De la Identidad a la Imagen

Most people would agree that we may perceive events either as points in time, or as periods in time: I turned the light off; We were waiting nearly half an hour.

It is also not difficult to imagine the difference between definitely limited periods (We were waiting nearly half and hour), and more “open ended” periods (I live in London).

It is also easy to see that points and periods may be at different places in time. If we draw a line to represent time, and mark the present moment by the point Now:

NOW

we can represent different kinds of events with diagrams. Here are two examples:

NOW

m w NOW W

--- V / / / / / / T---1--- --- f ---

The reader will find it very helpful to experiment with such drawings. See how many different drawings you can make. Think of the difference between points and periods, whether the period ends or not, where the points or ends of the periods are. You should be able to make at least a dozen different diagrams. When you have tried, you will find more exam­ ples on page 54.

Tense

To the linguist tense is a technical term. It means that there is a morphological change in the base form of the verb. A verb form which is made with an auxiliary is not, in this technical meaning, a “tense”.

In this technical sense, then, English verbs have only, two tenses, those traditionally called the Present Simple (go) and the Past Simple (went). All other forms are made using auxiliaries, in particular the auxiliaries (be) and

(have).

The first interesting feature of this distinction is that English does not have a Future Tense, This, of course, does not mean that it is not possible to talk about Future Time in English, but that there is no one verb form spe­ cifically, or even strongly, associated with Future Time. On a practical level teachers are often familiar with this problem. The choice of the correct form of the verb for different situations to refer to Future Time in English, is often a major problem for students. Explaining the difference between the different usages is often a major problem for teachers. But as we shall see, the purely technical information that English does not possess a future tense, will, in due course, help us to understand some of the practical prob­ lems associated with explaining the different verb forms which are used to refer to Future Time.

to Present Time, and examples of the past tense which do not refer to Past Time. We have now established that there is no future tense, and already know that the present tense may be used to refer to Future Time., It begins to look as if the situation is becoming more and more complicated. It may also appear as if the theoretical distinctions are little more than an intellec­ tual game. This is very far from the case. We have two important facts — we think of Time as dividing into three, Past, Present and Future, but we have only two Tenses; secondly, it is not possible to make a direct association between present tense and Present Time, or between past tense and Past Time. These two facts suggest a most important idea — is it possible the fundamental, underlying distinction between the use of the present tense and the past tense is not neatly associated with Time? However much we may intuitively feel that time and tense are linked, is it possible that associa­ tion with Past Time is not a defining characteristic of the past tense, and association with Present Timeis not a defining characteristic of the present tense? This surprising idea is, in fact, true and of immense help in understanding the most fundamental distinction in the English verb, discussed in detail on pages 66/67.

Readers may like to be reassured on one point — to a linguist it is not surprising that English has no Future Tense. Providing we have the distinc­ tion between tense and time clearly in our minds this is not surprising. After all, Russian has no articles, and Finnish has no prepositions. Those kinds of relationships are expressed in different ways in those languages. Different languages have evolved in different ways so that a grammatical distinction which exists in one may exist, not exist, or exist in quite a different way, in another. This should neither surprise nor worry us.

Aspect

In addition to the verb forms which a linguist regards as tenses, there are many other forms in English. These other forms are made with auxiliaries: He’s learning French.

We’vebeen there before. You could have asked me first. He must have been try mg to ring you.

These forms include what a grammarian would call aspect. For our pur­ poses we may define this as a verb form involving the use of-an auxiliary which allows the speaker to interpret the temporal elements o f an event.

This area will be explored in much more detail in Chapters 10 to 12 when we look at verb forms made with the auxiliaries (have), (be) and (be) + going to. For the moment we may observe that a pure tense form is used to give what the speaker sees as the “bald facts” of the situation. The auxiliaries provide greater insight into the speaker’s interpretation of the temporal aspects. In one sense I last met him three months ago and I haven’t seen him for three months “have the same meaning”. There are, however, various reasons why the speaker chooses one form rather than the other. Aspect gives the speaker die opportunity to interpret the temporal nature of the action — whether it is complete or incomplete, the time-orientation of an action, or the fact that the action concerned a finite period of time. Once again we shall find that different languages have aspects but it is not possible to make the aspectual system of one language fit that of another language.

52

Time, tense, aspect, mood

Mood

Auxiliaries are used to make aspectual forms — I ’ve rung him; They’re play­ ing in the garden, but not all auxiliaries are used for this purpose. There is a whole group in English, called the modal auxiliaries (see Chapters 13 and 14), which allow the speaker to interpret the non-factual and non-temporal elements in an event. Modal auxiliaries are one way for a speaker to introduce modality into what (s)he says. Modality includes such ideas as necessity, possibility, probability etc. Large books have been written on the English modal auxiliaries. Here we are only concerned to establish a work­ ing definition — modality allows the speaker to introduce a personal interpretation o f the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the event.

It is possible to see the construction of a verb form as a sequence: <u

W)

"O Speaker’s Interpretation

- 4) * o c M & 0* <D of Factuality * of Temporal Features Judgement of Non- - 1 Factuality hC 03

<D (Tense) (Aspect) (Mood) CO u ao| T3_4> O ■ D.• i Of *e_<D C <u 4 - » co

A speaker decides what (s)he wishes to talk about and chooses the basic words. In the case of a verb the basic (infinitive) form is appropriate. This may be sufficient to convey a whole message with, for example, signs which say PUSH or PULL. Who is to push or when are unnecessary questions.

Usually, of course, the speaker will wish, or need, to tell us who per­ forms the action. This will introduce ‘a subject’ for the verb. Sometimes that is sufficient; if I say I understand, a complete message is conveyed..

In English, though not necessarily in other languages, the speaker has a choice of seeing the facts of the situation in two ways. Depending on which of those two (s)he chooses, one or other of the two tense forms will be appropriate.

More often than not, the speaker will wish to provide a temporal interpretation of the action. In these cases certain auxiliaries introduce aspect.

If the speaker also wishes to express a personal judgement about the non-factual nature of the event, a modal auxiliary can be used.

I am not suggesting that this is a conscious process, nor that the speaker follows a strict sequence even unconsciously. The point is simpler than that — certain elements of the structure of a complex verb form are used in cer­ tain regular ways. By recognising those regularities, it is easier to understand both the structure and meaning of complex verb forms.

The distinctions discussed in this chapter are those made by linguists, but teachers will find it easier to understand the meaning of different verb forms if the distinctions are borne in mind.

Summaiy

In understanding the semantics of English verb forms, the most important insight is that those forms traditionally called “present simple” and “past

simple”, are used when the speaker wishes to offer a non-temporal state­ ment of the situation. This is so at variance with traditional thinking that it can seem confusing or unhelpful. Nothing could be further from the truth. All forms other than these two pure tense forms offer some form of speaker interpretation; the pure tense forms are not interpretive. They describe what the speaker sees as pure factuality. The essential characteristic of the use of the forms is that the speaker conceptualises the event described by such a form as undivided, or unitary. This idea is discussed further on page 94. This “self-containedness” is not essentially temporal. In contrast, ideas of time are intrinsic to forms which are aspectual. In English this means those forms traditionally called “perfect” or “continuous”. The temporal interpretation of these forms is discussed respectively in Chapters 10 and

12.

From the classroom point of view, it is important to recognise that it is a mistake to introduce will/shall (or, indeed any other form) as “the future” in English. The problem of the expression of Future Time is discussed in con­ siderable detail in Chapters 8,12,14 and 17. As will be seen from this long list, it is a complex area. To ensure a clear understanding, it is essential to start by establishing that no one verb form in English has a central role as “the future”.