Английский язык - Учебники на русском языке - Скачать бесплатно
between them lying in the aspective presentation of the process. Cf.:
Nobody noticed the scouts approach the enemy trench. — Nobody noticed the
scouts approaching the enemy trench with slow, cautious, expertly
calculated movements. Suddenly a telephone was heard to buzz, breaking the
spell. — The telephone was heard vainly buzzing in the study.
A peculiar use of the present participle is seen in the absolute
participial constructions of various types, forming complexes of detached
semi-predication. Cf.:
The messenger waiting in the hall, we had only a couple of minutes to
make a decision. The dean sat at his desk, with an electric fire glowing
warmly behind the fender at the opposite wall.
These complexes of descriptive and narrative stylistic nature seem to be
gaining ground in present-day English.
§ 5. The past participle is the non-finite form of the verb which
combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective, serving as
the qualifying-processual name. The past participle is a single form,
having no paradigm of its own. By way of the paradigmatic correlation with
the present participle, it conveys implicitly the categorial meaning of the
perfect and the passive. As different from the present participle, it has
no distinct combinability features or syntactic function features specially
characteristic of the adverb. Thus, the main self-positional functions of
the past
1 12
participle in the sentence are those of the attribute and the predicative.
Cf.:
Moyra\'s softened look gave him a new hope. (Past participle attributive
front-position) The cleverly chosen timing of the attack determined the
outcome of the battle. (Past participle attributive front-position) It is a
face devastated by passion. (Past participle attributive back-position) His
was a victory gained against all rules and predictions. (Past participle
attributive back-position) Looked upon in this light, the wording of the
will didn\'t appear so odious. (Past participle attributive detached
position) The light is bright and inconveniently placed for reading. (Past
participle predicative position)
The past participle is included in the structural formation of the
present participle (perfect, passive), which, together with the other
differential properties, vindicates the treatment of this form as a
separate verbid.
In the attributive use, the past participial meanings of the perfect and
the passive are expressed in dynamic correlation with the aspective lexico-
grammatical character of the verb. As a result of this correlation, the
attributive past participle of limitive verbs in a neutral context
expresses priority, while the past participle of unlimitive verbs expresses
simultaneity. E.g.:
A tree broken by the storm blocked the narrow passage between the cliffs
and the water. (Priority in the passive; the implication is "a tree that
had been broken by the storm") I saw that the picture admired by the
general public hardly had a fair chance with the judges. (Simultaneity in
the passive; the implication is "the picture which was being admired by the
public")
Like the present participle, the past participle is capable of making up
semi-predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well
as of absolute complex.
The past participial complex object is specifically characteristic with
verbs of wish and oblique causality (have, get). Cf.:
I want the document prepared for signing by 4 p.m. Will you have my coat
brushed up, please?
Compare the use of the past; participial complex object
113
and the complex subject as its passive transform with a perception verb:
We could hear a shot or two fired from a field mortar. > Л shot or two
could be heard fired from a field mortar.
The complex subject of this type, whose participle is included in the
double predicate of the sentence, is used but occasionally. A more common
type of the participial complex subject can be seen with notional links of
motion and position. Cf.: We sank down and for a while lay there stretched
out and exhausted.
The absolute past participial complex as a rule expresses priority in
the correlation of two events. Cf.: The preliminary talks completed, it
became possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda.
The past participles of non-objective verbs are rarely used in
independent sentence-part positions; they are mostly included in
phraseological or cliche combinations like faded photographs, fallen
leaves, a retired officer, a withered flower, dream come true, etc. In
these and similar cases the idea of pure quality rather than that of
processual quality is expressed, the modifying participles showing the
features of adjectivisation.
As is known, the past participle is traditionally interpreted as being
capable of adverbial-related use (like the present participle), notably in
detached syntactical positions, after the introductory subordinative
conjunctions. Cf.:
Called up by the conservative minority, the convention failed to pass a
satisfactory resolution. Though welcomed heartily by his host, Frederick
felt at once that something was wrong.
Approached from the paradigmatic point of view in the constructional
sense, this interpretation is to be re-considered. As a matter of fact,
past participial constructions of the type in question display clear cases
of syntactic compression. The true categorial nature of the participial
forms employed by them is exposed by the corresponding transformational
correlations ("back transformations") as being not of adverbial, but of
definitely adjectival relation. Cf.:
...> The convention, which was called up by the conservative minority,
failed to pass a satisfactory resolution. ...> Though he was welcomed
heartily by his host, Frederick felt at once that something was wrong.
114
Cf. a more radical diagnostic transformational change of the latter
construction: ...> Frederick, who was welcomed heartily by his host,
nevertheless felt at once that something was wrong.
As is seen from the analysis, the adjectival relation of the past
participle in the quoted examples is proved by the near-predicative
function of the participle in the derived transforms, be it even within the
composition of the finite passive verb form. The adverbial uses of the
present participle react to similar tests in a different way. Cf.: Passing
on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her guests. > As he passed
on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her guests.
The adverbial force of the present participle in constructions like that
is shown simply as resulting from the absence of obligatory mediation of be
between the participle and its subject (in the derivationally underlying
units).
As an additional proof of our point, we may take an adjectival
construction for a similar diagnostic testing. Cf.: Though red in the face,
the boy kept denying his guilt. > Though he was red in the face, the boy
kept denying his guilt.
As we see, the word red, being used in the diagnostic concessive clause
of complete composition, does not change its adjectival quality for an
adverbial quality. Being red in the face would again present another
categorial case. Being, as a present participial form, is in the observed
syntactic conditions neither solely adjectival-related, nor solely
adverbial-related; it is by nature adjectival-adverbial, the whole
composite unity in question automatically belonging to the same categorial
class, i.e. the class of present participial constructions of different
subtypes.
§ 6. The consideration of the English verbids in their mutual comparison,
supported and supplemented by comparing them with their non-verbal
counterparts, puts forward some points of structure and function worthy of
special notice.
In this connection, the infinitive-gerund correlation should first be
brought under observation.
Both forms are substance-processual, and the natural question that one
has to ask about them is, whether the two do not repeat each other by their
informative destination and employment. This question was partly answered
in the
115
paragraph devoted to the general outline of the gerund. Observations of the
actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in texts do show the clear-cut
semantic difference between the forms, which consists in the gerund being,
on the one hand, of a more substantive nature than the infinitive, i.e. of
a nature nearer to the thingness-signification type; on the other hand, of
a more abstract nature in the logical sense proper. Hence, the forms do not
repeat, but complement each other, being both of them inalienable
components of the English verbal system.
The difference between the forms in question may be demonstrated by the
following examples:
Seeing and talking to people made him tired. (As characteristic of a
period of his life; as a general feature of his
disposition) It made him tired to see and talk to so many
people. (All at a time, on that particular occasion); Spending an afternoon
in the company of that gentle soul was always a wonderful pleasure.
(Repeated action, general characteristic) To spend an afternoon on the
grass — lovely! (A
response utterance of enthusiastic agreement); Who doesn\'t
like singing? (In a general reference) Who doesn\'t like
to sing? (In reference to the subject)
Comparing examples like these, we easily notice the more dynamic, more
actional character of the infinitive as well as of the whole collocations
built up around it, and the less dynamic character of the corresponding
gerundial collocations. Furthermore, beyond the boundaries of the verb, but
within the boundaries of the same inter-class paradigmatic derivation (see
above, Ch. IV, § 8), we find the cognate verbal noun which is devoid of
processual dynamics altogether, though it denotes, from a different angle,
the same referential process, situation, event. Cf.:
For them to have arrived so early! Such a surprise!—— Their having
arrived so early was indeed a great surprise. Their early arrival was
a great surprise, really.
The triple correlation, being of an indisputably systemic nature and
covering a vast proportion of the lexicon, enables us to interpret it in
terms of a special lexico-grammatical category of processual
representation. The three stages of this category represent the referential
processual entity of the lexemic series, respectively, as dynamic (the
infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic (the gerund and its phrase), and
116
static (the verbal noun and its phrase). The category of processual
representation underlies the predicative differences between various
situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalisation
(see further, Ch. XXV).
Another category specifically identified within the framework of
substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis is the category of
modal representation. This category, pointed out by L. S. Barkhudarov
[Бархударов, (2), 151—152], marks the infinitive in contrast to the gerund,
and it is revealed in the infinitive having a modal force, in particular,
in its attributive uses, but also elsewhere. Cf.:
This is a kind of peace to be desired by all. (A kind of peace that
should be desired) Is there any hope for us to meet this great violinist in
our town? (A hope that we may meet this violinist) It was arranged for the
mountaineers to have a rest in tents before climbing the peak. (It was
arranged so that they could have a rest in tents)
When speaking about the functional difference between lingual forms, we
must bear in mind that this difference might become subject to
neutralisation in various systemic or contextual conditions. But however
vast the corresponding field of neutralisation might be, the rational basis
of correlations of the forms in question still lies in their difference,
not in neutralising equivalence. Indeed, the difference is linguistically
so valuable that one well-established occurrence of a differential
correlation of meaningful forms outweighs by its significance dozens of
their textual neutralisations. Why so? For the simple reason that language
is a means of forming and exchanging ideas — that is, ideas differing from
one another, not coinciding with one another. And this simple truth should
thoroughly be taken into consideration when tackling certain cases of
infinitive-gerund equivalence in syntactic constructions — as, for
instance, the freely alternating gerunds and infinitives with some phasal
predicators (begin, start, continue, cease, etc.). The functional
equivalence of the infinitive and the gerund in the composition of the
phasal predicate by no means can be held as testifying to their functional
equivalence in other spheres of expression.
As for the preferable or exclusive use of the gerund with a set of
transitive verbs (e.g. avoid, delay, deny, forgive, mind, postpone) and
especially prepositional-complementive verbs and word-groups (e.g. accuse
of, agree to, depend on, prevent from, think of, succeed in, thank for; be
aware of,
117
be busy in, be indignant at, be sure of), we clearly see here the tendency
of mutual differentiation and complementation of the substantive verbid
forms based on the demonstrated category of processual representation. In
fact, it is the gerund, not the infinitive, that denotes the processual
referent of the lexeme not in a dynamic, but in a half-dynamic
representation, which is more appropriate to be associated with a
substantive-related part of the sentence.
§ 7. Within the gerund-participle correlation, the central point of our
analysis will be the very lexico-grammatical identification of the two
verbid forms in -ing in their reference to each other. Do they constitute
two different verbids, or do they present one and the same form with a
somewhat broader range of functions than either of the two taken
separately?
The ground for raising this problem is quite substantial, since the outer
structure of the two elements of the verbal system is absolutely identical:
they are outwardly the same when viewed in isolation. It is not by chance
that in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the
school of Descriptive Linguistics the two forms are recognised as one
integral V-ing.
In treating the ing-forms as constituting one integral verbid entity,
opposed, on the one hand, to the infinitive (V-to), on the other hand, to
the past participle (V-en), appeal is naturally made to the alternating use
of the possessive and the common-objective nounal element in the role of
the subject of the ing-form (mostly observed in various object positions of
the sentence). Cf.:
I felt annoyed at his failing to see my point at once. «> I felt annoyed
at him failing to see my point at once. He was not, however, averse to
Elaine Fortescue\'s entertaining the hypothesis.<>He was not, however,
averse to Elaine Fortescue entertaining the hypothesis.
This use presents a case known in linguistics as "half-gerund". So, in
terms of the general ing-form problem, we have to choose between the two
possible interpretations of the half-gerund: either as an actually
intermediary form with double features, whose linguistic semi-status is
truly reflected in its conventional name, or as an element of a non-
existent categorial specification, i.e. just another variant of the same
indiscriminate V-ing.
118
In this connection, the reasoning of those who support the idea of the
integral V-ing form can roughly be presented thus: if the two uses of V-ing
are functionally identical, and if the "half-gerund" V-ing occurs with
approximately the same frequency as the "full-gerund" V-ing, both forms
presenting an ordinary feature of an ordinary English text, then there is
no point in discriminating the "participle" V-ing and the "gerund" V-ing.
In compliance with the general principle of approach to any set of
elements forming a categorial or functional continuum, let us first
consider the correlation between the polar elements of the continuum, i.e.
the correlation between the pure present participle and the pure gerund,
setting aside the half-gerund for a further discussion.
The comparative evaluations of the actually different uses of the ing-
forms can\'t fail to show their distinct categorial differentiation: one
range of uses is definitely noun-related, definitely of process-substance
signification; the other range of uses is definitely adjective-adverb
related, definitely of process-quality signification. This differentiation
can easily be illustrated by specialised gerund-testing and participle-
testing, as well as by careful textual observations of the forms.
The gerund-testing, partly employed while giving a general outline of the
gerund, includes the noun-substitution procedure backed by the question-
procedure. Cf.:
My chance of getting, or achieving, anything that I long for will always
be gravely reduced by the interminable existence of that block. > My chance
of what? > My chance of success.
He insisted on giving us some coconuts. > What did he insist on? > He
insisted on our acceptance of the gift.
All his relatives somehow disapproved of his writing poetry. > What did
all his relatives disapprove of?> His relatives disapproved of his poetical
work.
The other no less convincing evidence of the nounal featuring of the form
in question is its natural occurrence in coordinative connections with the
noun. Cf.:
I didn\'t stop to think of an answer; it came immediately off my tongue
without any pause or planning. Your husband isn\'t ill, no. What he does
need is relaxation and simply cheering a bit, if you know what I mean. He
carried out rigorously all
119
the precepts concerning food, bathing, meditation and so on of the orthodox
Hindu.
The participle-testing, for its part, includes the adjective-adverb
substitution procedure backed by the corresponding question-procedure, as
well as some other analogies. Cf.:
He was in a terrifying condition. > In what kind of condition was he?>He
was in an awful condition. (Adjective substitution procedure) Pursuing
this; course of free association, I suddenly remembered a dinner date I
once had with a distinguished colleague > When did I suddenly remember a
dinner date? > Then I suddenly remembered a dinner date. (Adverb-
substitution procedure) She sits up gasping and staring wild-eyed about
her. > How does she sit up? > She sits up so. (Adverb-substitution
procedure)
The participle also enters into easy coordinative and parallel
associations with qualitative and stative adjectives. Cf.:
That was a false, but convincing show of affection. The ears are large,
protruding, with the heavy lobes of the sensualist. On the great bed are
two figures, a sleeping woman, and a young man awake.
Very important in this respect will be analogies between the present
participle qualitative function and the past participle qualitative
function, since the separate categorial standing of the past participle
remains unchallenged. Cf.: an unmailed letter — a coming letter; the fallen
monarchy — the falling monarchy; thinned hair — thinning hair.
Of especial significance for the differential verbid identification
purposes are the two different types of conversion the compared forms are
subject to, namely, the nounal conversion of the gerund and,
correspondingly, the adjectival conversion of the participle.
Compare the gerund-noun conversional pairs: your airing the room to
take an airing before going to bed; his breeding his son to the profession
- a person of unimpeachable
breeding; their calling him a liar - the youth\'s choice of
a calling in life.
Compare the participle-adjective conversional pairs: animals living in
the jungle living languages; a man never
daring an open argument - a daring inventor; a car passing
by a passing passion.
120
Having recourse to the evidence of the analogy type, as a counter-thesis
against the attempted demonstration, one might point out cases of
categorial ambiguity, where the category of the qualifying element remains
open to either interpretation, such as the "typing instructor", the
"boiling kettle", or the like. However, cases like these present a trivial
homonymy which, being resolved, can itself be taken as evidence in favour
of, not against, the two ing-forms differing from each other on the
categorial lines. Cf.:
the typing instructor > the instructor of typing; the instructor who is
typing; the boiling kettle > the kettle for boiling; the kettle that is
boiling
At this point, the analysis of the cases presenting the clear-cut gerund
versus present participle difference can be considered as fulfilled. The
two ing-forms in question are shown as possessing categorially differential
properties establishing them as two different verbids in the system of the
English verb.
And this casts a light on the categorial nature of the half-gerund, since
it is essentially based on the positional verbid neutralisation. As a
matter of fact, let us examine the following examples:
You may count on my doing all that is necessary on such occasions.
You may count on me doing all that is necessary on such occasions.
The possessive subject of the ing-form in the first of the two sentences
is clearly disclosed as a structural adjunct of a nounal collocation. But
the objective subject of the ing-form in the second sentence, by virtue of
its morphological constitution, cannot be associated with a noun: this
would contradict the established regularities of the categorial
compatibility. The casal-type government (direct, or representative-
pronominal) in the collocation being lost (or, more precisely, being non-
existent), the ing-form of the collocation can only be understood as a
participle. This interpretation is strongly supported by comparing half-
gerund constructions with clear-cut participial constructions governed by
perception verbs:
To think of him turning sides! To see him turning
sides! I don\'t like Mrs. Thomson complaining of her loneliness. - I can\'t
listen to Mrs. Thomson complaining of her
121
loneliness. Did you ever hear of a girl playing a trombone? —Did you ever
hear a girl playing a trombone?
On the other hand, the position of the participle in the collocation is
syntactically peculiar, since semantic accent in such constructions is made
on the fact or event described, i.e. on the situational content of it, with
the processual substance as its core. This can be demonstrated by question-
tests:
(The first half-gerund construction in the above series) > To think of
what in connection with him? (The second half-gerund construction) > What
don\'t you like about Mrs. Thomson? (The third half-gerund construction) >
Which accomplishment of a girl presents a surprise for the speaker?
Hence, the verbid under examination is rather to be interpreted as a
transferred participle, or a gerundial participle, the latter term seeming
to relevantly disclose the essence of the nature of this form; though the
existing name "half-gerund" is as good as any other, provided the true
character of the denoted element of the system is understood.
Our final remark in connection with the undertaken observation will be
addressed to linguists who, while recognising the categorial difference
between the gerund and the present participle, will be inclined to analyse
the half-gerund (the gerundial participle) on exactly the same basis as the
full gerund, refusing to draw a demarcation line between the latter two
forms and simply ascribing the occurrence of the common case subject in
this construction to the limited use of the possessive case in modern
English in general. As regards this interpretation, we should like to say
that an appeal to the limited sphere of the English noun possessive in an
attempt to prove the wholly gerundial character of the intermediary
construction in question can hardly be considered of any serious
consequence. True, a vast proportion of English nouns do not admit of the
possessive case form, or, if they do, their possessive in the construction
would create contextual ambiguity, or else some sort of stylistic
ineptitude. Cf.:
The headlines bore a flaring announcement of the strike being called off
by the Amalgamated Union. (No normal possessive with the noun strike); I
can\'t fancy their daughter entering a University college. (Ambiguity in the
oral possessive: daughter\'s — daughters\'); They were surprised at the head
122
of the family rejecting the services of the old servant. (Evading the
undesirable shift of the possessive particle -\'s from the head-noun to its
adjunct); The notion of this woman who had had the world at her feet paying
a man half a dollar to dance with her filled me with shame. (Semantic and
stylistic incongruity of the clause possessive with the statement)
However, these facts are but facts in themselves, since they only present
instances when a complete gerundial construction for this or that reason
either cannot exist at all, or else should be avoided on diverse reasons of
usage. So, the quoted instances of gerundial participle phrases are not
more demonstrative of the thesis in question than, say, the attributive
uses of nouns in the common form (e.g. the inquisitor judgement, the
Shakespeare Fund, a Thompson way of refusing, etc.) would be demonstrative
of the possessive case "tendency" to coincide with the bare stem of the
noun: the absence of the possessive nounal form as such can\'t be taken to
testify that the "possessive case" may exist without its feature sign.
CHAPTER XII
FINITE VERB: INTRODUCTION
§ 1. The finite forms of the verb express the processual relations of
substances and phenomena making up the situation reflected in the sentence.
These forms are associated with one another in an extremely complex and
intricate system. The peculiar aspect of the complexity of this system lies
in the fact that, as we have stated before, the finite verb is directly
connected with the structure of the sentence as a whole. Indeed, the finite
verb, through the working of its categories, is immediately related to such
sentence-constitutive factors as morphological forms of predication,
communication purposes, subjective modality, subject-object relation,
gradation of probabilities, and quite a few other factors of no lesser
importance..
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the complicated character of the system
in question has given rise to a lot of controversies about the structural
formation of the finite verb categories, as well as the bases of their
functional semantics. It would be not an exaggeration to say that each
fundamental
123
type of grammatical expression capable of being approached in terms of
generalised categories in the domain of the finite verb has created a
subject for a scholarly dispute. For instance, taking as an example the
sphere of the categorial person and number of the verb, we are faced with
the argument among grammarians about the existence or non-existence of the
verbal-pronominal forms of these categories. In connection with the study
of the verbal expression of time and aspect, the great controversy is going
on as to the temporal or aspective nature of the verbal forms of the
indefinite, continuous, perfect, and perfect-continuous series. Grammatical
expression of the future tense in English is stated by some scholars as a
matter-of-fact truth, while other linguists are eagerly negating any
possibility of its existence as an element of grammar. The verbal voice
invites its investigators to exchange mutually opposing views regarding
both the content and the number of its forms. The problem of the
subjunctive mood may justly be called one of the most vexed in the theory
of grammar: the exposition of its structural properties, its inner
divisions, as well as its correlation with the indicative mood vary
literally from one linguistic author to another.
On the face of it, one might get an impression that the morphological
study of the English finite verb has amounted to interminable aimless
exchange of arguments, ceaseless advances of opposing "points of view", the
actual aim of which has nothing to do with the practical application of
linguistic theory to life. However, the fallacy of such an impression
should be brought to light immediately and uncompromisingly.
As a matter of fact, it is the verb system that, of all the spheres of
morphology, has come under the most intensive and fruitful analysis
undertaken by contemporary linguistics. In the course of these studies the
oppositional nature of the categorial structure of the verb was disclosed
and explicitly formulated; the paradigmatic system of the expression of
verbal functional semantics was described competently, though in varying
technical terms, and the correlation of form and meaning in the composition
of functionally relevant parts of this system was demonstrated explicitly
on the copious material gathered.
Theoretical discussions have not ceased, nor subsided. On the contrary,
they continue and develop, though on an ever more solid scientific
foundation; and the cumulative
124
descriptions of the English verb provide now an integral picture of its
nature which the grammatical theory has never possessed before. Indeed, it
is due to this advanced types of study that the structural and semantic
patterning of verbal constructions successfully applied to teaching
practices on all the stages of tuition has achieved so wide a scope.
§ 2. The following presentation of the categorial system of the English
verb is based on oppositional criteria worked out in the course of
grammatical studies of language by Soviet and foreign scholars. We do not
propose to develop a description in which the many points of discussion
would receive an exposition in terms of anything like detailed analysis.
Our aim will rather be only to demonstrate some general principles of
approach — such principles as would stimulate the student\'s desire to see
into the inner meaningful workings of any grammatical construction which
are more often than not hidden under the outer connections of its textual
elements; such principles as would develop the student\'s ability to rely on
his own resources when coming across concrete dubious cases of grammatical
structure and use; such principles as, finally, would provide the student
with a competence enabling him to bring his personal efforts of grammatical
understanding to relevant correlation with the recognised theories,
steering open-eyed among the differences of expert opinion.
The categorial spheres to be considered in this book are known from every
topical description of English grammar. They include the systems of
expressing verbal person, number, time, aspect, voice, and mood. But the
identification and the distribution of the actual grammatical categories of
the verb recognised in our survey will not necessarily coincide with the
given enumeration, which will be exposed and defended with the presentation
of each particular category that is to come under study.
CHAPTER XIII
VERB: PERSON AND NUMBER
§ 1. The categories of person and number are closely connected with each
other. Their immediate connection is conditioned by the two factors: first,
by their situational semantics, referring the process denoted by the verb
to the
125
subject of the situation, i.e. to its central substance (which exists in
inseparable unity of "quality" reflected in the personal denotation, and
"quantity" reflected in the numerical denotation); second, by their direct
and immediate relation to the syntactic unit expressing the subject as the
functional part of the sentence.
Both categories are different in principle from the other categories of
the finite verb, in so far as they do not convey any inherently "verbal"
semantics, any constituents of meaning realised and confined strictly
within the boundaries of the verbal lexeme. The nature of both of them is
purely "reflective" (see Ch. III, §5).
Indeed, the process itself, by its inner quality and logical status,
cannot be "person-setting" in any consistent sense, the same as it cannot
be either "singular" or "plural"; and this stands in contrast with the
other properties of the process, such as its development in time, its being
momentary or repeated, its being completed or incompleted, etc. Thus, both
the personal and numerical semantics, though categorially expressed by the
verb, cannot be characterised as process-relational, similar to the other
aspects of the verbal categorial semantics. These aspects of semantics are
to be understood only as substance-relational, reflected in the verb from
the interpretation and grammatical featuring of the subject.
§ 2. Approached from the strictly morphemic angle, the analysis of the
verbal person and number leads the grammarian to the statement of the
following converging and diverging features of their forms.
The expression of the category of person is essentially confined to the
singular form of the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood and,
besides, is very singularly presented in the future tense. As for the past
tense, the person is alien to it, except for a trace of personal
distinction in the archaic conjugation.
In the present tense the expression of the category of person is divided
into three peculiar subsystems.
The first subsystem includes the modal verbs that have no personal
inflexions: can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, dare. So, in the
formal sense, the category of person is wholly neutralised with these
verbs, or, in plainer words, it is left unexpressed.
The second subsystem is made up by the unique verbal
126
lexeme be. The expression of person by this lexeme is the direct opposite
to its expression by modal verbs: if the latter do not convey the
indication of person in any morphemic sense at all, the verb be has three
different suppletive personal forms, namely: am for the first person
singular, is for the third person singular, and are as a feature marking
the finite form negatively: neither the first, nor the third person
singular. It can\'t be taken for the specific positive mark of the second
person for the simple reason that it coincides with the plural all-person
(equal to none-person) marking.
The third subsystem presents just the regular, normal expression of
person with the remaining multitude of the English verbs, with each
morphemic variety of them. From the formal point of view, this subsystem
occupies the medial position between the first two: if the verb be is at
least two-personal, the normal personal type of the verb conjugation is one-
personal. Indeed, the personal mark is confined here to the third person
singular -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz], the other two persons (the first and the
second) remaining unmarked, e.g. comes — come, blows — blow, slops — stop,
chooses — choose.
As is known, alongside of this universal system of three sets of personal
verb forms, modern English possesses another system of person-conjugation
characterising elevated modes of speech (solemn addresses, sermons, poetry,
etc.) and stamped with a flavour of archaism. The archaic person-
conjugation has one extra feature in comparison with the common
conjugation, namely, a special inflexion for the second person singular.
The three described subsystems of the personal verb forms receive the
following featuring:
The modal person-conjugation is distinguished by one morphemic mark,
namely, the second person: canst, may(e)st, wilt, shalt, shouldst, wouldst,
ought(e)st, need(e)st, durst.
The personal be-conjugation is complete in three explicitly marked forms,
having a separate suppletive presentation for each separate person: am,
art, is.
The archaic person-conjugation of the rest of the verbs, though richer
than the common system of person forms, still occupies the medial position
between the modal and be-conjugation. Two of the three of its forms, the
third and second persons, are positively marked, while the first person
remains unmarked, e.g. comes — comest—come, blows — blowest — blow, stops —
stoppest —stop, chooses — choosest — choose.
As regards the future tense, the person finds here quite
127
another mode of expression. The features distinguishing it from the present-
tense person conjugation are, first, that it marks not the third, but the
first person in distinction to the remaining two; and second, that it
includes in its sphere also the plural. The very principle of the person
featuring is again very peculiar in the future tense as compared with the
present tense, consisting not in morphemic inflexion, nor even in the
simple choice of person-identifying auxiliaries, but in the oppositional
use of shall — will specifically marking the first person (expressing,
respectively, voluntary and non-voluntary future), which is contrasted
against the oppositional use of will — shall specifically marking the
second and third persons together (expressing, respectively, mere future
and modal future). These distinctions, which will be described at more
length further on, are characteristic only of British English.
A trace of person distinction is presented in the past tense with the
archaic form of the second person singular. The form is used but very
occasionally, still it goes with the pronoun thou, being obligatory with
it. Here is an example of its individualising occurrence taken from E.
Hemingway: Thyself and thy horses. Until thou hadst horses thou wert with
us. Now thou art another capitalist more.
Thus, the peculiarity of the archaic past tense person-conjugation is
that its only marked form is not the third person as in the present tense,
nor the first person as in the British future tense, but the second person.
This is what might be called "little whims of grammar"!
§ 3. Passing on to the expression of grammatical number by the English
finite verb, we are faced with the interesting fact that, from the formally
morphemic point of view, it is hardly featured at all.
As a matter of fact, the more or less distinct morphemic featuring of the
category of number can be seen only with the archaic forms of the unique
be, both in the present tense and in the past tense. But even with this
verb the featuring cannot be called quite explicit, since the opposition of
the category consists in the unmarked plural form for all the persons being
contrasted against the marked singular form for each separate person, each
singular person thereby being distinguished by its own, specific form. It
means that the expressions of person and number by the archaic conjugation
of be in terms of the lexeme as a whole are formally not strictly
128
separated from each other, each singular mark conveying at once a double
grammatical sense, both of person and number. Cf.: am — are; art — are; was
(the first and the third persons, i.e. non-second person) — were; wast
(second person) — were.
In the common conjugation of be, the blending of the person and number
forms is more profound, since the suppletive are, the same as its past
tense counterpart were, not being confined to the plural sphere, penetrate
the singular sphere, namely, the expression of the second person (which
actually becomes non-expression because of the formal coincidence).
As for the rest of the verbs, the blending of the morphemic expression of
the two categories is complete, for the only explicit morphemic opposition
in the integral categorial sphere of person and number is reduced with
these verbs to the third person singular (present tense, indicative mood)
being contrasted against the unmarked finite form of the verb.
§ 4. The treatment of the analysed categories on a formal basis, though
fairly consistent in the technical sense, is, however, lacking an explicit
functional appraisal. To fill the gap, we must take into due account not
only the meaningful aspect of the described verbal forms in terms of their
reference to the person-number forms of the subject, but also the
functional content of the subject-substantival categories of person and
number themselves.
The semantic core of the substantival (or pronominal, for that matter)
category of person is understood nowadays in terms of deictic, or
indicative signification.
The deictic function of lingual units, which has come under careful
linguistic investigation of late, consists not in their expressing self-
dependent and self-sufficient elements of meaning, but in pointing out
entities of reality in their spatial and temporal relation to the
participants of speech communication. In this light, the semantic content
of the first person is the indication of the person who is speaking, but
such an indication as is effected by no other individual than himself. This
self-indicative role is performed lexically by the personal pronoun I. The
semantic content of the second person is the indication of the individual
who is listening to the first person speaking — but again such an
indication as viewed and effected by the speaker. This listener-indicative
function is performed by the personal pronoun you. Now,
9—1499 129
the semantic content of the third person is quite different from that of
either the first or second person. Whereas the latter two express the
immediate participants of the communication, the third person indicates all
the other entities of reality, i.e. beings, things, and phenomena not
immediately included in the communicative situation, though also as viewed
by the speaker, at the moment of speech. This latter kind of indication may
be effected in the two alternative ways. The first is a direct one, by
using words of a full meaning function, either proper, or common, with the
corresponding specifications achieved with the help of indicators-
determiners (articles and pronominal words of diverse linguistic
standings). The second is an oblique one, by using the personal pronouns
he, she, or it, depending on the gender properties of the referents. It is
the second way, i.e. the personal pronominal indication of the third person
referent, that immediately answers the essence of the grammatical category
of person as such, i.e. the three-stage location of the referent in
relation to the speaker: first, the speaker himself; second, his listener;
third, the non-participant of the communication, be it a human non-
participant or otherwise.
As we see, the category of person taken as a whole is, as it were,
inherently linguistic, the significative purpose of it being confined to
indications centering around the production of speech.
Let us now appraise the category of number represented in the forms of
personal pronouns, i.e. the lexemic units of language specially destined to
serve the speaker-listener lingual relation.
One does not have to make great exploratory efforts in order to realise
that the grammatical number of the personal pronouns is extremely peculiar,
in no wise resembling the number of ordinary substantive words. As a matter
of fact, the number of a substantive normally expresses either the
singularity or plurality of its referent ("one — more than one", or, in
oppositional appraisal, "plural — non-plural"), the quality of the
referents, as a rule, not being re-interpreted with the change of the
number (the many exceptions to this rule lie beyond the purpose of our
present discussion). For instance, when speaking about a few powder-
compacts, I have in mind just several pieces of them of absolutely the same
nature. Or when referring to a team of eleven football-players, I mean
exactly so many members of this sporting group. With the personal pronouns,
though, it is "different,
130
and the cardinal feature of the difference is the heterogeneity of the
plural personal pronominal meaning.
Indeed, the first person plural does not indicate the plurality of the
"ego", it can\'t mean several I\'s. What it denotes in fact, is the speaker
plus some other person or persons belonging, from the point of view of the
utterance content, to the same background. The second person plural is
essentially different from the first person plural in so far as it does not
necessarily express, but is only capable of expressing similar semantics.
Thus, it denotes either more than one listener (and this is the ordinary,
general meaning of the plural as such, not represented in the first
person); or, similar to the first person, one actual listener plus some
other person or persons belonging to the same background in the speaker\'s
situational estimation; or, again specifically different from the first
person, more than one actual listener plus some other person or persons of
the corresponding interpretation. Turning to the third person plural, one
might feel inclined to think that it would wholly coincide with the plural
of an ordinary substantive name. On closer observation, however, we note a
fundamental difference here also. Indeed, the plural of the third person is
not the substantive plural proper, but the deictic, indicative, pronominal
plural; it is expressed through the intermediary reference to the direct
name of the denoted entity, and so may either be related to the singular he-
pronoun, or the she-рrоnоun, or the it-pronoun, or to any possible
combination of them according to the nature of the plural object of
denotation.
The only inference that can be made from the given description is that in
the personal pronouns the expression of the plural is very much blended
with the expression of the person, and what is taken to be three persons in
the singular and plural, essentially presents a set of six different forms
of blended person-number nature, each distinguished by its own
individuality. Therefore, in the strictly categorial light, we have here a
system not of three, but of six persons.
Returning now to the analysed personal and numerical forms of the finite
verb, the first conclusion to be drawn on the ground of the undertaken
analysis is, that their intermixed character, determined on the formal
basis, answers in general the mixed character of the expression of person
and number by the pronominal subject name of the predicative construction.
The second conclusion to be drawn, however, is that the described formal
person-number system of
9* 131
the finite verb is extremely and very singularly deficient. In fact, what
in this connection the regular verb-form does express morphemically, is
only the oppositional identification of the third person singular (to leave
alone the particular British English mode of expressing the person in the
future).
A question naturally arises: What is the actual relevance of this
deficient system in terms of the English language? Can one point out any
functional, rational significance of it, if taken by itself?
The answer to this question can evidently be only in the negative: in no
wise. There cannot be any functional relevance in such a system, if taken
by itself. But in language it does not exist by itself.
§ 5. As soon as we take into consideration the functional side of the
analysed forms, we discover at once that these forms exist in unity with
the personal-numerical forms of the subject. This unity is of such a nature
that the universal and true indicator of person and number of the subject
of the verb will be the subject itself, however trivial this statement may
sound. Essentially, though, there is not a trace of triviality in the
formula, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the substantive character of the
expressed categorial meanings, and on the other, the analytical basis of
the English grammatical structure. The combination of the English finite
verb with the subject is obligatory not only in the general syntactic
sense, but also in the categorial sense of expressing the subject-person of
the process.
An objection to this thesis can be made on the ground that in the text
the actual occurrence of the subject with the finite verb is not always
observed. Moreover, the absence of the subject in constructions of living
colloquial English is, in general, not an unusual feature. Observing
textual materials, we may come across cases of subject-wanting predicative
units used not only singly, as part of curt question-response exchange, but
also in a continual chain of speech. Here is an example of a chain of this
type taken from E. Hemingway:
"No one shot from cars," said Wilson coldly. "I mean chase them from
cars."
"Wouldn\'t ordinarily," Wilson said. "Seemed sporting enough to me though
while we were doing it. Taking more
132
chance driving that way across the plain full of holes and one thing and
another than hunting on foot. Buffalo could have charged us each time we
shot if he liked. Gave him every chance. Wouldn\'t mention it to any one
though. It\'s illegal if that\'s what you mean."
However, examples like this cannot be taken for a disproof of the
obligatory connection between the verb and its subject, because the
corresponding subject-nouns, possibly together with some other accompanying
words, are zeroed on certain syntactico-stylistical principles (brevity of
expression in familiar style, concentration on the main informative parts
of the communication, individual speech habits, etc.). Thus, the distinct
zero-representation of the subject does give expression to the verbal
person-number category even in conditions of an outwardly gaping void in
place of the subject in this or that concrete syntactic construction used
in the text. Due to the said zero-representation, we can easily reconstruct
the implied person indications in the cited passage: "I wouldn\'t
ordinarily"; "It seemed sporting enough"; "It was taking more chance
driving that way"; "We gave him every chance"; "I wouldn\'t mention it to
any one".
Quite naturally, the non-use of the subject in an actual utterance may
occasionally lead to a referential misunderstanding or lack of
understanding, and such situations are reflected in literary works by
writers — observers of human speech as well as of human nature. A vivid
illustration of this type of speech informative deficiency can be seen in
one of K. Mansfield\'s stories:
"Fried or boiled?" asked the bold voice.
Fried or boiled? Josephine and Constantia were quite bewildered for the
moment. They could hardly take it in.
"Fried or boiled what, Kate?" asked Josephine, trying to begin to
concentrate.
Kate gave a loud sniff. "Fish."
"Well, why didn\'t you say so immediately?" Josephine reproached her
gently. "How could you expect us to understand, Kate? There are a great
many things in this world, you know, which are fried or boiled."
The referential gap in Kate\'s utterance gave cause to her bewildered
listener for a just reproach. But such lack of positive information in an
utterance is not to be confused with the non-expression of a grammatical
category. In this
133
connection, the textual zeroing of the subject-pronoun may be likened to
the textual zeroing of different constituents of classical analytical verb-
forms, such as the continuous, the perfect, and others: no zeroing can
deprive these forms of their grammatical, categorial status.
Now, it would be too strong to state that the combination of the subject-
pronoun with the finite verb in English has become an analytical person-
number form in the full sense of this notion. The English subject-pronoun,
unlike the French conjoint subject-pronoun (e.g. Je vous remercie — "I
thank you"; but: mon mari et moi — "my husband and I"), still retains its
self-positional syntactic character, and the personal pronominal words,
without a change of their nominative form, are used in various notional
functions in sentences, building up different positional sentence-parts
both in the role of head-word and in the role of adjunct-word. What we do
see in this combination is, probably, a very specific semi-analytical
expression of a reflective grammatical category through an obligatory
syntagmatic relation of the two lexemes: the lexeme-reflector of the
category and the lexeme-originator of the category. This mode of
grammatical expression can be called "junctional". Its opposite, i.e. the
expression of the categorial content by means of a normal morphemic or word-
morphemic procedure, can be, by way of contrast, tentatively called
"native". Thus, from the point of view of the expression of a category
either through the actual morphemic composition of a word, or through its
being obligatorily referred to another word in a syntagmatic string, the
corresponding grammatical forms will be classed into native and junctional.
About the person-numerical forms of the finite verb in question we shall
say that in the ordinary case of the third person singular present
indicative, the person and number of the verb are expressed natively, while
in most of the other paradigmatic locations they are expressed
junctionally, through the obligatory reference of the verb-form to its
subject.
This truth, not incapable of inviting an objection on the part of the
learned, noteworthily has been exposed from time immemorial in practical
grammar books, where the actual conjugation of the verb is commonly given
in the form of pronoun-verb combinations: I read, you read, he reads, we
read, you read, they read.
In point of fact, the English finite verb presented without its person-
subject is grammatically almost meaningless. The
134
presence of the two you\'s in practical tables of examples like the one
above, in our opinion, is also justified by the inner structure of
language. Indeed, since you is part of the person-number system, and not
only of the person system, it should be but natural to take it in the two
different, though mutually complementing interpretations — one for each of
the two series of pronouns in question, i.e. the singular series and the
plural series. In the light of this approach, the archaic form thou plus
the verb should be understood as a specific variant of the second person
singular with its respective stylistic connotations.
§ 6. The exposition of the verbal categories of person and number
presented here helps conveniently explain some special cases of the subject-
verb categorial relations. The bulk of these cases have been treated by
traditional grammar in terms of "agreement in sense", or "notional
concord". We refer to the grammatical agreement of the verb not with the
categorial form of the subject expressed morphemically, but with the actual
personal-numerical interpretation of the denoted referent.
Here belong, in the first place, combinations of the finite verb with
collective nouns. According as they are meant by the speaker either to
reflect the plural composition of the subject, or, on the contrary, to
render its integral, single-unit quality, the verb is used either in the
plural, or in the singular. E.g.:
The government were definitely against the bill introduced
by the opposing liberal party. The newly appointed
government has gathered for its first session.
In the second place, we see here predicative constructions whose subject
is made imperatively plural by a numeral attribute. Still, the
corresponding verb-form is used to treat it both ways: either as an
ordinary plural which fulfils its function in immediate keeping with its
factual plural referent, or as an integrating name, whose plural
grammatical form and constituent composition give only a measure to the
subject-matter of denotation. Cf.:
Three years have elapsed since we saw him last.
Three years is a long time to wait.\'
In the third place, under the considered heading come constructions whose
subject is expressed by a coordinative
135
group of nouns, the verb being given an option of treating it either as a
plural or as a singular. E.g.:
My heart and soul belongs to this small nation in its desperate struggle
for survival. My emotional self and rational self have been at variance
about the attitude adopted by Jane.
The same rule of "agreement in sense" is operative in relative clauses,
where the finite verb directly reflects the categories of the nounal
antecedent of the clause-introductory relative pronoun-subject. Cf.:
I who am practically unacquainted with the formal theory
of games can hardly suggest an alternative solution.- Your
words show the courage and the truth that I have always felt was in your
heart.
On the face of it, the cited examples might seem to testify to the
analysed verbal categories being altogether self-sufficient, capable, as it
were, even of "bossing" the subject as to its referential content. However,
the inner regularities underlying the outer arrangement of grammatical
connections are necessarily of a contrary nature: it is the subject that
induces the verb, through its inflexion, however scanty it may be, to help
express the substantival meaning not represented in the immediate
substantival form. That this is so and not otherwise, can be seen on
examples where the subject seeks the needed formal assistance from other
quarters than the verbal, in particular, having recourse to determiners.
Cf.: A full thirty miles was covered in less than half an hour; the car
could be safely relied on.
Thus, the role of the verb in such and like cases comes at most to that
of a grammatical intermediary.
From the functional point of view, the direct opposite to the shown
categorial connections is represented by instances of dialectal and
colloquial person-number neutralisation. Cf.:
"Ah! It\'s pity you never was trained to use your reason, miss" (B. Shaw).
"He\'s been in his room all day," the landlady said downstairs. "I guess he
don\'t feel well" (E. Hemingway). "What are they going to do to me?" Johnny
said. — "Nothing," I said. "They ain\'t going to do nothing to you" (W.
Saroyan).
Such and similar oppositional neutralisations of the
136
surviving verbal person-number indicators, on their part, clearly emphasise
the significance of the junctional aspect of the two inter-connected
categories reflected in the verbal lexeme from the substantival subject.
CHAPTER XIV VERB: TENSE
§ 1. The immediate expression of grammatical time, or "tense" (Lat.
tempus), is one of the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical
because the meaning of process, inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme,
finds its complete realisation only if presented in certain time
conditions. That is why the expression or non-expression of grammatical
time, together with the expression or non-expression of grammatical mood in
person-form presentation, constitutes the basis of the verbal category of
finitude, i.e. the basis of the division of all the forms of the verb into
finite and non-finite.
When speaking of the expression of time by the verb, it is necessary to
strictly distinguish between the general notion of time, the lexical
denotation of time, and the grammatical time proper, or grammatical
temporality.
The dialectical-materialist notion of time exposes it as the universal
form of the continual consecutive change of phenomena. Time, as well as
space are the basic forms of the existence of matter, they both are
inalienable properties of reality and as such are absolutely independent of
human perception. On the other hand, like other objective factors of the
universe, time is reflected by man through his perceptions and intellect,
and finds its expression in his language.
It is but natural that time as the universal form of consecutive change
of things should be appraised by the individual in reference to the moment
of his immediate perception of the outward reality. This moment of
immediate perception, or "present moment", which is continually shifting in
time, and the linguistic content of which is the "moment of speech", serves
as the demarcation line between the past and the future. All the lexical
expressions of time, according as they refer or do not refer the denoted
points or periods of time, directly or obliquely, to this moment, are
divided into "present-oriented", or "absolutive" expressions of time, and
"non-present-oriented", "non-absolutive" expressions of time.
137
The absolutive time denotation, in compliance with the experience gained
by man in the course of his cognitive activity, distributes the
intellective perception of time among three spheres: the sphere of the
present, with the present moment included within its framework; the sphere
of the past, which precedes the sphere of the present by way of retrospect;
the sphere of the future, which follows the sphere of the present by way of
prospect.
Thus, words and phrases like now, last week, in our century, in the past,
in the years to come, very soon, yesterday, in a couple of days, giving a
temporal characteristic to an event from the point of view of its
orientation in reference to the present moment, are absolutive names of
time.
The non-absolutive time denotation does not characterise an event in
terms of orientation towards the present. This kind of denotation may be
either "relative" or "factual".
The relative expression of time correlates two or more events showing
some of them either as preceding the others, or following the others, or
happening at one and the same time with them. Here belong such words and
phrases as after that, before that, at one and the same time with, some
time later, at an interval of a day or two, at different times, etc.
The factual expression of time either directly states the astronomical
time of an event, or else conveys this meaning in terms of historical
landmarks. Under this heading should be listed such words and phrases as in
the year 1066, during the time of the First World War, at the epoch of
Napoleon, at the early period of civilisation, etc.
In the context of real speech the above types of time naming are used in
combination with one another, so that the denoted event receives many-sided
and very exact characterisation regarding its temporal status.
Of all the temporal meanings conveyed by such detailing lexical
denotation of time, the finite verb generalises in its categorial forms
only the most abstract significations, taking them as dynamic
characteristics of the reflected process. The fundamental divisions both of
absolutive time and of non-absolutive relative time find in the verb a
specific presentation, idiomatically different from one language to
another. The form of this presentation is dependent, the same as with the
expression of other grammatical meanings, on the concrete semantic features
chosen by a language as a basis
138
for the functional differentiation within the verb lexeme. And it is the
verbal expression of abstract, grammatical time that forms the necessary
background for the adverbial contextual time denotation in an utterance;
without the verbal background serving as a universal temporal "polariser"
and "leader", this marking of time would be utterly inadequate. Indeed,
what informative content should the following passage convey with all its
lexical indications of time {in the morning, in the afternoon, as usual,
never, ever), if it were deprived of the general indications of time
achieved through the forms of the verb — the unit of the lexicon which the
German grammarians very significantly call "Zeitwort" — the "time-word":
My own birthday passed without ceremony. I worked as usual in the morning
and in the afternoon went for a walk in the solitary woods behind my house.
I have never been able to discover what it is that gives these woods their
mysterious attractiveness. They are like no woods I have ever known (S.
Maugham).
In Modern English, the grammatical expression of verbal time, i.e. tense,
is effected in two correlated stages. At the first stage, the process
receives an absolutive time characteristic by means of opposing the past
tense to the present tense. The marked member of this opposition is the
|
