Download the category of aspect

INTRODUCTION – INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
The present course will deal with the traditional parts of speech, in particular with the grammatical
categories/inflectional categories traditionally associated with the major parts of speech such as tense,
aspect, mood, for the verb (number, gender, case, determination for nouns, pronouns etc, comparison for
adjectives and adverbs).
Language as an object of study has been approached from different perspectives: traditional
(descriptive; meant to observe and enumerate aspects of language); structuralist (descriptive; an attempt to
reflect the systematic character of language); generative (language is a body of rules by means of which all
the sentences can be obtained).
The structure of language can be analyzed in terms of levels of representation. For any utterance
there are:
- a phonological level – strings of phonemes
- a morphological level – morphemes and words
- a syntactic level – phrases and sentences
- a semantic level – semantic concepts: events, objects, states, processes
“Morphology” is a term based on the Greek words morphe (=form/structure) and logie
(=account/study). In fact, the term can apply to any domain of human activity that studies the structure or
form of something. In linguistics, morphology is the sub-discipline that accounts for the internal structure
of words.
There are two types of complexity of word-structure: one is due to the presence of inflections and
another due to the presences of derivational elements. Both operations add extra elements to what is known
as the base.
Derivation refers to word formation processes such as affixation, compounding and conversion.
Derivational processes typically induce a change in the lexical category of the item they operate on and
even introduce new meanings (-er adds the meaning of agent/instrument).
Inflection encompasses the grammatical categories/markers for number, gender, case, person,
tense, aspect, mood and comparison. It is defined as “a change in the form of a word to express its relation
to other words in the sentence”. Inflectional operations do not change the category they operate on (goes or
grammars are just variants of one and the same word go and grammar). Actually, they are formal markers
that help us delimit the lexical category of a word, i.e. the parts of speech. In this respect, lexical items
(words) that are distributionally similar (i.e. have the same distributional properties) form classes.
(Traditionalists: parts of speech, structuralists: form/morpheme classes; generativists: lexical categories).
All these terms are intended to designate elements from the same pool – N, V, A, Adv, P etc. – but the
different terms are associated with the theoretical frames in which they were used and, hence, with methods
of doing lg. research specific for that theoretical framework.
-
Inflectional affixes have the following characteristics:
They produce closure upon words (can no longer attach a derivational element to them)
Inflected forms are organized in paradigms, i.e. they are in complementary distribution; for
instance, nouns occurs in pairs hat – hats, book – books.
The elements of a paradigm may evince the phenomenon of suppletion – one of the forms is not
phonologically related to the other: went for go, better for good.
A paradigm can be defective – lacks a form: can - *cans, trousers - *trouser.
Inflections are formal markers (semantically they are empty, abstract); they help us delimit the
lexical category of the word to which they attach. In other words, each lexical category (major part
of speech) is characterized by specific inflectional markers. Case, number, gender, and
determination characterize nouns. Tense, aspect, mood, number and person characterize verbs.
Person, number and –in some cases – gender characterize pronouns. Adjectives and adverbs are
characterized by comparison. Although all of them lack descriptive content, they pass on the
descriptive content of the category they depend on.
Traditional approaches:
The basic unit of analysis was the word. Words operated as signs, i.e. as instruments for the description and
understanding of reality. They were classified into parts of speech and set into paradigms of declension and
conjugation.
Traditional theories described words in terms of the traditional list of Aristotelian categories. Aristotle
assumed that the physical world consisted of things (substances), which had certain properties (called
accidents). Transferred to morphology, the substance of a word (its meaning) had to be distinguished from
its accidents, i.e. the different forms it assumed in linguistic context. Thus, certain accidental categories
were considered to be typical for particular parts of speech: nouns (inflected for case, number, gender;
verbs for tense, number, person, mood, aspect). Hence, what are traditionally referred to as grammatical
categories correspond to the accidental categories, and this explains the older term ‘accidence’ for what is
also known as inflectional variation.
The Aristotelian opposition matter vs. form also helped grammarians distinguish between major and minor
parts of speech. Only major parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs) were meaningful. The
other parts of speech (conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, determiners, quantifiers, etc.) known as minor
parts of speech did not signify anything of themselves but merely contributed to the total meaning of
sentences by imposing upon them a certain form or organization.
Thus, in delimiting parts of speech, traditionalist grammars, called ‘notional’, employed three criteria:
meaning, inflectional variation and syntactic function. Meaning was basic and it was correlated with the
other two criteria. The last two criteria are based on formal properties, so they define parts of speech in
terms of their distribution. Notional definitions were incorrect in that they were circular – a term was
explained by resorting to the same term. For instance, the noun was defined as the name of a living being or
lifeless thing. But ‘virtue’ is neither a lifeless being, nor a living being, the only reason for saying that
‘virtue’ is a thing is that the word that refers to it is a noun.
Structuralist approaches:
It is a formal approach. Language was regarded as a system of relations, the elements of which had no
validity independently of the relations of equivalence and contrast that held between them (syntagmatic and
paradigmatic relations). It excluded meaning from its analysis and was based only on the distribution of the
items analyzed. In structuralism, the lexical items (the traditional major parts of speech) and the
grammatical items (typically the minor parts of speech and inflectional affixes) are distinguished in terms
of paradigmatic oppositions and fall into two classes: open vs. closed classes of items.
Open classes (nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs) have large numbers of items and new members can be
added by coining or borrowing.
Closed classes (conjunctions, prepositions, determiners, pronouns, etc. and inflectional affixes) include
terms that have no descriptive content, having a fixed/limited number of items.
Generative approaches:
They are similar to the structuralists approaches in the sense that the lexical/grammatical categories can be
defined only through their roles in the rules and principles of grammar.
NB grammatical categories in generative approaches no longer refer to inflectional markers, but to
syntactic categories (sentence, noun phrase, verb phrase etc.). Generative grammars operate with two types
of categories: lexical and grammatical/syntactic categories. Lexical categories (N, V, A) coincide with the
traditional parts of speech and the structuralist open classes, and grammatical categories (NP, VP, AP)
correspond to phrases or syntagms – specific sequences of words.
Each lexical category has a corresponding syntactic phrase - N → NP. In other words, syntactic
phrases are projections of lexical categories. Then we translate the syntactic information in N → NP into
functional information (i.e. the subcategorisation frame [_ NP] which is characteristic of a transitive verb is
converted into functional information by stating that direct objects are characteristic of transitive verbs).
According to this theoretical model, it is not lexical categories (N, V, A etc.) that correspond to
semantic categories, but major syntactic categories (NP, VP, AP etc.) The syntactic categories are in a
relation of correspondence with semantic categories such as events, processes, states, individual objects etc.
We shall clarify this later on when we discuss number, aspect etc. As we shall see, events are represented
by the syntactic category of verb phrase, e.g. read a novel, paint a picture. Objects will be represented by
the syntactic category of noun phrases: the chair, a chair, my chair, this chair etc. In other words, the
ontological (semantic) categories are represented by major syntactic phrases, not by lexical categories.
The lexical categories are defined in terms of features to be found in their lexical entries in the
lexicon. These features include morpho-syntactic categories, i.e. inflections.
Various parts of speech display certain categorical similarities, which can be represented in terms
of shared features.
The most important opposition for the parts of speech system is the opposition between verbal and
nominal categories. Parts of speech are analyzed along the dimension [+/- V] or [+/- N]. The [+/- N]
categories (A, N) are marked for gender, number and case, while the [+/- V] categories are not
characterized by these features. Adjectives and adverbs share the inflectional/functional category of
comparison.
Another important opposition is between lexical categories and functional categories. This opposition
is in part the same as the structural distinction between open classes (N, V, A etc.) and closed classes
(Determiner, Inflection, Complementizer etc) of items. The open classes are defined as classes with
descriptive/semantic content (N, V, A) containing indefinitely many items and which allow conscious
coining, borrowing etc. On the other hand, functional categories include free morphemes: determiners,
quantifiers, pronouns, auxiliary verbs, complementizers etc. and bound morphemes/inflectional affixes:
inflections for tense, aspect, agreement/number. Hence the term ‘functional categories’ covers minor parts
of speech and inflectional categories. They form a closed set of items which
- never occur alone,
- have a unique Complement and can’t be separated from it,
- lack descriptive semantic content,
- act as operators placing the Complement in time, in the world
- are heads of lexical categories.
Information expressed by inflection is not always dictated by syntactic structure. There are two types of
inflection:
- Inherent/morphological inflection (not required by the syntactic context): number with nouns and
pronouns, person for pronouns, gender for nouns.
- Contextual/syntactic (which follows from syntax): number and person in verbs, case in nouns.
For instance:
They are running in the field now.
He is running home now.
They – 3rd p.pl. – information contained in the lexical meaning of they. Hence, inherent.
Are running vs. is running is contextual information provided by the context in which the verb is used and
triggered by the presence of an agreement between the subject and the verb.
Gender for nouns is inherent. E.g. queen.
Case for nouns is contextual (triggered by the type of verb – double transitive as in ask somebody
a question or a verb with dative and accusative as in lend money to someone).
THE CATEGORY OF ASPECT
Aspect – a notion of time, distinct from tense, which describes the internal temporal structure of events
What Tense and Aspect have in common: both are functional categories delimiting the lexical category
Verb, they are related morpho-syntactically (realized by verb inflections and auxiliaries) and semantically
(both partake of the notion Time but in distinct ways).
Where Tense and Aspect differ:
Tense – represents the chronological order of events in time as perceived by the speaker at the moment of
speaking; it locates the time of the event in the sentence relative to NOW
Aspect – gives info about the contour of the event as viewed by the speaker at a given moment in time
Traditional grammars: aspect is used for the perfective – imperfective opposition, referring to different
ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation
The perfective – provides a holistic view upon the event, looking at the situation from outside
The imperfective – is concerned with the internal phases of the situation, it looks at the situation from
inside
Current approaches: aspect covers two perspectives. It is still used to refer to the presentation of events
through grammaticized viewpoints such as the perfective and the imperfective (viewpoint / grammatical
aspect). In addition, the term also refers to the inherent temporal structuring of the situations themselves,
internal event structure or Aktionsart (situation/eventuality-type aspect). Situation/eventuality type aspect
refers to the classification of verbal expressions into states, activities, achievements, accomplishments and
semelfactives (how we conceive of situations or states of affairs).
Both viewpoint aspect and situation type aspect convey info about temporal factors such as the beginning,
end and duration of a state of affairs/situation. However, we need to draw a clear line between them as
situation types and viewpoint aspect are realized differently in the grammar of language, i.e. they differ in
their linguistic expression:
- viewpoint aspect (perfective vs imperfective) is signaled by a grammatical morpheme in English
(be-ing); it is an overt category
- situation type aspect is signaled by a constellation of lexical morphemes. Situation types are
distinguished at the level of the verb constellation (i.e. the verb and its arguments (subjects and
objects) and the sentence (adverbials)). Situation types lack explicit morphological markers.
Situation type aspect exemplifies the notion of a covert category.
Compare:
She ate an apple.
She was eating an apple.
She walked to the park.
She was walking to the park.
The two components of the aspectual system of a language interact with each other in all languages,
although across languages, aspectual systems vary considerably, especially the viewpoint subsystem.
Situation types can be distinguished as covert categories in all languages.
Since Aspect can be assumed to be defined as the interaction of the lexical meaning of the verb, the
nature of its arguments (subjects and objects) and grammatical inflection, aspectual meaning holds for
sentences rather than for individual verbs or verb phrases. Sentences present aspectual info about
situation type and viewpoint. Although they co-occur, the two types of info are independent. Consider:
Mary walked to school. (perfective – past tense, goal / natural endpoint)
Mary was walking to school. (imperfective – be-ing, goal not reached)
Mary walked in the park. (perfective, no goal; the event was simply terminated)
Conclusion:
Aspectual info is given by the linguistic forms of the sentences: situation type is signaled by the verb
and its arguments, while viewpoint is signaled by a grammatical morpheme, usually part of the verb or
verb phrase. The perfective viewpoint gives info about endpoints (beginning and end) while the
imperfective gives info about internal or other stages or phases.
The domain of aspect offers choices within a closed system to the speakers of a language. There is a
small, fixed set of viewpoints and situation/eventuality types. One of each must be chosen whenever a
sentence is framed. In other words, speakers’ choices in presenting actual situations are limited by
conventional categorization, conventions of use and the constraints of truth.
ASPECT - Conceptual features of the situations types
There are three semantic features that help us distinguish among situation types: [+/- stative], [+/- telic] and
[+/- durative]. They function as shorthand for the cluster of properties that distinguishes them.
[+/- STATIVE] covers the distinction between ‘stasis’ and ‘motion’ and separates situation types into the
classes of states and events (activities, accomplishments, achievements and semelfactives).
States are the simplest of situation types, consisting of undifferentiated moments. States are said to ‘hold’
whereas events occur, happen, take place or culminate. Events are doings; they are [+ dynamic] or [stative], involving causation (which includes both agentive and non-agentive subjects), activity and change.
Events consist of stages/phases rather than undifferentiated moments.
[+/- TELIC] separates situation types into telic and atelic. Telic situation types are directed towards a
goal/outcome, that is, they have a culmination point. The goal may be intrinsic to the event, in this case
constituting its natural endpoint, as it is with accomplishments and achievements (e.g. break). In other
cases, the endpoint is arbitrary, as it is for activities and semelfactives, which can be stopped or terminated
at any time.
N.B. The existence of telicity does not necessarily imply the presence of an internal argument (a syntactic
object) and conversely the existence of an internal argument does not imply telicity:
a) John stood up in a second. (telicity given by the particle ‘up’; the verb is intransitive/atelic)
b) John pushed the cart for hours. (the verb has a direct object/internal argument, yet the situation is
an activity)
N.B. Telic events are not limited to events that are under the control of an agent. In The rock fell to the
ground. there is a final point given by the expression ‘to the ground’, but the subject is not an agent.
[+/- DURATIVE] distinguishes between situation types that take time (activities, states, accomplishments)
and instantaneous events (achievements and semelfactives). Duration is grammaticized overtly or covertly.
In English duration is explicitly indicated by adverbials (for phrases) and main verbs (keep, continue). The
imperfective viewpoint (be – ing) is also related to duration, since imperfective focuses on the internal
stages of durative situations. With instantaneous events, which lack an interval, the imperfective may focus
on preliminary or iterated/repeated stages:
She was jumping up and down. (repeated activity from a semelfactive)
The plane was landing. (preliminary stage from an achievement)
States
Activities
Accomplishments
Achievements
Semelfactives
+/- stative
Stative
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
+/- durative
Durative
Durative
Durative
Instantaneous
Instantaneous
+/- telic
Atelic
Atelic
Telic
Telic
Atelic
STATES
States are stable situations. Typical, basic states are: know the answer, be tall, desire, want. States are
characterized by the features [+ stative] and [+ durative]. The feature [+ telic] is not relevant for states
because they are unbounded and have an abstract atemporal quality. Intuitively, they predicate a quality or
property of an individual (possession, location, belief and other mental states, dispositions, etc).
There are different types of states: basic-level states and derived stative predicates.
Basic-level states
According to the type of referent they apply to, basic states separate into predicates that apply to
individuals (kinds of objects or objects) or to stages of individuals. Thus, English syntactically
distinguishes between:
a)
Individual level predicates: permanent, non-temporary states (know, desire, be tall, be
widespread), which describe relatively stable, non-transitory inherent properties that apply to
individuals (objects or kinds), and
b) Stage level predicates: temporary states (be available, be in the garden, be drunk, be angry),
which denote transitory properties and apply to stages of individuals. They are compatible with
expressions of simple duration and punctuality: He was angry for an instant. She was hungry at
noon.
c) Individual / stage level predicates: with interval statives, that is, with verb constellations of
position and location (sit, lie, perch, sprawl, stand). They may appear in the progressive, although
they involve no agency or change.
The socks are lying on the bed. (stage level predicate)
London lies on the Thames. (individual level predicate)
*London is lying on the Thames.
Here, the progressive has a stative interpretation (they denote temporary states), whereas usually
the progressive is associated with an active interpretation. The progressive is acceptable with these
predicates only if the subject denotes a moveable object, hence the ungrammaticality of the third sentence
in which London does not qualify as a moveable object.
Derived statives
a) generic sentences
b) habitual sentences
Events can be recategorized into states, changing into individual level predicates, if used in the simple
present or past. They are semantically stative precisely because they denote properties that hold over
individuals or patterns/generalizations over events rather than specific situations.
Tigers eat meat. (generic)
My cat eats carrots. (habitual)
He writes novels. (habitual)
N.B. Perception verbs (see), verbs of feeling (like, love) and some verbs of mental states (know,
understand), which are stative at the basic level of classification, may also have an achievement
interpretation in the context of adverbs like ‘suddenly’ or with completive adverbials. Compare:
I saw the city hall from my window. (state)
Suddenly, I saw a star. (achievement)
I like music. (state)
I liked him in a second. (achievement)
ACTIVITIES (PROCESSES)
The term ‘process’ is favored over ‘activity’ because, while ‘activity’ is associated with human agency,
“process” encompasses both activities associated with human subjects (external causation) (he
swam/slept/strolled in the park) and activities that are not cases of human agency (the ball rolled/moved, it
rained for hours, the jewels glittered).
Processes are atelic, durative, dynamic events. An activity does not have a goal or natural endpoint. Its
termination is merely cessation of activity, that is, an activity has an arbitrary endpoint, which is why they
simply ‘stop’ or ‘terminate’, but never ‘finish’.
Process sentences consist of verb constellations presenting a process situation. The verb constellations may
consist of:
a) an atelic verb and compatible complements (if any): push a cart, play chess/the piano, laugh,
sleep, think about, dream, walk in the park, run along the beach, enjoy, etc.
b) an atelic durative verb with a complement that is cumulative or uncountable. These qualify as
multiple-event processes: eat cherries, write letters, drink wine, etc. Multiple events also include
iterations, repetitions of instantaneous events, such as achievements and semelfactives: cough for
five minutes, find pebbles on the beach all afternoon, etc.
c) in English, there are other means of changing the telicity of a constellation, for instance using a
particular preposition: read a book (acc.) vs. read at a book (activ.), paint the fence (acc.) vs. paint
away at the fence (activ.).
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Accomplishments describe change-of-states prepared (brought about/caused) by some activity/process, the
change being the completion of the process: build a bridge, repair a car, drink a glass of wine.
Accomplishments are conceptualized as durative events, consisting of a process and an outcome / change
of state and having successive stages in which the process advances to its conclusion. Thus,
accomplishments are complex events because they have other event types as their components.
An accomplishment is a causal structure of the type “e 1 causes e2) where e1 is the causing activity/process
and e2 is the resulting (change of) state. Thus, lexical causative verbs are accomplishments (break a
window, cook a pie, cool the soup, shelve the books, poison your roommate). Also, resultative constructions
(which lexicalize both the causing activity and the resulting state) qualify as accomplishments:
The wind shaped the hills into cones.
The maid swept the floor clean.
He sang himself hoarse.
Verbs plus particle constructions also read as accomplishments: throw something away/down/up/aside/in.
In a nutshell, accomplishment constructions consist of constellations that have:
a) Atelic, durative verbs and countable arguments: They drank a glass of beer and left.
b) Atelic, durative verbs and directional complements: The kid walked to school.
c) Atelic, durative verbs and certain prepositions: The boy ran out.
d) Atelic verbs and resultative phrase: The alarm clock ticked the baby awake.
ACHIEVEMENTS
Achievements are instantaneous, single stage events that result in a change of state. Achievements focus
mainly on the change of state, simply leaving out or backgrounding the causing activity and causing factor.
Stereotypic achievements are: die, reach the top, win the race, arrive, leave, recognize, notice, find a
penny, miss the target, lose the watch, remember, etc.
Even if some achievements may be preceded by some preparatory activity (land, die, reach the top, win the
race), this instantaneous type does not conceptualize it. But remember that we can focus on the preliminary
stage and turn the achievement into an activity if we employ the progressive:
The plane landed. (achievement)
The plane was landing. (activity)
The predicates that do not presuppose a preparatory activity are known as ‘lucky achievements’: find,
recognize, discover, notice, lose, remember, etc.
SEMELFACTIVES
Semelfactives are atelic, instantaneous events: cough, knock, hit, flap a wing, hiccup, slam/bang the door,
kick the ball. Semelfactives do not have preliminary stages, nor resultant stages.
When they occur with period adverbials and the progressive, they are interpreted as derived durative
processes/activities consisting of a series of repeated, iterated semelfactive events. The predicates are
reinterpreted as multiple-event activities:
John was kicking the ball when I saw him.
John kicked the ball for five minutes and then left.
THE ASPECTUAL RECATEGORIZATION OF VERB PHRASES
Predicates shift from their prototypical class due to various elements in the verb constellations:
(1) Subject: If the subject of an achievement is an indefinite plural noun phrase or a collective
noun, the achievement recategorizes into an activity.
The tourists have discovered a beautiful castle. (achievement)
Tourists discovered that beautiful castle for years. (activity)
The battalion was crossing the border for twenty minutes. (activity)
(2) Direct Object: If the direct object of an accomplishment or achievement is a bare plural noun
phrase, they become activities.
Tom wrote the essay in two hours. (accomplishment)
Tom wrote essays for two hours. (activity)
He discovered a treasure in the backyard. (achievement)
Tom has been discovering lice in his son's hair for three days. (activity)
If the direct object of an accomplishment or an achievement is a mass noun, it turns it into an activity.
Tom ate his hamburger in three minutes. (accomplishment)
Tom ate popcorn for an hour. (activity)
(3) Adverbials: If an activity is combined with an adverbial of extent, it turns into an
accomplishment.
Tom walked for an hour. (activity)
Tom walked two kilometers in half an hour. (accomplishment)
If an activity combines with a locative noun phrase, it becomes an accomplishment.
Tom walked in the woods for an hour. (activity)
Tom walked to the building in ten minutes. (accomplishment)
(4) Tense: Habitual sentences always designate states. Almost any verb can become part of a
habitual sentence if used in the simple present, sometimes with a frequency adverbial.
He played chess for two hours. (activity)
He plays chess (every day). (state)
Activity verb phrases such as rub, burn, scratch, cut, kill turn into states when used in the simple
present form, designating a general characteristic of the subject:
The wood is burning in the fireplace. (activity) / This burns like fire. (state)
He is killing a chicken for dinner. (activity) / Your behavior kills me. (state)
(5) Progressive / Continuous Aspect: When used in the progressive aspect, states,
accomplishments and achievements recategorize into activities unfolding at a certain
reference time. N.B. Some verbs can have several readings even though the verb phrase does
not undergo any change of the type illustrated above:
Tom read a book for an hour. (activity) / Tom read a book in an hour. (accomplishment)
She combed her hair for two minutes. (activity) / She combed her hair in two minutes.
(accomplishment)
ASPECTUAL CLASSES OF VERB PHRASES AND THE PROGRESSIVE ASPECT
ACTIVITY VERB PHRASES
Used in the continuous aspect, with or without adverbials expressing duration (all the time,
meanwhile, all day / night long, for some time, etc.), activity verb phrases designate processes unfolding at
a certain reference time. Sometimes they describe two simultaneous processes and are connected either by
and or by subordinating conjunctions such as while, as, all the while, etc.
The river is flooding. / Meanwhile he was trying to find out who had robbed him. / While she was
rehearsing for the show, her maid was sewing her dress for the gala. / As he was crossing the street, he
slipped on a banana skin and broke a leg.
When used in the progressive, semelfactives: jump, kick, tremble, nod, knock, tap, pat, slam / bang
the door, etc. describe a series of repeated processes rather than a single process:
The boy was kicking the ball against the wall.
The dog is jumping up and down.
Her lips were trembling.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
The internal structure of accomplishments and achievements presupposes a final goal, outcome or
result that is suspended when the respective verb phrases combine with the progressive aspect. When they
appear in the continuous, they acquire an activity reading.
They built their house in two years. (accomplishment)
They were building the house when the accident happened. (activity)
The man fell into the river and drowned. (achievement)
When his son came running to help him, the man was already drowning. (activity)
STATE VERB PHRASES
States are defined as having an abstract quality and an atemporal interpretation. They are said to
designate a property of the subject that lasts throughout time. Hence, they do not normally combine with
the progressive, which refers to situations of limited duration. However, there are certain state verb phrases
that may appear in the continuous, changing their meaning.
(1) to be + property-designating adjectives and nouns: If the adjective / noun designates a
permanent property of an individual, the verb will never appear in the continuous (be tall, be young, be old,
etc.). Yet, certain adjectives / nouns express properties that can be altered and thus, allow us to refer to only
a temporally limited stage of the individual, in which case the use of the progressive is required. Compare:
He is a teacher. / She is taller than you. (general properties)
He is being rude tonight. / You're being a total bastard. (process unfolding now)
The second set of sentences describes temporary activities under the control of the individuals.
The implication is that their behavior is deliberate and they can put an end to it if they want to.
(2) mental cognition verb phrases: know, believe, hope, trust, imagine, wonder, think, etc.
When they occur in the progressive, they express temporally and spatially limited processes
unfolding at a certain reference time. They refer to a manifestation of the individual, not to a characteristic
property of his. Compare:
I imagine she will agree to your proposal. / I was only imagining those ugly scenarios.
I think he is wrong. / I'm thinking of giving up smoking.
They hope to win. / He was hoping against hope that there was still a chance of success.
(3) physical cognition verb phrases: see, hear, smell, taste, feel
Also referred to as 'verbs of perception', they do not occur in the progressive if they denote a
general characteristic of a certain individual / object. Even if they make reference to an act of perception
unfolding at a specific moment like NOW, they avoid the use of the continuous. Instead, they appear
accompanied by the modal verb CAN: I hear the wind blowing. / I can hear the wind blowing. / *I'm
hearing the wind blowing.
It they combine with the progressive, they describe processes going on for a limited period of
time. In this case the subject is attributed intention or purpose:
You smell nice. / I'm smelling your perfume to see if I can guess what it is.
The milk tastes sour. / He is tasting the soup to see if it's got enough salt.
See and hear even acquire new meanings when appearing in the continuous: The court is hearing
the evidence tomorrow. (they are listening to and trying the case); I'm seeing the doctor next week. (I have
made an appointment)
(4) emotive verb phrases: love, hate, like, dislike, want, miss, etc.
Again, the atemporal quality of the state verbs is replaced with the temporal quality of the process
unfolding for a certain period of time.
I despise bad behavior. / He will be despising me heartily.
Everybody envied everybody in that room. / I was envying him his freedom at the time.
(5) other property designating verb phrases: belong, contain, consist, weigh, measure, etc.
If used in the progressive, they express temporary properties.
The necklace belongs to me. / Are you belonging to the local library?
The castle costs a fortune. / The mistake is costing us dearly.
Verbs like weigh or measure have a behavior similar to that of perception verbs, that is, the subject
deliberately does the action of 'weighing' or 'measuring': The baby weighs six pounds. / The nurse is
weighing the baby.
(6) locative verb phrases: sit, stand, lie, rest, remain, etc. Such verbs appear in the continuous if
their subject represents a moveable object and describe temporary states:
Her new house stands / (*is standing) at the corner of our street. / He is standing near the pole.
TENSE
TIME VS TENSE (TIME IS REFLECTED BY TENSE)
-
Time is objective in the sense that it does not have absolute reality outside the form of our perception
of the world; it is not inherent to objects.
- Time is an epistemic notion as it mirrors our experience of the world.
- Time has a linear representation, which preserves the sequential character of our perception of the
world.
- Time is durationally infinite and segmentable; we perceive it as unidirectional (forwards).
Time is segmented by two different procedures:
- a personal subjective estimate of duration
- a public estimate based on the periodicity of natural phenomena
Accordingly, there is
- a personal time: man’s endeavor to measure duration by using his emotions as an instrument (time is
expanded or contracted)
-
a public time, characteristic of society; time measurement is subjected to public agreement and it is
based on the periodicity of some observable natural phenomena (revolution of the earth round its axis,
its periodic relation to the sun, the moon, the stars etc)
TENSE: A DEICTIC CATEGORY
Tense is generally defined as representing the chronological order of events in time as perceived
by the speaker at the moment of speaking, speech time (ST). Tense is a deictic category, i.e. the moment
NOW is central in the sense that time past or time future represent DIRECTIONS whose ORIENTATION
depends on ST. ST/NOW is a central point on the temporal axis of orientation according to which we
interpret the ordering of events/states. All accounts of tense make interpretation sensitive to tense. Events
can be simultaneous with ST (at relation) or they can be sequential to it (before / after relations).
Tense is a functional category that expresses a temporal relation to the orientation point (ST) in the
sense that it locates in time the situation talked about.
TENSE: MORE THAN TENSE INFLECTIONS
A common mistake in approaching the category of tense is the belief that tense inflections alone
mirror time. In fact they are not enough to express the temporal specification of a message. A proper
interpretation of temporal forms presupposes an analysis of the relation between
(i)
(ii)
tense specification of the V (i.e. tense inflection) and
temporal adverbials.
INFL identifies the event of the VP in the sense that it places that particular event in time. A VP
consists of both its lexical head V0 and the complement(s) it has selected. We know that information about
the selection of complements by a verb is part of the lexical entry of that verb in the lexicon and it
represents more or less its descriptive content. If we assume that, roughly speaking, the descriptive content
of a verb is the idea of event, we cannot conceive of this event without taking into account the complements
of the respective verb as well as those explicit lexical means of placing the event in time: time adverbials. It
means that when discussing temporal interpretation, we have to talk about sentence temporal interpretation
or, at least, about predicate temporal interpretation.
TIME/TEMPORAL ADVERBIALS
Time adverbials include adverbs, adverb phrases and adverbial clauses and they specify RT
together with tense inflections. Tense inflections are strongly related to adverbials. The latter add meaning
to a sentence and during the process they might even disambiguate it. On the other hand, sentences without
time adverbials may be non-ambiguous due to the context, which acts as a time adverbial giving a certain
temporal reading or due to the fact that people tend to maximise available information, i.e. we apply the
relation of simultaneity wherever possible.
Albert is playing tennis. (now / tomorrow)
Albert was playing tennis. (then / future)
This actually means that we associate with a sentence that is vague the temporal interpretation that
requires the least additional information (sort of default reading).
In addition to this, there are regular co-occurrences between tense inflections and time adverbials
(there are adverbials that co-occur only with simple past or only with present perfect and there are others
that co-occur with both).
Classification of time adverbials
The relation between time adverbials and ST can be explicit or non-explicit. We distinguish
between:
(i)
anchored time adverbials which are in an explicit relation to ST in the sense that their
temporal interpretations are determined relative to ST (now, yesterday, tomorrow)
unanchored adverbials which do not have an explicit relation to ST and which orient
themselves to times other than the utterance time or to utterance time (in June, on
Friday); they have various interpretations.
(ii)
Given that temporal adverbials also contribute to the aspectual interpretation of sentences we can
establish a further classification that distinguishes among: duration adverbials, completive adverbials,
locating / frame adverbials and frequency adverbials. Duration and completive adverbials also have an
aspectual value (they are sensitive to the aspectual value of the situation), requiring compatibility with the
situation type.
a.
-
Duration adverbials: for three months/a day/a week, for a while, since the war/Christmas, at night,
all afternoon, for hours, all the time, over the weekend, through August, during the war, always,
permanently, all day long, etc.
they indicate the duration of the described event by specifying the length of time that is asserted to take
contribute to the location of the event in time, more specifically within the stated interval
compatible with atelic sentences, but odd with telic sentences
compatible with states and processes (activities)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Susan was asleep for two hours. (atelic)
Andrew swam for three hours. (atelic)
(?) John wrote a / the report for two hours. (telic)
*The train arrived late for two hours.
Whenever telic events occur in the context of duration adverbials there is a clash between the aspectual
properties of the situation type and the aspectual properties of the adverbials. Such clashes are resolved by
a shift in the value of the verb constellation, which receives a marked interpretation. This contextual
interpretation is made possible by the process called coercion.
1. I read a book for a few minutes. (coercion into a process)
2. Jerry wrote a report for two hours. (acc. into activity)
3. John knocked on the door for two hours. (semelf. into process of the multiple-event type)
4. Jon played the sonata for two hours. (acc. into process – iterative: many times)
5. For years, Mary went to school in the morning. (acc. into state – habitual)
6. For months, the train arrived late. (ach. into state – habitual)
The felicity of the aspectual reinterpretation is strongly dependent on linguistic context and knowledge of
the world. Compare:
*John went into the house all afternoon.
John crossed the border all afternoon.
-
b. Completive adverbials: in 2 hours, within two months, in a second.
they locate the situation at an interval during which the event is completed/culminates. Aspectually,
completive adverbials are telic
compatible with telic situations and odd with atelics
1.
2.
3.
4.
John noticed the painting in a second.
Mary wrote a sonnet in five minutes.
(?) Bill swam laps in an hour.
(?) Mary believed in ghosts in an hour.
If (3) and (4) can be understood at all, they impose an ingressive interpretation to the sentences, in the sense
that the adverbials refer to an interval elapsed before the beginning of the situations and not an interval
during which the situations occur. The possible telic reinterpretations are: “Bill swam his planned number
of laps in an hour”, “In/after an hour Bill swam laps”, “At the end of an hour/after an hour Mary began to
believe in ghosts”. The same interpretation as the latter occurs with achievements and semelfactives: “They
reached the top in ten minutes” (after ten minutes), “She knocked at the door in ten minutes” (after ten
minutes).
c.
-
Frequency adverbials: frequently, on Sundays, never, sometimes, often, whenever, monthly, daily,
once a week, every week/month etc.
they indicate the recurrent pattern of situations within the reference interval
they express a series of events which as a whole make a state of the habitual type:
We often/always went/go to the mountains in wintertime.
-
d. Locating adverbials / Frame adverbials:
they locate situations in time by relating them to other times or to other situations
they refer to an interval of time within which the described situation is asserted t have taken place
according to the time of orientation we can distinguish three classes:
1. deictic adverbials: oriented to the time of utterance (ST): now, today, last Sunday, last
week, this year, tomorrow, tonight, two weeks ago
2. anaphoric adverbials: relate to a previously established time: until, till, in the evening, on
Sunday, at night, early, before, in three days, on Christmas, at lunchtime, two years later,
in March, already
3. referential adverbials: refer to a time established by clock or calendar: at six, august 19,
in 1987
PRESENT TENSE SIMPLE
Present Tense Simple is associated with the present moment - the speech time - in the sense that it
may refer either to a point in time identified with speech time (ST) or to an interval that includes the
moment of speaking. As far as its factual status is concerned, the present is between the past and the future.
The past is considered to be factually determined since we know if an action took place or not in the past.
On the contrary, the future is the least factually determined time. The present expresses both situations
whose time of occurrence is known and situations whose time of occurrence is not known.
VALUES OF PRESENT TENSE SIMPLE
1.
GENERIC VALUE – unmarked value
Present Tense Simple used in generic sentences indicates the validity of a state at speech time without
making reference to a particular situation or moment. It ascribes a property to a subject; therefore, it
appears in so-called ‘characterizing’ sentences. Generic sentences are true of some particular entities,
namely ‘kinds’. Kind referring expressions are bare plurals, definite singular NPs and mass nouns. They
can also appear with indefinite NPs, proper names and quantified NPs but in this case the locus of
genericity is not in the NP but rather in the sentence itself, i.e. these NPs get a generic interpretation only
when occurring in characterizing sentences. Present simple is associated with stative verbs and it is used in
scientific language, in proverbs, definitions, geographical statements, in instructions or when specifying
game rules etc. Generic sentences are timeless statements expressing general or universal truths.
Water boils at 100ºC.
Blood is thicker than water.
London stands on the Thames.
2.
HABITUAL VALUE – unmarked value
Habitual sentences indicate that a situation is repeated with a certain frequency during an interval of
time. Since they do not focus on a particular situation but rather on its recurrence, they do not point to a
specific moment in time and in this respect they resemble generic sentences. However, unlike generic
sentences, habitual sentences refer to an individual or an object about which the respective property is true
at speech time. Very often, they include adverbs of frequency classified into general (ever, never,
whenever, usually, often, seldom) and specific (three times a week, twice a day, every two weeks).
Habitual sentences may be completely specified, indicating both the frequency and the interval during
which an event takes place. Yet, more often than not they have less than complete temporal specification.
Compare:
They visit me every two days during holidays. (specified frequency and interval)
They visit me every day. (unspecified interval)
He eats a lot of vegetables in winter. (unspecified frequency)
He doesn't eat many vegetables. (no frequency and no interval)
3.
INSTANTANEOUS VALUE - marked
The instantaneous simple present refers to an event that is assumed to be simultaneous with the
moment of speaking. It is used in sports commentaries, demonstrations, war reports, and exclamations,
commentaries on pictures, books or movies and stage directions:
Hagi takes the ball and passes it to Popescu. Popescu sends the ball into the net. Goal!
First I roll out the pastry, and then I add the mixture and spread it…
Here comes the winner!
In ‘Gone with the wind’ Scarlet writes a letter.
Seth and Minnie come forward as far as the lilac clump… He nudges Minnie with his elbow…
(O’Neill, Mourning Becomes Electra)
It is true that in most cases the event does not occur exactly when it is mentioned, but this simultaneity
is rather subjective than objective.
Events that are simultaneous with the moment of speaking may be expressed either by a simple present
or a present continuous:
He shuts the window. / He is shutting the window.
However, whereas the continuous present represents a neutral description of an action going on at the
moment of speaking, the use of the simple present is rather dramatic since it insists on the total completion
of the event mentioned.
The instantaneous present is also used in performative sentences that employ performative verbs verbs that themselves are part of the activity they report - such as accept, deny, name, declare, pronounce.
When having an instantaneous value, the performative verb appears in the first person singular or plural
and may be accompanied by hereby:
I name this ship "Queen Mary".
We sentence you to prison for life.
I hereby pronounce you man and wife.
In performative sentences the event reported and the act of speech are simultaneous simply because
they are identical. A performative act is felicitous on condition that the persons and the circumstances
involved in it are appropriate for the invocation of the respective procedure (for instance, it is only a priest
that can marry you and this can happen only in a church).
Both habitual and generic sentences may receive instantaneous readings under certain circumstances:
Swallows fly higher than doves. (generic reading)
Look, the swallows fly higher than the doves. (instantaneous reading because of the suggestion of
instantaneous perception indicated by "Look")
He scores goals. (habitual interpretation because of the plural direct object)
He scores a goal. (instantaneous interpretation)
4.
FUTURE VALUE - marked
The simple present may acquire a future value either in simple sentences or in subordinate adverbial
clauses of time and condition introduced by after, as soon as, when, before, if, unless etc.
In simple sentences it is accompanied by a temporal adverbial indicating the future: The plane leaves
for New York at 5 p.m. tomorrow. The use of the simple present signals the fact that the future event is
bound to happen, in other words, the anticipated event is attributed the same degree of certainty that we
normally assign to present or past events. For this reason the simple present with this value represents the
only marked way to express the future time in English. It refers to mostly official or collective future plans
or arrangements that cannot be altered. It may relate to timetables, schedules, itineraries etc.:
The caravan sets off tomorrow morning.
We leave Bucharest on Monday morning, arrive in London at noon and set off for Glasgow in the
evening.
The use of the simple present with future value in adverbial clauses of time and condition has more
than a syntactic explanation. In the examples below the content of the adverbial clause is assumed to exist
as a fact:
I'll see what to do when I meet him.
By the time you get there, the show will have already begun.
I will be very unhappy if our team does not win.
There is a contrast of meaning between the main clause and the subordinate. The event referred to in
the former is a prediction, whereas the event expressed in the latter is a fact that is taken as given, which
provides an axis of orientation for the action predicted in the main clause.
NB. Students are inclined to think that they must use only the simple present after clauses introduced
by when and if. However, the rule applies only to those cases in which when and if introduce adverbial
clauses of time and condition. Compare:
I will talk to him when I see him. (time clause)
I don't know when I will see him. (direct object clause) / I don't know this.
I will take my umbrella if it rains. (conditional clause)
I don't know if it will rain. (direct object clause) / I don't know this.
5.
PAST VALUE - marked
The use of the Simple Present with a past value is best known as the historic present and represents a
storyteller's license, being typical of an oral narrative style. As Jespersen (1931:17) remarked, the "historic
present is pretty frequent in connected narrative: the speaker, as it were, forgets all about time and
imagines, or recalls, what he is recounting, as vividly as if it were now present before his eyes". The simple
present with this value often alternates with a time adverbial indicating the past:
At that moment in comes a messenger from the Head Office, telling me the boss wants to see me in a
hurry. (I. Stefanescu, 1988:261)
However, a distinction has to be made between the historic present described above and the present
forms employed to narrate fictional, that is, imaginary events.
The historic present is also used after verbs of linguistic communication such as tell, say, learn, hear:
Mary tells me that you are going to buy new furniture. (in a letter)
Your correspondent Mr. Pitt writes in the March issue that… (in the correspondence column of a
journal)
In both cases the simple present emphasizes the persistence in the present of the effect of a past
communication. Though tell and hear in the examples above refer to the initiation of a message, the use of
the present seems to transfer the verbal meaning from the initiating to the receiving end of the message, so
that communication is still in force for the receiver.
At the same the historic present is employed when describing an artist and his work because this feels
as if they were still alive. The difference between using the present and using the past simply involves the
speaker's point of view: if he employs the present, then he considers that the artist still survives through his
work, and if he uses the past, then he sees the artist as a person who died at a certain moment in the past.
Compare:
Brahms is the last great representative of German classicism.
Brahms was the last great representative of German classicism.
Finally, the simple present appears in newspaper headlines to announce recent events, its use
reminding one of the dramatic quality of the instantaneous present; it is also present in photographic
captions in newspapers, in historical summaries and tables of dates:
MPs back school reform. / Ex-president dies of heart attack.
Mr. Gore shakes hands with Mr. Bush. (photo caption)
1876 - Brahms finishes his first symphony.
Although so far all the uses of the simple present have involved real facts, the simple present may also
refer to imaginary situations. This fictional use makes reference to no real time, but to an imaginary present
time, giving the reader the impression that he is actually witnessing the events described. In such cases, the
simple present often alternates with a past tense.
His lordship had no sooner disappeared behind the trees of the forest, but Lady Randolph begins to
explain to her confidante the circumstances of her early life. The fact was she had made a private
marriage… (Thackeray, Virg. Ch. LIX, 614)
PAST TENSE SIMPLE
The simple past is used to locate a situation at some specified time in the past; the content of the
event or state described being actually recollected at speech time. There are two basic elements of meaning
involved in the common use of the simple past. First, the situation described by the simple past takes place
before the present moment, which means that the moment NOW is excluded. Second, the person uttering
the sentence must have a definite time in mind suggested by means of specific time adverbs (yesterday, two
days ago, in 1974, last summer, etc.).
He was born in London in 1952 and spent his entire life there. / I just talked to him on the phone a
moment ago. / I bought this dictionary when I was in Lisbon.
However, speakers do not need to locate a past event by means of a time adverb. The simple past
may appear alone if the speaker who has a specific time in mind can assume that his interlocutor can
understand this either by inferring the time from the larger context in which the situation occurs or by
making use of the definiteness of the participants involved:
Did you remember to give him my message?
Did you see Led Zeppelin perform live in Bucharest?
A: I couldn't find Mary at the party last night. / B: Well, I couldn't find her either.
Thus, in the first two examples above the definiteness of the situation is confirmed by the
definiteness of the participants involved (my message) or of the circumstances (Led Zeppelin did perform
in Bucharest on a specific day which is officially known). In the last example, speaker A specifies the past
moment and speaker B does not need to mention it in his turn. Thus it becomes obvious that the
definiteness of the event expressed by the simple past does not necessarily presuppose that the time in
question be specified, only that it be specifiable.
Another particular case in which a past simple is used without a definite adverb of time involves a
combination with the present perfect. The latter is used to introduce an unspecified event that takes place
anterior to the moment of speaking in a period that began in the past and includes the moment NOW. Once
an anterior frame of reference is established for the discourse it is only natural to refer to the already
introduced situation by means of a definite specifier, i.e. the simple past:
A: Where have you been? / B: To the restaurant. / A: What did you do there? / B: I had lunch, of
course.
Finally, the simple past can be used without a definite adverb of time if the utterance refers to a
comparison between present and past conditions as in:
Bucharest is no longer what it was / used to
be. / He is a nitwit, but he is less of a nitwit than he was.
VALUES OF PAST TENSE SIMPLE
1.
DEICTIC VALUE
The simple past can be used deictically with a deictic adverb of time of the type yesterday, two
years ago, last night, in 1987, etc. In this case the location of the event in time is established in relation to
the moment of speaking NOW:
Haydn was born in 1732. / My friend left for Poland in July. / I finished reading the book last
night.
2.
NARRATIVE VALUE
Since it deals with past events the simple past is a natural choice for narratives, whether the events
narrated are real historical events or just fictional situations devised in novels. However, in this case, the
simple past is no longer accompanied by a time adverbial and the situations described by this tense are
ordered by the laws governing the narrative mode rather than by information present in the sentences
proper. It is the whole context created by the advancing of the story that supplies the order of the events.
'(…) She left him alone in the kitchen. He picked up a chair, then set it down again and went out
into the scullery. He opened the garden door, and a great moth flew into his face. Then he stepped out into
the garden and faced the enemies.(…)' (Dylan Thomas - 'In the Garden' - Collected Stories)
Moreover, we use the simple past for narrative even when referring to future events as in science
fiction. "We are invited by this convention to look at future events as if from a vantage-point even further
in the future. Any narrative normally presupposes, in the imagination, such a retrospective view." - A. S.
Leech (1971: 10).
In the year AD 2201, the interplanetary transit vehicle Zeno VII made a routine journey to the
moon with twenty people on board.
3.
HABITUAL VALUE
When used with this value, the simple past refers to events recurrent within a given past interval of
time. Unlike simple present sentences in which the time adverbial specifies the event time - i.e. indicating
the recurrence of the event, simple past sentences allow the presence of both a time adverbial indicating the
frequency specification and a time adverbial that supplies the interval during which the recurring event took
place. Compare:
Brian runs a mile every day.
Brian ran a mile every day during his childhood.
The habitual interpretation can be rendered by the frequency adverbial whose determiner must be
indefinite or by a plural indefinite object:
I went to the mountains three times a year. (habitual)
I went to the mountains three times that year. (non-habitual)
My dog chased my neighbor's cat / a cat. (non-habitual)
My dog chased cats. (habitual)
4.
PAST PERFECT VALUE
This value is derived from a contrast between simultaneous past events and past events occurring
in a sequence.
He enjoyed and admired her paintings. (simultaneous)
He unlocked and opened the door. (sequential)
In the first example the order of the events can be reversed without altering the meaning of the
sentence, whereas a reversal of the order of the events in the second example is impossible basing our
judgment on our knowledge about the way these activities can be performed. The event of unlocking the
door necessarily takes place before its opening and thus the simple past "unlocked" has past perfect value.
On the other hand, the temporal relation between two consecutive events can be overtly marked by
means of conjunctions (preserving the simple past in both the main clause and the subordinate clause) or by
the auxiliary HAVE, which indicates anteriority:
I (had) read twenty more pages before I went to bed.
As soon as she saw / had seen me, she rose quickly and left the room.
After I (had) finished dinner, I went out with my friends.
5.
PRESENT TIME VALUE
This represents a special development of the normal past meaning, which appears in everyday
conversation making reference to the present feelings or thoughts of the speaker:
A: Did you want me?
B: Yes, I hoped you could give me a hand with the cleaning.
Although speaker B could have used the present instead of the past, his choice of the respective
verbal form renders the request indirect and thus, more polite. Unlike a present form, which would have
made a polite answer impossible, the past form avoids a clash of wills, allowing speaker A to either accept
or decline the request. Similarly, speaker A's question indicates politeness. "Do you want me?" would have
been rather imperative, suggesting that speakers A and B have similar social positions, and would have
implied that the former was not at all pleased with speaker B making a request.
Other verbs often present in similar contexts are wonder and think; in most cases they are used in
combination with the continuous aspect, which adds a further overtone of politeness:
I wondered / was wondering if you could help me with the kids while I am away.
I thought I might drop by later tonight if you don't mind.
PRESENT PERFECT
Past events can be predicated about either in the past tense or the present perfect from two
different perspectives. In “John read the book last year”, the event of John’s reading the book in is entirety
is specified/dated as occurring during last year, which is prior and thus distinct from the moment NOW. In
“John has already read the book”, we understand that John’s reading the book in its entirety occurred at
some unspecified time in the past, but the event is related and, thus, relevant to the present moment through
its result: now, John knows what the book is about.
There have been several theories that tried to capture this distinction between the past simple and the
present perfect:
(a) The Indefinite Past Theory – present perfect locates events somewhere before the moment of
speaking, without identifying any particular point or interval of time. ET is indefinite and
“specified” only by indefinite adverbials: since 3 o’clock, for two hours, so far, yet, etc. in
contrast, ET of past simple events is definite: at two o’clock, yesterday, etc.
(b) The Current Relevance Theory – it is only present perfect that claims relevance at the moment
NOW, a feature the past simple lacks. Compare “You woke him up when you went to the
bathroom ten minutes ago.” to “You’ve waken him up” – the present perfect itself in the second
sentence locates the effects of the event at NOW.
(c) The Extended Now Theory – speakers can psychologically ‘extend’ the present backwards by
means of present perfect in English. The present perfect serves to locate an event within a period
of time that begins in the past and extends up to the present moment (and includes it). In contrast,
the past tense specifies that an event occurred at a past time that is separated and distinct from the
present.
Before embarking upon an analysis of the two tenses mentioned above, we should clarify the
relationship between the English perfect and the perfective aspect, since the English perfect is quite often
related to the meaning of completion or result. Without renouncing the idea that the perfect marks
anteriority, we can maintain the connection between the perfect and the perfective in view of the fact that
what is 'summed up as a whole' (i.e. perfective) may also be anterior to a certain moment in time. What we
need to understand is that the 'result / completion' meaning is not intrinsic to the perfect; rather, just like the
other meanings of the present perfect, it stems from the interaction of the perfect form with the aspectual
meaning of the verb phrase, plus the temporal adverbials it co-occurs with.
Thus, the perfect may acquire different senses according to the type of aspectual class 'have' combines
with:
1) continuative perfect
2) experiential perfect
3) resultative perfect
4) 'hot news' perfect
CONTINUATIVE PRESENT PERFECT
When the present perfect combines with state verb phrases in sentences that contain a durative
adverbial (for instance, since / for phrases), they express states extending over a period of time that lasts up
to the present moment:
I have lived in Paris since 1987.
The castle has been empty for ages.
Have you known my uncle for a long time?
Generally, the adverbial of duration cannot be absent from the sentence or otherwise the
construction acquires an indefinite past reading. I have lived in Paris simply places the situation at some
unspecified point in the past, without carrying any other information.
At the same time, there are exceptions to this rule if the semantic content of the respective
sentence suggests a period leading up to the present. In I've had a good life or You've outstayed your
welcome the adverbials of time are felt as implicit ('during my life' / 'so far' or 'for too long' in the case of
'outstay').
Used with process verb phrases and a frequency or a durative adverbial, the perfect expresses a
habit and thus has a recurrent continuative reading:
Mrs. Jones has played the organ in this church for fifteen years.
I have followed her behavior every day since she got here.
When I have tried to join their club, they have constantly turned me down.
The news has been broadcast at ten o'clock for as long as I can remember.
Since a habit is described as a state consisting of repeated events, this iterative use closely
resembles the continuative use of the perfect and, in fact, we may subsume it in the previous class as a type
of 'recurrent continuative' perfect.
Continuative: also with event verbs if in the progressive:
e.g. He’s been sleeping for two hours./ It has been snowing since noon./ Ever since the house has been
occupied the poltergeist have been acting up.
Modes of occurrence: a) continuous continuative: I have been sitting in all day.
b) discontinuous continuative: He has been building the house for the last five years.
(i.e. on and off)
EXPERIENTIAL PRESENT PERFECT
With process and event verbs phrases (accomplishments and achievements), the perfect may refer
to some indefinite situation in the past. By 'indefinite' we mean on the one hand, that the number of
occurrences is unspecified and on the other hand, that the time when it takes place is not mentioned.
Therefore, such use is often accompanied by adverbials of time of the type never, ever, always, before
(now):
I have never seen such a majestic cathedral before.
Have you ever been to the States?
Have you visited the Dali exhibition?
The temporal location of some events may be very close to the moment NOW, in which case we
refer to recent indefinite past situations. Such examples often contain adverbs like just, already, yet or
recently: Has the postman called yet? / They have already had breakfast.
If the definite time when the experience occurred is mentioned, the speaker shifts from Present
Perfect to Past Tense:
e.g. A: Have you been to Edinburgh?
B: Yes, I have.
A: When did you go?
B: Oh, last April, that’s when I did.
A: And did you visit many places while you were there?
B: Yes, I went to Hollyrood Palace.
Modes of occurrence: a) general experiential: He has never liked heavy metal. / A: Have you ever in your
life seen anyone so entirely delightful? B: Only when I’ve looked in the mirror.
b) limited experiential: Have you had a letter to type today?/ She has already had three proposals this
morning.
RESULTATIVE PRESENT PERFECT
The association of event verb phrases (accomplishments and achievements), that presuppose a
climax or end point, with the perfect generates a resultative reading - that is, it implies that a transition
comes to a final state valid at the present moment. The resultative meaning does not need the support of
time adverbials:
He has delivered the parcel. / The plane has landed. / He has recovered from his illness.
'HOT NEWS' PRESENT PERFECT
The perfect is often used in newspapers and broadcasts, especially in news reports, to introduce
'the latest' events, which afterwards are described using the past tense. The temporal location of such
situations is generally mentioned in the second sentence, but even if it is not, the simple past is still
employed at this point in the discourse:
The struggling Romanian soccer club Jiul Petrosani has experienced what may be one of the more
humiliating moments in recent sports history. Last week, the club announced that it would trade
midfielder Ion Radu to second-division club Valcea for two tons of beef and pork.
(Newsweek, March 1988)
NB. There is a special use of the present perfect instead of the simple present in adverbial clauses
of time referring to the future introduced by after, when, until, once, etc. In such cases the present perfect is
said to have a future value. In most cases the alternation of present simple and present perfect bears no
significance. The presence of the perfect simply places emphasis on the order of the events: I shall leave
when I finish / I have finished.
On the other hand, there are contexts in which the perfect is obligatory, namely, in those sentences
that are semantically based on the cause - effect relationship. We say You will feel better after you have
taken this pill if the pill conditions the well-being of the patient. Similarly, when the events in the main
clause and the subordinate temporally coincide, the simple present is favored; when the event in the
subordinate occurs before the one in the main clause, we use the present perfect: Come over and see us
when our guests leave / have left.
PRESENT PERFECT AND SIMPLE PAST
As already stated, present perfect and simple past resemble in that both express anteriority to a
given moment in time. What differentiates them is their relation to the present. The simple past marks
events assigned to a past that is concluded and completely separate from the present. In contrast, the present
perfect either involves a period of time lasting up to the present or has results persisting at the present
moment. The common factor is the inclusion of the present in its analysis.
Bearing this in mind, let us compare the various uses of the present perfect with the simple past.
Consider the following examples of continuative, experiential and habitual perfect:
She has been poor all her life. (She is still alive.)
She was poor all her life. (She is dead.)
Hannibal brought / *has brought elephants across the Alps.
For generations, Nepal has produced the world's greatest soldiers. (Nepal still exists.)
For generations, Sparta produced Greece's greatest warriors. (Sparta no longer exists.)
The use of either the perfect or the past in the above sentences is to be interpreted pragmatically.
The period referred to is rather assumed than named, but our knowledge of the world allows us to employ
the appropriate tense; thus, we talk about Hannibal or Sparta in the past because we know they no longer
exist, whereas Nepal obviously has relevance for the present.
This last observation relates to another notion - that of Discourse Topic (defined as 'the subject
matter under discussion in a certain context'). Discourse topics condition the use of the present perfect in
the sense that only those covering a period of time that includes the moment of speaking can be expressed
in sentences that employ present perfect. Compare:
Shakespeare has written impressive dramas.
*Shakespeare has quarreled with every playwright in London.
The first sentence is appropriate if the discourse topic is 'great dramatists of the world' or
'impressive dramas in world literature', because such a topic would have relevance for the present moment.
But if the discussion (i.e. discourse topic) is about Shakespeare as a person and his activities, neither of the
two sentences is correct since Shakespeare is dead. In conclusion, "at the pragmatic level, the present
perfect is appropriate in all those uses in which the event described has relevance for the discourse topic, a
fact which can be evaluated entirely only on the basis of contextual factors" (Ioana Stefanescu, English
Morphology, vol. II, 1988).
The basic difference between present perfect and simple past stems from the contrast definite /
indefinite. As already seen in the analysis of the simple past, this tense requires the use of a definite time
adverbial which locates the respective event at a certain point in the past. If there is no time adverbial, then
'definiteness' is retrieved by assumption of a particular time from the context or is justified by the preceding
use of a past or perfect tense:
We met yesterday. (definite time adverbial)
I have already talked to him; he came to ask me for money. (the past event is introduced by the
perfect)
Did you walk the dog? (said between husband and wife who refer to a particular time when the
dog is usually walked)
Contexts as that supplied by the second example also emphasize a characteristic of the present
perfect; this is used to initiate conversations, since it is only natural to start conversations indefinitely and
then to carry on using definite linguistic expressions (be they the simple past, definite articles or personal
pronouns):
I have bought this bag in Cypress Street.
How much did you pay for it?
I paid 15 $.
Since it specifies a definite moment in the past, the past tense is expected in (subordinate) clauses
of time introduced by when, while, since, etc. because the time indicated by them is considered to be
already given. Naturally, a clause introduced by when will trigger the use of a past tense in the main clause
as well because the subordinate functions as a definite time adverbial:
When did you last see him?
I haven't seen him since we met at Jane's party.
I didn't recognize him / *haven't recognized him when I saw him.
The present perfect is less used in American English, especially when it appears with recent
indefinite past value; Americans tend to say Did you meet him yet?, while the British say Have you met him
yet? or I did it just now vs. I've just received word that he isn't coming.
In spite of the differences mentioned so far, there are contexts in which the two tenses are
interchangeable - that is, when they describe recent events. Their alternation depends on the speaker's
viewpoint. Compare: Where did I put my gloves? to Where have I put my gloves? In the first example, the
speaker focuses on the moment when he misplaced his gloves, perhaps trying to remember what he was
doing at the time, while in the second he concentrates on the present moment and is only interested in
where they are at present.
TIME ADVERBIALS IN RELATION TO PRESENT PERFECT AND SIMPLE PAST
Time adverbials (i.e. adverbs, adverbial phrases, adverbial clauses) classify into definite (bearing
the feature [+THEN], indefinite (which are [-THEN]) and those that have both features (that is, they are
[+/- THEN]). The first class combines only with the past, the second only with the perfect and the last with
both, resulting in different meanings.
The definite adverbials of time point to a specific moment in the past, having no relation to the
present and hence, they cannot occur with the present perfect (yesterday, a week / month / year ago, last
night / Tuesday / week / month / year, etc.). Apart from them, there is the class of unanchored adverbs of
the type in the evening, at 5 o'clock, on Monday, then, soon, next, after lunch, etc. which most likely occur
with the simple past, although they do not make specific reference to it:
He went out ten minutes ago.
I left home at 8.00 and got here at 12.00.
I saw him on Sunday morning.
On the other hand, the following adverbials are associated only with the present perfect: since, so
far, up to now, hitherto, lately, for the present, for the time being, for now, as yet, during these five years,
before now:
I haven't been able to talk to him since I last saw him at the mall.
He hasn't done much work lately.
We have been very busy so far.
It is interesting to notice that, though since - phrases cannot be used with the simple past, for phrases occur with both the perfect and the past, given the appropriate contexts:
They haven't spoken to each other for three weeks.
They didn't speak to each other for three weeks, but then they made up.
The third group of adverbials allows the use of both the perfect and the past, resulting in different
interpretations. Compare:
I haven't read the paper this morning. (uttered at 10.00 a.m.)
I didn't read the paper this morning. (uttered at 6.00 p.m.)
Today, tonight and all phrases with this (this afternoon / month / year / Christmas / March, etc.)
behave in a similar way. I saw her this July implies that July is over, but I've seen her this July suggests
that it is still July when I utter the sentence. The difference lies in whether the event is viewed simply as a
factor of experience obtaining at the moment of speech (with the present perfect) or within the context of
the time at which it occurred (with past simple).
The difference in use between just and just now is the following: just can take either past simple or
present perfect: I have just seen your sister. / I just saw your sister. while just now is interpreted as a
moment/second/minute ago and occurs only with the past tense: I saw your sister just now.
Never, ever, always combine with both tenses, again depending on the context; when used with
the past tense, the 'never' period, for instance, must be restricted to a past temporal frame as in: I never
liked bananas when I was a child where the time clause supplies the background.
Now is mainly associated with present tense: Now my ambition is/has been fulfilled. But it may
also be a substitute for then and thus occur with past tense: Now my ambition was fulfilled.
Once appears with the simple past when it means 'on a certain occasion' or 'at one time', but if it is
a numerical adverb that may contrast with twice or three times, it may be used with both tenses:
I was happy once in this house.
I've seen the movie only once.
I met him only once when I was in Spain.
Already, still, yet and before occur with the perfect if they mean 'as early / late as now' and with
the past if interpreted as 'as early / late as then':
I've already heard that piece. ('as early as now')
I was already fed up with that piece. ('as early as then')
PAST PERFECT
Past perfect may appear with both [+then] and [-then] adverbials, unlike present perfect which
combines only with [+/-then] and [-then] adverbials:
They had been there since 5. [-then]
Susan knew John had left at 5. [+then]
Moreover, past perfect may appear in narrative contexts, again unlike present perfect.
On the other hand, like present perfect, past perfect has three values: continuative, resultative and
experiential:
Jim had dislocated his shoulder. (resultative)
He had been at work for more than two hours. (continuative)
I had watched United lose twice that season. (experiential)
In Indirect Speech, past perfect is the tense we obtain if in Direct Speech we have present perfect
or past simple:
I have laid the table.
She said she had laid the table.
The show finished two minutes ago.
She said the show had finished two minutes before.
In conclusion, past perfect has two dimensions: (a) it parallels the semantics of present perfect; (b)
it is seen as a past tense that expresses past anteriority , in which case it is said to have a pre-preterite value.
In this sense, past perfect describes a past event that takes place before another past event or past moment:
They found out where she had buried the treasure.
By the time they went to dig it up, she had already hidden it in a new place.
By Friday they had already found a way to get rid of her.
As already exemplified in the sentences above, the past perfect occurs in both main and
subordinate clauses introduced by when, after, before, until, by the time, etc.
The past perfect can be substituted with the simple past, which acquires a past perfect meaning:
When he came back from the States, he landed a very important job. However, in some cases the
substitution is semantically impossible: When he had read the letter / *when he read the letter, he burned
it.
There are three reasons for which we attribute this value to past perfect:
(a) its co-occurrence with [+then] adverbials
(b) the fact that it is the equivalent of past simple in Direct Speech. NB. In Indirect Speech, if the
verb expresses an event, past perfect is optional: Yesterday I went to the market. / She said she
went/had gone to the market the day before. If the verb expresses a state, then past perfect is
obligatory: Lily was here. / She said Lily had been there. / *She said Lily was there.
(c) the fact that it can be used in narratives to tell ‘a story within a story’, in which case past
simple sets the scene and past perfect expresses what had happened before: That morning I
was quite content. I had written the essay the previous evening, I had finished washing the
clothes and I’d gone to bed early. Now I was anxious to go to school.
NB. Mai mult ca perfect: always past perfect
Past perfect: mai mult ca perfect, perfect compus, imperfect.
THE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE FORMS
It should be stated from the beginning that the use of the continuous aspect with the perfect forms
is similar to the interaction of this aspect with other tense forms. Again, it is a matter that depends rather on
the aspectual class of the verb phrase.
When combined with the progressive, event verb phrases (accomplishments and achievements)
turn into processes and the completion / result meaning is suspended. Compare:
I have pumped up three tires. (The job is completed)
I have been pumping up tires in the garage for the last quarter of an hour. (I haven't finished the
job yet)
Although the perfect progressive never refers to a 'present result', it may imply that the effects of a
certain action are still apparent at present. The activity described by the verbal form does not necessarily
carry on at present; on the contrary, quite often it is implied that the respective activity has just stopped:
You've been walking too fast. That's why you're tired.
Process verb phrases in the present perfect have the tendency to appear in the progressive as well.
When they do, the continuous aspect simply reinforces the idea of continuity of an activity: He's been
sleeping since ten o'clock. It's time he woke up.
Non-durative process verbs phrases (i.e. the semelfactives) acquire an iterative meaning: She's
been knocking at my window for two minutes.
Finally, state verb phrases of the locative type in the progressive develop a 'temporary or limited
duration' meaning: I have been living in this castle for weeks now.
Apart from these meanings, the perfect progressive also carries an emotive reading, conveying
'irritation': You've been asking for money over and over again.
MEANS OF EXPRESSING FUTURITY
If present and past situations are conceived of as facts, it is certainly not the case of future events,
which have not happened yet and therefore merely translate into potential, possible courses of action. Thus,
we can predict what will happen, we can express intentions, plans, promises or threats that we mean to
carry out in the future, and these situations describe our attitude towards possible, non-factual states of
affairs. Therefore, it is no surprise that almost all the linguistic forms that express future time belong, in
fact, to the sphere of modality or to the aspectual paradigm. Epistemic will and shall, for instance, are
modal verbs denoting predictions; it is in the very nature of predictions to describe what might happen in
the future, hence, they are used to express future events. Actually, all epistemic uses of the modal verbs
refer to people's present attitudes with respect to the future time sphere: The meeting can / may / must /
shall / will, etc. take place tomorrow.
It is only natural for future events / states to have modal or aspectual implications since "we
cannot be as certain of future happenings as we are of events past and present, and for this reason, even the
most confident prognostication must indicate something of one speaker's attitude and so be tinged with
modality" (Ioana Stefanescu, English Morphology II, 1988, pp. 302).
In fact, the only linguistic form that denotes a future event and has temporal sense alone - that is, it
does not reflect any attitude on the part of the speaker - is the simple present tense combined with a future
time adverbial.
Apart from the simple present, there are five other linguistic forms that, beside their basic modal
or aspectual quality, contain a future time implication:
1) Present Tense Simple
2) Present Tense Continuous
3) Be Going To
4) Future Tense Simple
5) Future Tense Continuous
6) Future Perfect (Simple and Continuous)
PRESENT TENSE SIMPLE
As already discussed in the chapter on the values of the simple present, this tense denotes the
future either in subordinate clauses of time and condition or in main clauses, being generally accompanied
by a future time adverbial. The presence of the simple present instead of a will / shall construction in the
subordinate is justified by the fact that the situation contained in this clause is taken as a given fact, not as a
prediction. The reasoning behind such structures would be: "If X is a fact, then I predict Y.'
Similarly, the simple present in main clauses denotes future facts, not possible future events. We
attribute to such sentences the same degree of certainty we would attribute to present or past events.
Therefore, constructions with the simple present describing a future event are restricted to certain areas,
like statements about the calendar, programs or itineraries regarded as immutable:
Tomorrow is Friday. / School starts on Monday / next week. / We leave for Brasov tomorrow
morning.
Since such arrangements are supposed to be unalterable, it is easy to understand why they are
normally collective or impersonal - made by official authorities, committees, a court of law, etc.
There is an entire range of verbs commonly used in such contexts, verbs associated with
announcements about timetables, schedules or organized events: start, begin, end, leave, set off, come, go,
depart, arrive, etc.
If we consider that the simple present with future value describes a definite occasion in the future
in the same way the simple past refers to a definite occasion in the past, we have an explanation for the
obligatory presence of the future time adverbial in such sentences, unless reference time is provided by the
context (like, for instance, in a narrative sequence).
Future events expressed by means of the simple present are assumed to take place without fail;
therefore, we might say that the simple present with future value presents the highest degree of certainty as
to the occurrence of a certain action in the future.
PRESENT TENSE CONTINUOUS
When used with future value, the continuous present signals a future event anticipated by virtue of
a present plan, program or arrangement, generally aiming at the near rather than the distant future; hence,
the suggestion of imminence of these constructions. At the same time, this does not mean that there are no
present progressive sentences referring to the remote future; they exist in as far as we make reference to
remote future events determined in advance:
I'm taking Mary shopping tomorrow.
He's getting married in September.
When I grow up, I'm joining the fire brigade.
The verbs that enter such constructions are generally verbs of 'doing', involving conscious human
agency. On the other hand, it is obvious that the continuous present with future value will not combine with
state verbs normally incompatible with the progressive aspect. Compare:
Hillary is rising at 6.00 tomorrow to prepare breakfast for the kids.
*The sun is rising at 6.00 tomorrow.
In the first example we interpret Hillary as the agent who has deliberately made this plan, which
is, in fact, reinforced by the presence of the purpose clause 'to prepare breakfast for the kids'. In contrast,
the second example sounds absurd because the sunrise can't be planned, it is determined by natural law.
The continuous present with future value is close in meaning to the going to form, since they
express an arrangement or an intention. However, while the going to form is used in a wider variety of
contexts and not necessarily with a time adverbial, the present continuous refers only to very definite
arrangements, mostly in the near future, and thus is always accompanied by a future time expression:
Are you going to the auction tomorrow?
Yes, I'm going, but I'm not going to buy anything.
We might consider that there is a slight difference of emphasis between the two structures in a pair
like:
I'm going to have lunch with Jim tomorrow.
I'm having lunch with Jim tomorrow.
The first sentence reflects the speaker's present state of mind and it may well be the case that Jim
has no idea about the speaker's plan. The second sentence refers to an arrangement already made in the
past, hence the implication that both the speaker and Jim know about it. It is only the second sentence that
the speaker could offer as an excuse for not joining a friend for a game of snooker.
BE GOING TO
The general meaning attached to this linguistic form is that of 'future fulfillment of the present';
this extends to two more specific meanings: 'future fulfillment of present intention' and "future fulfillment
of present cause'.
Going to with the first meaning is restricted to human, or at least animate subjects endowed with
will that can, thus, express their intentions. The kind of verbs admitted in such structures are, again, verbs
of 'doing' ('agentive' verbs) that imply conscious exercise of the will, and not state verbs:
The detective is going to ask you a few questions.
What are you going to do with the money?
I've reminded you once; I'm not going to do it again.
Though its nature brings it closer to the idea of imminence, going to can be used to refer to periods
remote from the moment of speaking: I am going to be a teacher when I grow up.
Going to can be paraphrased by intend, but with a slight difference in meaning. I'm going to
participate in the board meeting tomorrow is distinct from I intend to participate in the board meeting
tomorrow in the sense that the former has a higher degree of certainty, the expectation that this will happen
is stronger than in the latter.
We should distinguish between the going to expressing intention and the will + infinitive
construction having the same meaning. Very often either of the two can be used; yet, when the intention is
clearly premeditated, we employ the going to form, and when it is clearly unpremeditated we use will +
infinitive:
I've hired a typewriter and I am going to learn to type.
A lot of paint was delivered here today. Are you going to redecorate your kitchen?
You look frozen. Sit down by the fire and I'll make you some tea.
Did you remember to book seats? / Oh no, I forgot. I'll telephone for them now.
The second meaning of going to - that of 'future fulfillment of present cause' - is less restrictive
both in point of subject choice and choice of verb class. Thus, the subject can be either animate or
inanimate and the expression can occur with both 'agentive' and 'non-agentive' / 'state' verbs:
She is going to have a baby next month.
There's going to be a riot in this village.
I think I'm going to cry.
It's going to rain.
In all the above examples the underlying assumption is that factors already at work at present are
inevitably leading to a certain future state of affairs. For instance, a sentence like It's going to rain would be
uttered if the speaker saw black clouds already gathering in the gloomy sky.
Bearing this in mind, it is easy to understand why going to refers to the immediate future and is
also named 'current orientation' be going to: Look out! The glass is going to fall! ('I can see it already
tottering').
'Current orientation' going to contrasts with prediction will to the extent that the going to form
carries this sense of inevitability. Compare:
The soup will cool soon.
The soup is going to cool soon.
If the first sentence makes a prediction, counseling patience, the second should be interpreted as a
warning for the addressee to, perhaps, hurry and eat it before it cools.
FUTURE TENSE SIMPLE
There is no future tense in modern English, but for convenience shall and will combined with the
bare infinitive are designated as future tense simple. Shall and will are, in fact, modal verbs that express
prediction, therefore something that involves the speaker's judgment and is directly related to the future
time sphere. Students must take into account the fact that shall and will also have other modal meanings
(see chapter on Modal Verbs); they can express promises, threats, refusals, etc. and still refer to a future
event.
Shall has a neutral predictive meaning only when used with the first person singular or plural: I
shall never have the opportunity to thank him. In American English it is used in formal contexts: We shall
never surrender to the terrorists.
Shall / will with predictive meaning appear in various contexts. They may express the speaker's
opinions, speculations and assumptions about the future (used after verbs such as doubt, expect, hope,
believe, think, etc.):
Perhaps I'll find another teacher after this.
I will know him when I see him.
I'm sure / I suppose they won't agree to our project.
I expect the train will be late.
They are also specific of sentences with subordinates of condition and time, in which case the
main clause contains the future structure and the subordinate employs a simple present (see chapter on the
values of the simple present):
If I throw this plate against the wall, it will smash into pieces.
Birds will start to sing when spring comes.
Those verbs not normally used in the progressive will combine with the simple future: verbs of
perception, cognitive verbs, verbs of possession, etc.
You'll have plenty of time to finish your book.
He'll be there by tomorrow.
They'll find out about your plans tonight.
The future simple is mainly present in newspapers and on TV in news broadcasts when formal
announcements or announcements about the weather are made. In fact, in everyday conversation the
listener will use other means of expressing such future events, such as the going to form or the present
continuous for plans:
Newspaper: The Queen will visit the southern part of the country tomorrow.
Reader: The Queen is visiting / is going to visit the southern part of the country tomorrow.
Generally, shall / will + infinitive does not appear without a time adverbial for obvious reasons.
As already mentioned, the modals in themselves do not express future time, they simply suggest a
prediction. It is the adverbial that places this prediction in time; otherwise the sentence is factually empty.
Thus, there is no point in saying *it will rain without mentioning when it will happen.
FUTURE TENSE CONTINUOUS
As it combines with the progressive aspect, this structure will naturally refer either to an activity in
progress at a specific point in time (i.e. in the future) or to a temporary arrangement, again in the future. In
this respect, future tense continuous matches the patterns of the present or past continuous:
This time next week I'll be teaching them grammar.
I'd better move the computer in my room. I'll be working in there next week.
Apart from these normal uses, future tense continuous has a special meaning that applies to a
single event viewed in its entirety and not as going on at a point around which it creates a temporal frame.
This use eliminates any idea of intention, volition or plan. It suggests that the event predicted by shall / will
will occur independently of the will of the people involved in it as part of the ordinary course of events or
as a matter of routine. That is why this tense has been labeled 'future-as-a-matter-of-course':
Stand here, they'll be changing the guard in a minute and you'll get a good view.
In fifty years' time we'll be living entirely on pills.
When I get home my dog will be sitting at the door waiting for me.
There is a contrast between future tense continuous and present tense continuous with future
value:
He is seeing the doctor tomorrow.
He'll be seeing the doctor tomorrow.
The first example suggests that he has deliberately arranged a meeting with the doctor, while the
second example implies that their meeting is part of the ordinary course of events (perhaps they work or do
business together).
We can make even a further distinction between the two if we compare:
I'm giving a lesson at 3.00 p.m. tomorrow.
I'll be giving a lesson at 3.00 p.m. tomorrow.
The first sentence states that the lesson will begin at the time mentioned, whereas the second
suggests that the lesson may have already begun and is in progress at the respective time.
On the other hand, we can contrast future tense continuous with the will + infinitive construction
as well as their negative counterparts; in both cases, the opposition is between a future with intention and a
future without intention. Compare:
I'll phone mum and tell her about your plans.
I'll be phoning mum and I'll tell her about your plans.
The gardener won't cut down the tree. He says that it is perfectly all right as it is.
The gardener won't be cutting the grass for some time, as I've got a lot of other jobs for him to do
first.
In the first sentence the speaker announces a deliberate future action that will occur as a result of
his wishes; in the second example the speaker implies that the talk on the phone will take place either as a
matter of routine or for reasons that have nothing to do with the interlocutor's plans. Similarly, won't cut
denotes a refusal, while won't be cutting suggests that the gardener's program requires otherwise.
In interrogative constructions, will + infinitive can express an invitation, a request or a command;
the use of future tense continuous renders the question neutral, bearing no imposition on the part of the
speaker:
Will you please take the dog out for a walk? (request)
Will you be taking the dog out for a walk? (question only)
Since they are more polite and more tactful and do not put pressure on the addressee, such
structures have become more frequent in every day conversation.
On the other hand, there are restrictions in the use of this linguistic form. It cannot describe
sudden, violent or abnormal events, as they cannot be interpreted as part of a routine: *The terrorists will
be killing the President tomorrow. Still, this use has been speculated in colloquial English with humorous
or ironic effects. Idioms such as 'You'll be losing your head one of these days' or 'Whatever will he be
doing next?' suggesting comic exasperation, are quite common in everyday speech.
FUTURE PERFECT TENSE SIMPLE / CONTINUOUS
These structures are used to denote future events that take place before other future events or
before a certain future moment. Generally, they occur with a time expression beginning with by:
By the end of the term I will have read all the twelve volumes.
The police will have heard of the theft by this time.
On October 21st they will have been married for twenty-five years.
When the focus does not concentrate on the result, but rather on the continuity of the action, we
use the progressive form:
By the end of the day I will have been working for ten hours. (continuous action)
By the end of the month he will have been teaching students for a year. (repeated action)
Future perfect can also be used to express an assumption on the part of the speaker: You won't
have heard the news, of course.
FUTURE -IN-THE-PAST FORMS
In case sentences have a past time axis, all the future time expressions are modified according to
the change of context and indicate future in the past situations. This happens either in narratives or when
applying indirect / reported speech rules:
He was going to tell her what we had done.
They were leaving town the next day.
She said she would call me later that week.
If be going to is considered the most common form used to express future in the past, would is
preferred in literary style.
OTHER FUTURE TIME EXPRESSIONS
There are other ways of referring to the future, which are both formal (to be to, to be about to and
to be due to) and colloquial (to be on the point of, to be near to, to be ready to, to be on the verge of / on the
brink of).
To be to is similar in meaning to have to / ought to and describes formal arrangements made as a
result of an order / command. In He is to return to England tomorrow the most likely meaning is that he
has received explicit order to go back there. When it denotes an official arrangement or plan, it is similar to
the simple present with future value, except that, unlike the latter, it can retain its future meaning even
when it is not accompanied by a future time adverbial:
The chairman of the board is to meet union officials (tonight).
The chairman of the board meets union officials tonight.
To be about to and to be on the point of both refer to imminent actions and the former is used to
replace the more colloquial going to in formal contexts: I think the play is about to start now. / I am just on
the point of proposing to her.
To be due to refers to scheduled times: The ceremony is due to begin in ten minutes. / His flight is
due at 7.35 a.m.
MODAL VERBS
Modality refers to notions like possibility, impossibility, necessity, we experience certain states of
affairs in the real world, but then we imagine that things are different and in this way we talk about possible
worlds.
There are 3 general systems of principles that can be invoked when we talk about modality:
- the rational laws of deduction – probability, possibility, impossibility
- the social or institutional laws - legal authority/institution or one's social status according to which you
have or you don’t have authority over somebody else; these modalities refer to duty, compulsion,
order, command, appropriateness etc.
- the natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy etc. referring to modalities that define the
notion of physical and intellectual ability/capacity.
Modal verbs are a syntactically defined subset of auxiliary verbs with specific properties:
- inversion with the subject (May I borrow your car?)
- negative with not (You can’t throw plates at him!)
- 3rd person: defective (compare: I can play the piano. vs. He can play the violin.)
- no non-finite forms such as infinitives, past or present participles (*to may, *canning, *musted)
- no co-occurrence (*I must can do it.)
Modals are polysemous words. May in a sentence like You may go now. indicates permission,
whereas in He may be there already. it suggests possibility. The problem of polysemy: there is a syntactic
approach based on the idea that the distinct meanings of the same modal are reflected in their distinct
distribution.
Modal verbs evince two basic meanings:
- deontic (root) sense: ability, permission, duty
- epistemic sense: possibility, impossibility, certainty.
The difference in meaning is reflected in their different syntactic behaviors. Deontic forms do not
take the progressive, do not occur with the perfect infinitive and their subject is always [+ human].
Epistemic forms co-occur with the continuous infinitive to suggest an action in progress and with the
perfect infinitive for past time reference and have no restrictions on the subject. Though it proves to be a
very felicitous distinction, it will be noticed later that the rule holds true only for the most important modal
verbs (may, can and must). The less developed modals do not observe it:
You should be listening to what your sister is saying. (deontic should combines with the
continuous infinitive to suggest an action in progress at the moment of speaking)
You ought to have paid closer attention to your guests. (deontic ought to combines with the perfect
infinitive to suggest past time reference)
CAN / COULD
DEONTIC CAN
Deontic can expresses physical or mental ability, referring to potential acts, not real ones.
He can speak English. (El stie sa vorbeasca engleza. - general permanent ability)
Look, I can / *am able to swim. (Pot sa inot. - now)
Can is used in parallel with a synonymous expression having a fuller range of forms - to be able
to. Apart from replacing can in contexts for which the modal has no forms, to be able to has a specific
meaning, and in certain contexts we do distinguish between the uses of the two. To be able to is preferred
when referring to a specific achievement, though this context does not rule out the use of can:
Mary has now recovered from her illness and is able to / can go to school.
However, can is commonly used with verbs of perception (see, hear, smell, taste, feel) and
cognitive verbs of the type believe, remember, understand. To be able to is never used when referring to
something going on at the moment of speaking (see example above). When used with verbs of physical
perception can actualizes the reference of the verb. In this respect, can is like an aspectual marker (often
not translated):
I see the swallows flying up the sky. / I can see the swallows flying up in the sky.
Do you hear the wind blowing? / Can you hear the wind blowing?
Each pair of sentences has the same translation (Vad randunelele zburand sus pe cer. and Auzi
cum sufla vantul?).
Deontic can has two past forms: could and was / were able to. Similarly, could is used to express a
habitual or recurrent event in the past, describing generic ability. Was/were able to refers to the actual
performance of a single successful achievement. Compare:
He could play the piano very well when he was a child. (generic)
When he moved closer to the painting, he was able to / *he could see that it was a fake.
(particular)
On the other hand, couldn’t will always imply that the event didn’t take place. There is no
difference between could and to be able to in negative sentences.
Can is also often used to express sporadic ability or an irregular pattern of behavior: She can be
quite catty. / He can be nasty. / Frenchmen can be arrogant.
Ability in the future is expressed by means of either can or the periphrastic shall/will be able to
with a difference in meaning. To be able to refers to some event that will be possible in the future. In
contrast, when making a decision at the moment of speaking about some event in the future, we use can:
I hope they will be able to book seats for the concert tomorrow.
You can go home when you have finished writing your essay.
Maybe we can go fishing next week.
The second meaning of deontic can is that of permission. Can is more widely employed than
'permission' may in colloquial English. In formal and polite English, be it written or spoken, we encounter
the opposite phenomenon. May replaces can in all contexts, being perceived as the more respectable form.
However, unlike may which is employed when an authority gives you permission, the use of can suggests
that 'you have permission' rather than 'I give you permission'. In other words, there is no rule or law that
prevents you from performing a certain action. Compare:
Old man: You can park here as far as I know.
Policeman: You may park here.
Permission can has an additional pragmatic interpretation in sentences like: You can forget about
your holiday. (strong recommendation) or You can jump in the lake if you feel like it. (sarcastic suggestion).
In interrogations the use of can to request permission is simply a matter of courtesy; the hearer is
not usually in a position to deny permission:
Can I leave now? / Can I have the salt?
Negative sentences use either cannot or may not to refuse permission:
You may not leave yet. (I do not permit you to leave…)
You mustn't talk loudly in this auditorium. (I oblige you no to talk loudly in this auditorium)
Though both sentences represent prohibitions, the second seems to be more forceful because it is
interpreted as positively forbidding an action instead of negatively refusing permission.
There is no past time for permission can with the exception of could used as a past tense form in
reported speech:
He said I could leave the next day. / She said that, if he wanted, he could join us.
EPISTEMIC CAN
Epistemic can expresses the possibility/impossibility of an action to take place. It is more
frequent in negations and interrogations, whereas in affirmative sentences may is preferred:
He may be reading in the library.
Can he be reading in the library?
He can't be reading in the library.
Roughly speaking, we can establish a distinction between can and may in affirmative sentences if
we conceive of them in terms of the opposition factual vs. theoretical possibility. Compare:
The dollar can be devalued. (It is possible to devalue the dollar. - theoretical possibility)
The dollar may be devalued. (It is possible that the dollar is devalued. - factual possibility)
When uttered, the second sentence should be taken more seriously because it does not refer to a
mere possibility that has occurred to the speaker, but to a real contingency, such as a time of financial
crisis. Unfortunately, in formal English may seems to be used to express both factual and theoretical
possibility, so the distinction persists only in colloquial English.
While cannot expresses the impossibility of some action to occur (appearing in cases of external
negation), may not suggests the possibility of something not happening (illustrating cases of internal
negation):
If he saw a light it can’t have been the light of the car. (external negation)
(it is not possible that he saw the light of the car)
He may not arrive in time. (internal negation)
(it is possible that he does not arrive in time)
For past time reference epistemic can combines with the perfect infinitive like any other epistemic
modal:
He can't have had time to hide the evidence.
Could he have spread that vicious rumor about the twins?
In this case, the modal has present time reference, but the verb inside has past time reference.
MAY / MIGHT
DEONTIC MAY
Deontic may is used to grant or give permission when the speaker has the authority to do so (see
comparison to permission can above). Permission may is also present in rules and regulations in formal
English: A local health authority may, with the approval of the Minister, receive from persons to which
advice is given under this section… such charges, (if any) as the authority consider reasonable. Since the
example above refers specifically to the powers a certain official is endowed with, its semantic content
accounts for the presence of permission may.
In questions, may signals the hearer's authority, not the speaker's, being similar to must.
When permission is denied, the speaker uses either may not or must not if the authority prohibits
some action (You may not visit that family. / You must not speak to her again!).
For past time reference may is replaced by to be allowed to, whereas in reported speech might is
used:
I was eventually allowed to go abroad to visit my relatives.
The nurse said we might speak to the patient.
EPISTEMIC MAY
As already mentioned above, epistemic may is used to express possibility, focusing primarily on
specific situations. For instance, a sentence like A friend may betray you is interpreted more like a warning
about a particular friend. In this case the truth of the sentence or its falsity can be verified.
On the other hand, can basically focuses on general situations. In a sentence like A friend can
betray you it is suggested that friends sometimes do that.
When combined with the perfect infinitive, may / might refer to events in the past:
He may have already discovered the secret of that tomb.
(NB. He can't have already discovered the secret of that tomb.)
May with the sense of 'possibility' also appears in concessive clauses in colloquial English as an
alternative to an although clause:
You may be in charge, but this doesn't give you the right to be rude.
Although you are in charge, this doesn't give you the right to be rude.
Also, there is an idiomatic expression with try, using may for present reference and might for past
reference:
Try as I might, I couldn't push the door open.
Try as he may, he can never remember people's names.
May / might combines with several adverbs that emphasize the modal expression with both present
and past time reference.
I might well decide to come.
I might just start to trust you.
May / might as well expresses the idea that there is no alternative left to a bad situation: We might
as well give up now because we don't stand a chance if we fight against them.
As already suggested, epistemic may does not occur in interrogative sentences, where can is
preferred, and hence, the theoretical - factual possibility opposition disappears.
MUST, HAVE (GOT) TO
DEONTIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO
The relationship between must and have to parallels that between may and can in both their
deontic and epistemic meanings.
When employed with its deontic meaning, must expresses obligation. Must has either neutral
reference when, for instance, the speaker says what somebody else requires or it can point to the speaker
who is in some position of authority and imposes a duty. In this respect, it resembles 'permission' may.
The university says: These people must be expelled if they disrupt lectures. (neutral)
You must return all the books to the library by Friday. (the speaker is in authority)
When we consider the first person singular or plural (I must / we must), we notice that the idea of
compulsion is not lost, it is simply directed towards the speaker himself, so that we talk about selfcompulsion; the speaker imposes something on himself through a sense of duty or self-discipline. This
contrasts with the use of have to (I have to / we have to) which suggests that some external authority
imposes the duty:
I must finish writing the essay by tonight. (internal obligation - I have my own program and I want
to stick to it)
I have to finish writing the essay by tonight. (external obligation - the teacher wants the essays
tomorrow morning)
Have to / have got to have either neutral or external orientation as to the source of obligation:
I’ve got to be at London airport at 4.
You have to make up a plan before you start.
Students have to be careful with their grades.
While have to is used in formal language and has non-finite forms (will have to, having to), have
got to is characteristic of colloquial British English and is more restricted in use because of its lack of nonfinite forms (*will have got to, *having got to). Have got to is rarer in the past and does not imply that the
event referred to took place, unlike have to:
We’d got to make a trip to York anyway so it didn’t matter too much. (it was necessary…)
We had to make a trip to York to collect the bloody thing. (the event took place)
As already seen, have to is used for past time reference replacing must. Subject-oriented must
needs no past tense (must is different from have to only in the present). Must appears as such with past time
reference only in reported speech: She said she must/had to go.
Like the other modals must is used for future events: We must do something about it tomorrow.
Shall/will have to is used if there is a suggestion that the necessity is future or conditioned: I shall have to
keep silent for an hour. / We’ll have to go out if you’re going to do it.
When must is used in interrogative as well as in conditional clauses, it is the hearer’s authority
that is involved, not the speaker’s: Must I sweep the floor and wash the dishes myself? (= Are these your
orders?) There is an even more restricted use of must in interrogatives with 'you' as subject that conveys a
note of sarcasm: Must you really smoke those horrible cigars? In a sentence like If you must smoke, go to
the window, which is again extremely ironical, the speaker pretends to interpret the hearer's need to smoke
as something he cannot control rather than as a nasty habit he enjoys practicing.
Otherwise, necessity is questioned in: Have you got to do it? / Do you have to do it? / Need I say
more? There seems to be a difference between do you have to and have you got to in the sense that the
former has a habitual or iterative meaning, while the latter refers to a specific occasion. Consider:
Do you have to be at school at 8 o'clock? (Is this what you have to do every day?)
Have you got to be at school at 8 o'clock? (Is this what you have to do tomorrow morning?)
In negative sentences must not negates the event indicating the obligation not to perform some
action (internal negation), whereas needn't or don't have to negate the necessity (external negation):
You mustn’t reveal what I’ve said. (I oblige you not to reveal what I've said)
You needn’t answer that question. (You are not obliged to answer that question.)
EPISTEMIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO
Epistemic must expresses logical necessity, you get to knowledge by inference or reasoning; the
evidence is such as to imply the truth of the sentence.
Have to also expresses logical necessity:
There has to be someone who knows the truth about his disappearance.
You have to have made some mistake here.
Again the difference between epistemic must and epistemic have to is that between factual
necessity and theoretical necessity, paralleling the may - can situation:
Someone must be hiding the truth. (It is impossible that everyone is telling the truth.)
Someone has to be hiding the truth. (It is impossible for everyone to be telling the truth.)
Thus, have to is stronger than must in the sense that it does not refer to a mere assumption or
deduction, it suggests that the possibility of the opposite state of affairs cannot be conceived of. The must
example above is interpreted as a simple suspicion, whereas the have to example expresses a downright
accusation.
In American English have got to has acquired an epistemic interpretation: AE You’ve got to be
joking./ BE You must be joking.
For past time reference must combines with the perfect infinitive like all the other epistemic
modals: He must have been flying too low. Otherwise, I don't see any explanation for the crash.
The negative counterpart of epistemic must is can’t - the “natural expression of impossibility”:
She must be over 40. Oh, she can’t.
WILL / WOULD
DEONTIC WILL / WOULD
VOLITION WILL
Volition will relates to either willingness (weak volition) or insistence (strong volition) or
intention (intermediate volition).
The idea of willingness is commonly related to second - person requests of the type:
Will you bring me a glass of water?
Who will tell me what I've done wrong?
In such questions will is a polite variant of the imperative for the 2nd and the 3rd persons. Would in
such questions is even more polite: Would you kindly tell me … / Would you be good enough… / Would you
like to …? This type of volition will is also present in conditional clauses in the second and third persons:
If you will say so, I shall have a cake.
I shan’t be happy unless she will come.
Strong volitional will shows one's determination or intention to do something:
I will see him today if that's what I want!
'I won't do it!' / 'Yes, you will.'
Sandy, honey, why will you keep asking stupid questions?
If you will ask her out every time you see her, don't complain that she's avoiding you.
The last two examples that employ second and third persons clearly imply that the speaker is
exasperated at the interlocutors' stubbornness. Since it has such an emphatic meaning, strong volitional will
is never contracted to 'll and always stressed in speech.
The third type of intermediate will occurs mainly with the first person expressing a promise or a
threat and is usually contracted:
I will pay him back for what he's done to me!
We'll cut your allowance if you refuse to listen to us!
We'll see about that when he returns.
When volitional will is negated, it expresses a strong refusal:
They won’t give me a key, so I can’t work.
But she loves him and she won’t leave him.
I won’t have my name on the title page.
For past time reference with subject-oriented will the form would is NOT used if there is an
accomplished interpretation for the event, but wouldn’t is normal. Instead, volitional be willing to is more
likely:
I asked him and he was willing to come.
*I asked him and he would come.
I asked him but he wouldn’t come.
Volitional would is used in adverbial clauses of condition and after wish, being more conditional
than will.
POWER WILL
Power will expresses properties of certain objects, how they characteristically behave. Unlike
volition will whose subject is always a person or at least an animal endowed with willpower, power will
employs inanimate subjects and is subject-oriented (the source of power is intrinsic to the subject of will):
The hall will seat five hundred.
You know that certain drugs will improve your condition.
The door won’t open.
For past time reference we use power would, which parallels volition would but retains an
inanimate subject (She asked if the table would bear.)
HABITUAL WILL
Habitual will refers to a situation that takes place regularly or frequently as a consequence of a
natural tendency of a person or an object:
A falling drop will hollow a stone.
Boys will be boys.
A cat will often play with a mouse before killing it.
For past time reference we employ either would or used to with the difference that used to does not
have the sense of an iterated situation; that is why used to can combine with both state and activity verbs,
unlike would whose usage is restricted to activity verbs only:
He used to live in that house in those days.
He would (often) buy strawberries in those days / whenever she came.
EPISTEMIC WILL / WOULD
Epistemic will is related to the idea of probability, the inference concerning the present time as it
involves a present situation. If there is reference to a past situation, then we use will in combination with
the perfect infinitive:
This will be the National Gallery.
That will be John at the door.
She’ll be sleeping now.
John will have received the book by this time.
Epistemic will is like epistemic must in the sense that the conclusion is reached on the basis of the
evidence available. Generally speaking must could replace will in all the examples above with only a slight
difference in meaning as to the degree of certainty of the respective prediction:
John must be in his office. (I can see the lights on).
John will be in his office. (from previous knowledge why the lights were on, we infer that John is
in his office).
SHALL / SHOULD
DEONTIC SHALL / SHOULD
The deontic meaning of shall is that of obligation; however, it is the will of the speaker who
imposes an obligation, not the will of the subject of the sentence (shall is speaker-oriented). In modern
English we use must; shall is an archaic form of order still present in fairy tales, in the Bible and in legal
statements or rules:
He shall be punished if he does not obey.
You shall never hear from me again.
You shall receive a reward if you follow my advice.
The first condition of legal justice is that it shall hold the balance impartially.
This imperious kind of shall, used with second and third person subjects, can suggest either a
promise or a threat on the part of the speaker.
In interrogations that employ the first person the speaker inquires about the wish or will of the
addressee. Shall I go? represents an offer to go (Do you want me to go?)
Used with the second person shall describes a situation which is independent of the will of the
person addressed; therefore, it is distinct from will you? which inquires about the other person’s will or
willingness.
Shall you see John today?
When shall you do it?
Deontic should is a weaker equivalent of deontic shall, the sense of obligation being rendered in
the form of a suggestion or piece of advice. Should has present and future reference, for past reference
combining with the perfect infinitive and acquiring a contrary-to-fact interpretation:
You should pay more attention to what I'm telling you right now.
If I could have my way, you should be sent to Siberia for what you've done.
You should have told me that you were hungry. (But, in fact, you didn't)
EPISTEMIC SHALL / SHOULD
Shall is interpreted epistemically when its modal base is the system of rational laws and where the
empirical evidence implies the truth of the sentence:
A flower shall produce thousands of seeds, of which perhaps not one shall fall upon fertile ground
and grow into a fair plant.
Who touches pitch shall be defiled.
The general meaning of epistemic shall is that ‘someone /something is disposed towards
something’. (Perkins, 1983)
Epistemic should is considered the conditional equivalent of epistemic shall. It is used for
assumptions about present or past situations (if combined with the perfect infinitive):
The plane should be landing now.
The parcel should have arrived by now.
Assumptions with epistemic should are less confident than assumptions with epistemic will. He
should have finished by now means that 'I expect he has finished by now', whereas He will have finished by
now suggests that 'I am sure he has finished'.
OUGHT TO
Very close in interpretation to should, ought to represents a tentative counterpart of must and shall.
DEONTIC OUGHT TO
Deontic ought to is similar in meaning to must, denoting obligation or duty, with a single
difference: while must suggests that the speaker is confident the interlocutor will do as told, the use of
ought to implies that the speaker is not very certain the addressee will perform his duty. Compare:
You must give some money to your sister. (I am sure you will.)
You ought to give some money to your sister. (But I don't know whether you will or not)
Hence, ought to gives the possibility of non-action, unlike must. We may say He ought to go but
he won’t but an utterance like He must go but *he won’t is impossible. Moreover, when used with a first
person subject, the implication is that the obligation will not be fulfilled. If a driver says I ought to go
slowly here, he implies that he isn't going to go slowly, but if he says I must go slowly here, he really
intends to go slowly.
For past time reference ought to selects the perfect infinitive: You ought to have been more careful
with the children.
EPISTEMIC OUGHT TO
Epistemic ought to expresses potential probability; again its meaning is related to that of
epistemic must:
Susan ought to be at her office now.
Susan must be at her office now.
The must variant reflects the speaker's certainty that his deduction is correct, since there is
evidence that leads him to the respective conclusion. The ought to variant reflects the speaker's
cautiousness in asserting that as he also takes into account that there is a slight possibility that something
unexpected might have happened to require her presence somewhere else.
NEED / NEED TO
Although they are close in meaning, need (a fi necesar) and need to (a avea nevoie) differ in point
of grammatical behavior since the former is a modal verb and the latter a full lexical verb (which,
consequently, forms questions and negative forms with do).
Modal need is mainly used in negative and interrogative sentences as a correlative of must. Modal
need doesn’t occur in ‘affirmative’ sentences, except in fairly formal English with hardly, scarcely or only:
I need hardly mention how grateful I am for this opportunity.
You need only touch one of the doors for the alarm to start ringing.
Need not expresses lack of necessity similarly to the negative forms of have to or need to. When
we refer to a past situation, the choice is between didn't have to and didn't need to (the lexical verb).
In reported speech need is retained just like must: She believed she need not fear any persecution.
At the same time, needn't also occurs with the perfect infinitive to refer to a past situation. Yet, in
this case it expresses an unnecessary action which was nevertheless performed, thus resembling shouldn't
have and oughtn't have in as far as in all three cases the event does take place:
You needn't have carried all this luggage by yourself. (lack of necessity)
What needn't have done and didn't have / need to do have in common is the lack of necessity.
They differ in that the former implies that the action does take place, while the latter implies that as a
consequence of this lack of necessity, the action is no longer performed.
I didn't have / need to pick up Mary from school because she phoned me saying she would walk
home.
I needn't have driven to school to pick up Mary but I had forgotten she'd told me she had other
plans.
Lexical need occurs with a (passive) infinitive or a noun / pronoun object or a gerund:
I need to know what time you'll get home.
I just need some money.
The gas tank needs to be refilled / refilling.
DARE
Dare resembles need to a great extent in that it has both modal and lexical variants and it also
occurs in interrogative and negative sentences, and only rarely in statements. Students must pay attention to
the distinct grammatical properties of dare as modal and lexical verb:
John daren’t come. / Dare John come?
John doesn’t dare to come. / Does John dare to come?
In the affirmative dare is used in the expression I daresay / I dare say, which means 'I suppose': I
daresay the plane will be delayed.
In How dare(d) you? / How dare(d) he / they?, the speaker expresses indignation at the actions of
the interlocutor: How dare you shout at me?
At the same time, lexical dare has an additional meaning ('to challenge') if used transitively and
followed by object + full infinitive: Somebody dared me to jump off the bridge into the river.
THE SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD
Whereas the indicative expresses facts and is closely related to reality, the subjunctive "represents
something not as actual reality, but as formed in the mind of the speaker as a desire, wish, volition,
conception, thought; sometimes with more or less hope of realization, or, in the case of a statement, with
more or less belief; sometimes with little or no hope or faith." (George Curme, 1935:391)
While the indicative is informative, relating facts to moments in real time, the subjunctive is
prescriptive, it indicates a theoretically possible or potential course of events that the world may take. The
subjunctive expresses value judgments, commentaries about theoretical or desirable situations or
commands aimed at making somebody bring about a certain state of affairs.
The subjunctive can be either synthetic (using old inflectional forms) or analytic / periphrastic
(employing modal verbs, the most widely used being should). In its turn, the synthetic subjunctive
classifies into an old subjunctive and a new one. All of them have present and past forms.
SYNTHETIC SUBJUNCTIVE - OLD FORMS
The old subjunctive is used in formulas and after would rather (expressing preference) and had
better (interpreted as suggestion or advice):
Long live the Queen! So be it! Come what may! Grammar be hanged!
I would rather go to the mountains than to the seaside.
I would rather have lived in the country.
It's rather late, I had better leave now.
Would rather can be replaced by prefer, but this requires the use of the gerund: I prefer reading to
writing.
At the same time, American English tends to use this type of subjunctive in contexts such as "It's
important that you go there." where British English uses the analytic subjunctive - "It's important that you
should go there."
SYNTHETIC SUBJUNCTIVE - NEW FORMS
The new forms of the synthetic subjunctive - second form of the verb for the present subjunctive
(NB. TO BE has WERE for all persons) and had + third form of the verb for the past subjunctive - are used
in the following contexts:
1) after if:
He wouldn't accept your apologies if he knew about your lies. (hypothetical situation)
They wouldn't have come to the meeting if they hadn't been invited. (hypothetical past
situation)
An alternative to the last example is a structure introduced by unless (= only if not) always
followed by the verb in the affirmative. However, not all negative if sentences can be turned into unless
sentences:
They wouldn't have come to the meeting unless they had been invited.
If I don't come back in time, I'll give you a call.
*I'll give you a call unless I come back in time.
If one situation depends on another, we can replace if with provided, on condition that or as long
as, which are followed by the indicative:
I'll lend you the money provided you don't tell my mother.
I won't scold you again as long as you behave nicely.
The same context mentioned above allows the use of if it were not for (for present reference), if it
hadn't been for (for past reference) or but for, all followed by noun phrases:
If it weren't for your interest in his studies, he would fail all his exams.
If it hadn't been for Jim, I would have drowned in the sea.
But for her ambition, she wouldn't have managed to overcome that situation.
Apart from the subjunctive forms mentioned so far, if can be followed by modal verbs that
preserve their original meaning in these contexts: should, will, would and could. Should after if, as well as
the parallel structure happen to, makes the possibility of an event seem unlikely:
If you should hear from him/if you happen to hear from him, will you inform me?
Will after if introduces the idea of your willingness to do what is suggested; would in similar
contexts is more tentative, more polite:
If you will join me to that meeting, I would be very grateful.
If you would fill in these forms now, I could grant you the loan sooner.
On the other hand, will in if sentences can also express obstinate insistence, usually referring to a
bad habit:
If you will laugh at people all the time, no wonder nobody wants to talk to you.
The negative counterpart of will indicates one's refusal to do something:
If he won't listen to me, I can't help him.
NB. Apart from these two types of conditional tenses that employ subjunctive forms, there is a
third possibility that uses the indicative (usually, the simple present) in the subordinate and a future form in
the main clause (see present tense simple with future value). When we aim at emphasizing completion after
if, we use a perfect form, suggesting that the event in the conditional sentence necessarily precedes the
event in the main clause:
If you have finished your meal, I will clear the plates.
NB. Literary English also allows inversion of the subject and the auxiliary verb instead of an if
clause (Had I arrived earlier instead of If I had arrived earlier, Were I to return sooner instead of If I were
to return sooner, etc.) Had and were are in fact the auxiliaries most commonly involved in such emphatic
structures.
2) after if only to add emphasis to a hypothetical situation or to suggest a sense of regret when combined
with the past subjunctive; quite often the second part of the sentence is left out:
If only I won the competition!
If only she had told me the truth, I wouldn't have tried to talk her out of selling the car!
3) after even if / even though:
They would reject her proposal even if she followed their instructions.
You wouldn't have found her even if you had hired a private detective.
NB. It is also possible to employ the indicative after even if/though, however with a difference in
meaning. Compare:
I still don't like him even if he tried to be nice to me last time I saw him. (factual)
I wouldn't like him even if he tried to be nice to me. (hypothetical)
4) after as if / as though to express an unreal comparison:
He is looking at me as if I were his long-lost brother.
They were acting as if they hadn't recognized him.
5) after it's (high) time we employ either the long infinitive or a For + Accusative + Infinitive
construction to suggest that the right moment to do something has come, or we use the present form of
the subjunctive to imply that we are rather late in doing something:
It's time (for us) to pack our luggage and go.
It's (high) time you informed her of your failure.
6) after wish
I wish he came back sooner.
I wish they hadn't left for Rome.
Notice that a construction with would after wish is possible when the speaker intends to express
an annoying habit, to invite someone's cooperation or to indicate that either people or events frustrate his
desires:
I wish you would stop interrupting me.
I wish you would hurry up.
I wish it would stop raining.
7) after would rather when the speaker's preference involves another person's performance of an action:
I would rather they invited me to the theater.
He would rather his daughter hadn't behaved like a fool.
8) after supposing / suppose or imagine:
Suppose you inherited a huge fortune, how would you spend it?
Supposing they hadn't arrived in time, would you still have attempted to save the kid?
Imagine we'd never spent this time together!
9) after in case, which introduces a contingency or possibility against which a precaution is needed in
advance, we use either the indicative or the analytic subjunctive (to suggest greater improbability):
I'll make a cake in case Father Ted drops by in the afternoon.
I'll save a seat for you in case you should decide to come.
THE ANALYTIC SUBJUNCTIVE
This type of subjunctive appears in complement THAT-clauses of various kinds, suggesting
theoretical or potential states or events. Function of the verb / adjective contained in the main clause or the
noun phrase that functions as the antecedent of the relative clause which contains the subjunctive, such
sentences often express either a command, an order, a resolution, an intention, etc. or a wish, a suggestion,
a piece of advice, etc.
I demand that they should be treated with more respect.
I desire that he should be granted the scholarship.
It is desirable that he could obtain the loan to pay for his studies.
It is my desire that she should be invited to our reception.
SUBJECT AND OBJECT CLAUSES
1) after exercitive verbs: ask, beg, advise, order, instruct, prohibit, command, propose, urge, recommend,
suggest etc. in object clauses:
He suggested that we should take the path to the left.
God forbid that your husband should find out you've been cheating on him!
The king ordered that his kingdom should be divided among his sons.
2) after boulomaic verbs: want, wish, hope, desire, choose in object clauses:
I wish you should be here.
I didn't choose that they should shun her.
I desire that you should comply with my request.
3) after verbs of linguistic communication: tell, say, arrange, inform, point out, remark, insist, convince,
persuade etc. in object clauses:
He told them that I should be more careful with the kids.
She convinced me that I should apply for a grant.
I insist that the meeting should be over by ten.
4) in assertive sentences after doubt, think, matter, fancy, imagine, complain in object clauses:
And that you should deceive us, well, I don't exactly understand it, but I can imagine it.
It doesn't matter that Max should have bought a Cadillac.
I doubt that I should succeed.
5) after emotive verbs and adjectives:
- non-factive intransitive adjectives (in subject clauses): be good / right / best / important / essential
/ natural / (un)likely / necessary etc.:
It is important that you should understand the underlying meaning of his words.
It is very unlikely that he should have already received news from her.
-
non-factive transitive verbs and adjectives (in object clauses): intend, prefer, hate, be anxious /
eager:
I prefer that they should call before paying me a visit.
I am most anxious that she should get the present I bought for her.
-
factive intransitive adjectives: be odd / tragic / amazing / surprising:
It is amazing that they should survive after all this time.
It is odd that you should have agreed to such a proposal.
-
factive transitive verbs (in subject and object clauses): amaze, alarm, bother, surprise, astonish,
regret etc.:
It bothers me that he should be so obtuse.
It amazes me that you could give up on us so easily.
He regretted that the little girl should be ill, but I know that she is shamming.
ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
1) OF PURPOSE:
Let the dog loose so that he can have a run.
He had sat between the twins so that he could court them.
I called in the hope that I might find you.
We dared not speak for fear the enemy might hear us.
We evacuated the building lest the walls should collapse.
2) CONCESSIVE:
Foolish though she may be, she is kind of heart.
However little you may love her, I don't think you will abandon her.
Whatever sins he may have, he can still be saved.
3) OF CONDITION:
Should the dam explode, we would immediately evacuate the village.
I could help you if you would agree to follow my advice.
4) OF RESULT:
We should proceed in such a manner that the public may indorse our cause.
She is so ill that she should be given an extra dose immediately.