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.

The Category of Person and Number

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 deictic 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. But in the system of the verb in English these two categories are so closely interconnected, both semantically and formally, that they are often referred to as one single category: the category of person and number.

In Old English the verb agreed with the subject in almost every person and number, like in Russian and other inflectional languages, cf.: singular, 1^st person - telle, 2^nd 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 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 and mere future 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 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.