4.The verb: tense

The category of tense may, then, be defined as a verbal category which reflects the objective category of time and expresses on this background the relations between the time of the action and the time of the utterance.In English there are the three tenses (past, present and future). Some doubts have been expressed about the existence of a future tense in English. O. Jespersen: English future is expressed by the phrase "shall/will + infinitive", and some of their original meaning (shall an element of obligation, and will an element of volition) is preserved. Thus, English has no way of expressing "pure futurity" free from modal shades of meaning, i. e. it has no form standing on the same grammatical level as the forms of the past and present tenses. It is well known that a present tense form may also be used when the action belongs to the future( Pres cont - part of a plan). We get 6 tense-aspect forms+2 more: future-in-the-past and the future-continuous-in-the-past. It is common knowledge that these forms are used chiefly in subordinate clauses depending on a main clause having its predicate verb in one of the past tenses. They can be found in independent clauses as well – in represented speech. The future-in-the-past and future-continuous-in-the-past - a deviation: their starting point is not the present, from which the past and the future are reckoned, but the past itself, so the past is a new centre of the system. The idea of temporal centres was issued by Prof. I. Ivanova. A different view of the English tense system has been put forward by Prof. N. Irtenyeva: the system is divided into two halves: that of tenses centring in the present(Pres, Pres Perf, Fut, Pres Cont, PPC) and that of tenses centring in the past (Past, P Perf, future-in-the-past, past cont, and past perf cont). It has the advantage of reducing the usual threefold division of tenses (past, present, and future) to a twofold division (past and present) with each of the two future tenses (future and future-in-the-past) included into the past or the present system. A new theory by A. Korsakov: establishes a system of absolute and anterior tenses(perfect correlation), and of static and dynamic tenses (of the cont aspect).

5.The verb: Грамматические категории вида и временной соотнесенности

grammatical question open: we might as well speak of the past form, or of the passive form, etc.

The problem of aspect is intimately connected with a lexicological problem: with durative verbs, the difference between the common and the continuous aspect may be neutralised whereas with terminative verbs it cannot be neutralised, so that the form of the common aspect cannot be substituted for the form of the continuous aspect, and vice versa, without materially changing the meaning of the sentence.

CORRELATION:

Perfect: 1. The category of perfect is a peculiar tense category (O. Jespersen)2.a peculiar aspect category (number of scholars +Prof. G. Vorontsova).-"retrospective", "resultative", "successive"3.neither one of tense, nor one of aspect but a specific category different from both (Prof. A. Smirnitsky). He took the perfect to be a means of expressing the category of "time relation" (временная отнесенность).Now, if the perfect were also a tense category - the pres perfect would be a union of two different tenses (the present and the perfect), the past perfect – same, future perfect - same. If a form already belongs to a tense category it cannot simultaneously belong to another tense category, so perfect cannot be a tense category.

For example: Pres Cont and Pres Perf Cont,Past Cont and Past Perf Cont, belong to the continuous aspect, so the difference between them cannot possibly be based on any aspect category - perfect is not an aspect.

Prof. Smirnitsky - "the category of time relation"; Essence - precedence: action precedes some moment in time. Opposition between perfect and non-perfect forms is shown to be that between a marked (in meaning (denoting precedence) and in morphological characteristics (have + second participle)and unmarked item. Opposition is based on three groups of notions, viz. tense: present vs. past vs. future; aspect: common vs. continuous; correlation: non-perfect vs. perfect.

ASPECT:

Continuous - it seems very appropriate to the phenomenon which it is used to describe + common aspect, which is indefinite enough to allow room for the various uses. It also has the merit of being parallel with the term common case. The continuous aspect is marked both in meaning and in form (be + first participle), whereas the common aspect is non-marked both in meaning and in form; no formal characteristic of the common aspect can be given.

Forms of cont aspect are occasionally used with the adverbs always, continually, etc., when the action is meant to be unlimited by time + stronger emotional colouring than it would have with the form of the common aspect: the lexical meaning of always is reinforced by the emphatic colouring of the continuous aspect - stylistic application.

O. Jespersen: Continuous - means of expressing limited duration, expressing an action serving as frame to another which is performed within the frame set by that first action. Prof. N. Irtenyeva- basic meaning is of simultaneity of an action with another action or the act of speech. The act of speech is not mentioned in the speech. Moreover, simultaneity with the act of speech is the definition of the present tense. Prof. I. Ivanova. recognizes the existence of the aspect category in English, but treats it in a peculiar way: some finite forms of the Modern English verb have the category of aspect, and are in so far "aspect-tense forms", while others have no aspect and are therefore "purely tense forms"; denies the existence of the common aspect. "No aspect"- another version of "common aspect". H. Sweet used the term "definite tenses" for what we call the continuous aspect. Another term which has been used is, "expanded form", or "progressive form". The term "form" cannot be described as satisfactory since it leaves the basic grammatical question open: we might as well speak of the past form, or of the passive form, etc.

The problem of aspect is intimately connected with a lexicological problem: with durative verbs, the difference between the common and the continuous aspect may be neutralised whereas with terminative verbs it cannot be neutralised, so that the form of the common aspect cannot be substituted for the form of the continuous aspect, and vice versa, without materially changing the meaning of the sentence.