Verb: the category of aspect

It is but natural that the verb should take up so much, or indeed, more space than all the other parts of speech we have so far considered, put together. It is the only part of speech in present – day English that has a morphological system based on a series of categories. It is the only part of speech that has analytical forms, and again the only one that has forms (the infinitive, the gerund and the participle) which occupy a peculiar position in its system and do not share some of the characteristic features of the part of speech as a whole.

In analysing the morphological structure of the English verb it is essential to distinguish between the morphological categories of the verb as such, and the syntactic features of the sentence (or clause) in which a form of the verb may happen to be used. This applies especially to the category of voice and, to a certain extent, to the categories of aspect and tense as well.

The order in which we shall consider the categories of the verb may to a certain extent be arbitrary. However, we should bear in mind that certain categories are most closely linked together than others. Thus, it stands to reason that the categories of aspect and tense are linked more closely than either of them is with the category of voice. It is also plain that there is a close connection between the categories of the tense and mood. These relations will have to be borne in mind as we start to analyse the categories of the verb.

One last preliminary remark may be necessary here. It is always tempting, but it may prove dangerous, to approach the morphological system of the verb in one language from the point of view of another language, for example, the student’s mother tongue, or a widely known language such as Latin. Of course the system of each language should be analysed on its own, and only after this has been done should to compare it with another. Anyway the assessment of the system of a given language ought not to be influenced by the student’s knowledge of another language. Neglect of this principle has often brought about differences in the treatment of the same language, depending on the student’s mother tongue.

We will begin the analysis of each verbal category by examining two forms or two sets of forms v differing from each other according to that category only.

Aspect.

The category of Aspect is a linguistic representation of the conceptual category which is defined as Aspectuality, the latter reflecting the objective category of Manner of action.

The problem of Aspect in English has always been one of most disputable and controversial. The discrepancy in views upon aspects in English is elicited by the diversity of their definitions.

First of all, Aspect should be defined in its linguistic status as a morphological category which represents Aspectuality in morphological or lexico – morphological ways.

The recognition of the morphological nature of Aspect makes it possible to exclude from aspects different lexical and it possible to exclude from aspects different lexical and lexico – syntactical devices of expressing Aspectuality which are widely used in Modern English. It follows that the number of aspects in a language and their character depend on how many and which of the notions of Aspectuality are represented lingually in the language by means of morphological or lexico – morphological devices.

Commenting upon the realization of the category of Aspect we should bear in mind that there is only one morphological verb – form

which marks Aspectuality and signifies Continuality or Durativeness.

Referring back to the point mentioned previously, a distinction between Continuous and non – Continunous aspective forms mustbe made. Furthermore, the Continuos forms is marked analytically by the Vbe + Ving marker whereas the non Continuous is, on the contray, unmarked. The paradigmatic meaning of the Continuous forms n English is “Durativeness” or Progressiveness”.The existence of the Continuous aspect in Modern English is not refutable because there is the corresponding aspect opposition of Continuous and non – Continuous forms of the analytical Vbe + Ving and the zero markers. But, as the triangle pattern shows, there are some other morphological and lexico – morphological devices signifying different aspectual notions in the frame of Aspectuality. A question aries whether or not such devices can be qualified as aspect – markers. On the one hand, the Present Perfect, for instance, satisfies the requirements to be an aspect – marker: it is a morphological form of the verb and it signifies Perfectiveness or Resultiveness. On the other hand, these meanings are not quite categorial meanings of the Perfect as it is. As mentioned, the English Perfect can hardly be recognized as grammatical category because the Perfect forms have no invariant categorial meaning common for all o such forms. The only way out is to admit that the Present Perfect, which stands apart from other Perfect forms, has or retains its aspectual nature due to its ability to signify aspectual meaning.

Another refutable question concerns the nature and status of some postfixes which are found with the verbs as postpositions. We are not going to dwell here upon the nature of the adverbial postpositions which are lexico – grammatical verbal particles. But there are such postfixes as up, on and off which are devoid of any lexical meaning. Their grammatical nature is revealed in their signifying. Their grammatical nature is revealed in their signifying Perfectiveness or Terminativeness. In view of this, these postfixes occur as the significators of Aspectuality and can be recognized as aspect – markers. Nevertheless, these are not categorial markers, they do not stand in any categorial aspect opposition. We can admit, of course, that these postfixes mark the selectional Aspect, which is intermediate in its status: form – derivational and word – building at the same time.

In conclusion, we would supply some examples in which the Perfectiveness or Terminativeness are expressed by means of different devices.

There are two sets of forms in the Modern English verb which are contrasted with each other on the principle of use or non – use of the pattern “be + first participle”:

writes - is writing

wrote - was writing

will write - will be writing

has written - has been writing

etc.

These two sets of forms clearly belong to the same verb write and there is some grammatical difference between them. We will not here consider the question whether the relation between writes and is writing is exactly the same as that between wrote and was writing, etc. We will assume that it is the same relation.

What, then, is the basic difference between writes and is writing, or between wrote and was writing given in various grammar books, e shall find, with some variations of detail, that the basic characteristic of is writing is this: it denotes an action proceeding continuously at a define 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 repeatedly or everlasting, without any notion of lasting duration at a given moment. It should be noted here that many variations of this essential meaning may be due to the lexical meaning of the verb and of the other words in the sentence; thus there is some difference in this respect between the sentence the earth turns round the sun and the sentence the sun rises in the East; the action mentioned in the former sentence goes on without interruption, whereas that mentioned in the latter sentence is repeated every morning and does not take place at all in the evening, etc. But this is irrelevant for the meaning of the grammatical form as such and merely serves to illustrate its possible applications.

The basic difference between the two sets of forms, then, appears to e 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.Now, the question must be answered, how should this essential difference in meaning between the two sets of forms be described. The best way to describe it would seem to be this: it is a difference in the way the action is shown to proceed. Now this is the grammatical notion described as the category of aspect with reference to the Slavonic languages (Russian, Polish, Czech, etc.), and also to ancient Greek, in which this category is clearly expressed.

As is well known, not every verb is commonly used in the form “be + first principle”. Verbs denoting abstract relations, such as belong , and those denoting sense perception or emotion, e. g. see, hear, hope, love, seldom appear in this form. It should be noted, however, that the impossibility of these verbs appearing in this form is sometimes exaggerated. Such categoric statements give the reader a wrong idea of the facts as they are not verified by actual modern usage. Thus, the verb see, hope, like, fear and others, though denoting perception or feelings (emotions), may be found in this form, e.g. It was as if she were seeing herself for the first time in a year. The form “be + first participle” is very appropriate here, as it does not admit of the action being interpreted as momentaneous (corresponding to the perfective aspect in Russian) and makes it absolutely clear that what is meant is a sense perception going on (involuntarily) for some time.

This use of the form is also well illustrated by the following bit of dialogue from a modern short story : “Miss Courtright – I want to see you,” he said, quickly averting his eyes. “Will you let me - Miss Courtright – will you? “Of course, Merle,” she said, smiling a little. “You’re seeing me right now.” It might probably have been possible to use here the present indefinite : “You see me right now,” but the use of the continuous gives additional emphasis to the idea that the action, that is, the perception denoted by the verb see, is already taking place. Thus the descriptive possibilities of the continuous form are as effective here with the verb of perception as they are with any other verb.

A rather typical example of the use of the verb see in the continuous aspect is the following sentence: Her breath came more evenly now, and she gave a smile so wide and open, her great eyes taking in the entire room and a part of the mountains towards which she had half turned, that it was as though she were seeing the world for the first time and might clap her hands to see it dance about her.

Here are some more examples of continuous forms of verbs which are generally believed not favour these forms: Both were visibly hearing every word of the conversation and ignoring it, at the same time. The shade of meaning provided by the continuous will be best seen by comparing the sentence as it stands with the following variant, in which both forms of the continuous have been replaced by the corresponding indefinite forms: Both visibly heard every word of the conversation and ignored it, at the same time. The descriptive character of the original text has disappeared after the substitution: instead of followings, as it were, the gradual unfolding of the hearing process and the gradual accumulation of “ignoring”, the speaker now merely states the fact that the two things happened. So the shades of meaning differentiating the two aspect forms are strong enough to overcome what one might conventionally term the “disclination” of verbs of perception towards the continuous aspect.We also find the verb look used in a continuous form where it means “have the air”, not “cast a look”: Mr March was looking absent and sombre again. This is appropriate here, as it expresses a temporary state of things coming after an interruption (this is seen from the adverb again)and lasting for some time at least. Compare also the verb hope: You’re rather hoping he does know, aren’t you? If we compare this sentence and a possible variant with the present indefinite: You rather hope he does know, don’t you? We shall see that the original text serves to make the idea of hope more emphatic and so the form of the continuous aspect does here serve a useful purpose. But I’m hoping she’ll come round soon… Let us again compare the text with a variant: But I hope she’ll come round soon… The difference in this case is certainly much less marked than in the preceding example: there is no process going on anyway, and it is clear from the context (especially the adverbial modifier soon) that the feeling spoken of only refers to a very limited space of time. So the extra shade of meaning brought by the continuous form appears to be only that of emphasis.

Our next example is of the link verb be in the continuous aspect form: There were a few laughs which showed however that the sale, on the whole, was being a success. With the non – continuous form substituted: There were a few laughs which showed however that the sale, on the whole, was a success. In this instance, once more, the difference would appear to be essential. In the text as it stands, it is certain that the laughs mentioned were heard while the sale was still going on, whereas in the second variant this left to conjecture: they might as well have been heard after the sale was concluded, when some people were discussing its results. So the continuous form of the link verb has an important function in the sentence. Compare also the following: You are being presumptuous in a way you wouldn’t be with anyone else, and I don’t like it. Compare also the following: you are being presumptuous in a way you wouldn’t be with anyone else, and I don’t like it. Compare also: “ I think you are being just,” Charles said… Here the continuous is perhaps more necessary still, as it clearly means that the person’s behaviour in a certain concrete situation is meant, not his general characteristic, which would be expressed by saying, “ I think you are just”. Compare also: Perhaps I’m being selfish… The link verb be is also use in the continuous aspect in the following passage: What I think is, you’re supposed to leave somebody alone if he’s at least being interesting and he’s getting all excited about something. He is being interesting obviously means here, “he is behaving in an interesting way”, or “he is trying to be interesting”, and it implies a certain amount of conscious effort, whereas he is interesting would merely mean that he has this quality as a permanent characteristic, without reference to any effort of will and without limitation to any period of time. Compare also: Now you are being rude.

Terminology

Each of the two aspects must be given some name which should of course be as adequate as possible to the basic meaning of the aspect. It seems easier to find a name for he type is writing than for the type writes. The term continuous aspect has now been in use for some time already and indeed it seems very appropriate to the phenomenon which it is used to describe. As to the type writes, a term is rather more difficult to find, as the uses of this form are much more varied and its intrinsic meaning, accordingly, less definite. This state of things may be best of all described by the term common aspect, which is indefinite enough to allow room for the various uses. It also has merit of being parallel with the term common case, which has been discussed above and which seems the best to denote the phenomenon if a case system in English nouns is recognized at all. Thus we will use the terms continuous aspect and common aspect to denote the two aspects of the Modern English verb.

Special usesHowever, the problem of aspect and their uses is by no means exhausted. First of all we must now mention the uses of the continuous aspect which do not easily fit into the definition given above. Forms of this aspect are occasionally used with the adverbs always, continually, etc., when the action is meant to be unlimited by time.

Aspect and character of the verb

The problem of aspect is intimately connected with a lexico -logical problem, which we shall therefore have to touch upon here. It may be well illustrated by the following series of examples. If we have, for example, the sentence, A young man was sitting in the corner of the room, without affecting he basic meaning of he 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 and “dry”, whereas the one with the continuous aspect form is more descriptive.

The absence of any actual difference in meaning in such a case is brought out in the following passage from a modern novel: Mr Bodiham was sitting in his study at the Rectory. The nineteenth – century Gothic windows, narrow and pointed, admitted the light grudgingly; in spite of the brilliant July weather, the room was sombre. Brown varnished bookshelves lined the walls, filled with row upon row of those thick, heavy theological works which the second – hand booksellers generally sell by weight. The mantelpiece, the overmantel, a towering structure of spindly pillars and little shelves, were brown and varnished. The writing – desk was brown and varnished. So were the chairs, so was the door. A dark red – brown carpet with patterns covered the floor everything was brown in the room, and there was a curious brownish smell. In the midst of this brown gloom Mr Bodiham sat at his deks.

By comparing the first and the last sentence of this passage it will be seen that they tell of the same situation, but in different ways. The first sentence is clearly descriptive, and it opens a rather lengthy description of Mr Bodiham’s room, its furniture, books, etc. the last sentence of the passage, on the other hand confirms the fact that Mr Bodiham sat in his study, as if summing up the situation. So the same fact is told a second time and the difference in the stylistic qualities of the continuous and the common aspect is well brought out.

On the other hand, if we have the sentence He brought her some flowers and if we substitute was bringing for brought and say, He was bringing her some flowers, the meaning will be affected and the two facts will be different. With the common aspect form brought the sentence means that the flowers actually reached her, whereas the continuous aspect from means that he had the flowers with him but something prevented him from giving them to her. We might then say that he sat = he was sitting,, whereas he brought = he was bringing.. What is the cause of this difference? Here we shall have to touch on a lexicological problem, without which the treatment of the continuous aspect cannot be complete. The verb sit denotes an action which can go on indefinitely without necessarily reaching a point where it has to stop, whereas the verb bring denotes an action which must come to an end owing to its very nature. It has now been customary for some time to call verbs of the sit type cursive, or durative, and verbs of the bring type terminative. We may then say that with cursive, or durative verbs, the difference between the common and the continuous aspect may be neutralized whereas with terminative verbs it cannot be neutralized, so that the form of the common aspect cannot be substitute for the form of the continuous aspect, and vice versa, without materially changing the meaning of the sentence.

A final note is necessary here on the relation between the aspects of the English verb and those of the Russian verb.Without going into details, we may assume that the Russian verb has two aspects, the perfective and the imperfective. Ll other varieties of aspectal meanings are to be considered within the framework of the two basic aspects. It is obvious at once that there is no direct correspondence between English continuous aspect is not identical with the Russian imperfective. The relation between the two system is not so simple as all that. On the one hand, the English common aspect may correspond not only to the Russian perfective but also to the Russian imperfective aspect; thus, he wrote may correspond both to написал and to писал. On te other hand, the Russian imperfective aspect may correspond not only to the continuous but also to the common aspect in English; thus, писал may correspond both to was writing and to wrote. It follows from this that the relation betwen the English and the Russian aspects may be represented by the following diagram:

English Common Continuous

Russian Perfective Imperfective

What is aspect?

1.Aspect describes whether the action is accomplished or still in progress.

2.Basically, there are two aspects: perfective and imperfective.

3. Perfective aspect describes actions viewed as an accomplished whole in a single point of time which happened in the past, or will happen in the future.

4. Imperfective aspect describes 1) an ongoing process, 2) a series of repeated actions which were taking place in the past, are taking place now, or will be taking place in the future.

5. Perfective verbs have always future meaning in their present tense form.

6. The future of imperfective verbs is always formed with the helping word budu + infinitive of the verb.

7. Verbs describing actions can be both perfective and imperfective,

8. Verbs describing states are always imperfective.

9. Perfective verbs can be made imperfective by means of prefixes and endings, and vice versa.

10. It is impossible to translate aspect directly using any of the English tenses and vice versa.