioned for its own sake but for the sake of its consequences”[60]. The idea that perfect is an independent category has found its proponents among present-day linguists. Thus in an Oxford edition of 2009, R.M.W. Dixon describes perfect as a category of completion covering perfect and imperfect [Dixon 2009: 333].

The meaning of completion as a categorial meaning of perfect forms is totally denied by O.V. Alexandrova and T.A. Komova. They insist that perfect forms do not convey the meaning of completion, it is wholly related to the lexical semantics of the verb (cf.: It happened, They replied, on the one hand, and I have lived here for 20 years, on the other) [Alexandrova, Komova 1998: 116-123]. Perfect forms make up the category of Taxis, or simultaneity – anteriority which is used to describe two actions correlated in time.

Bernard Comrie states that the perfect is neither an aspect nor a tense. He makes the point that the perfect is retrospective as “it establishes a relation between a state at one time and a situation at an earlier time” [Comrie 1998: 64]. B. Comrie identifies four major uses of the perfect: perfect of result (I have had a bath, meaning I am clean), experiential perfect (Bill has been to America), perfect of persistent situations (I’ve shopped there for years), perfect of recent past (I have recently learned that the match is to be postponed).

Drawing upon the idea that perfect makes an independent category D.A. Shteling further develops it and gives an insightful analysis of the nature of perfect forms. Due to its inherent grammatical meaning of correlation the perfect form is capable of establishing in an utterance (or in a text) various semantic relations, i.e. those of cause-effect, consequences, etc. The perfect forms introduce the correlative point indicating the termination of some period. Thus it creates the effect of expectation of the consequences or the results this period brings about [Штелинг 1996: 157, 160, 161].

v The compromise approach

M.Y. Blokh develops A.I. Smirnitstky’s views on the categorial semantics of perfect/ non-perfect forms. He comes to the conclusion that there are two aspective categories in English: the category of development which is based on the opposition of continuous and non-continuous forms, and the category of retrospective coordination which is based on the opposition of perfect and non-perfect forms.

According to M.Y. Blokh, the perfect form is characterized by a mixed categorial meaning: it expresses both retrospective time coordination of the process and the connection of the prior action with a time limit reflected in a subsequent event. Thus perfect continuous forms are to be treated as forms having marks in both the aspect categories.

Ø Recommended literature:

1. Блох М.Я., Семенова Т.Н., Тимофеева С.В. Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 2004. – С. 169-170, 176-216.
2. Блох М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 2008. – С. 180-190.
3. Кобрина Н.А. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка: Учебное пособие / Н.А. Кобрина, Н.Н. Болдырев, А.А. Худяков. – М.: Высшая школа, 2007. – С. 86-90.
4. Ильиш Б.А. Строй современного английского языка. Л.: Просвещение, 1971. – С. 90-98.
5. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1981. – С. 60-66.
6. Хаймович Б.С., Роговская Б.И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1967. – С. 130-134.

Ø Supplementary literature:

1. Гуревич В.В. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. – М.: Флинта: Наука, 2003. – С. 30-38.

2. Мурясов Р.З. Типология глагола в разноструктурных языках. – Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2011. – 74-110.

1. Смирницкий А.И. Морфология английского языка. – М.: Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках, 1959. – С. 289-316.
2. Штелинг Д.А. Грамматическая семантика английского языка. Фактор человека в языке. – М.: МГИМИ, ЧеРо, 1996. – С. 149-166.

Дата добавления: 2017-01-14