Man and the Word

ISSN 1392-8600
Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas
Vi l n i u s P e d a g o g i c a l U n i v e r s i t y
žmogus žodis12
ir
Svetimosios kalbos
Mokslo darbai
Man and the Word
Foreign languages
Research papers
2010
III
V I L N I U S
2010, t. 12, nr. 3
(Volume 12, Number 3, 2010)
Redaktorių kolegija
Prof. habil. dr. Antanas PAKERYS
(vyriausiasis redaktorius)
[email protected] Didaktinė lingvistika – ats. red. doc. dr. Regina RINKAUSKIENĖ, VPU Lituanistikos fakultetas
T. Ševčenkos g. 31, faksas 233 52 99, [email protected]
Prof. habil. dr. Aleksas GIRDENIS, Vilniaus universitetas (kalbotyra)
Doc. dr. Artūras
�������� JUDŽENTIS,
����������������������������������������������
Vilniaus universitetas (kalbotyra)
Prof. dr. Jean Pierre LEVET, Limožo universitetas (kalbotyra)
Prof. habil. dr. Vitalija MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, Lietuvių kalbos institutas (kalbotyra)
Prof. dr. Vilija SALIENĖ, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (edukologija)
Prof. habil. dr. Kazimieras ŽUPERKA, Šiaulių universitetas (kalbotyra)
Literatūrologija – ats. red. doc. dr. Reda PABARČIENĖ, VPU Lituanistikos fakultetas
T. Ševčenkos g. 31, faksas 233 52 99, [email protected]
Prof. dr. Petras BRAŽĖNAS, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (literatūrologija)
Prof. habil. dr. Algis KALĖDA, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas (literatūrologija)
Doc. dr. Nijolė KAŠELIONIENĖ, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (literatūrologija)
Prof. dr. Violeta KELERTIENĖ, Ilinojaus universitetas (literatūrologija)
Prof. dr. Vytautas MARTINKUS, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (literatūrologija)
Prof. habil. dr. Kęstutis NASTOPKA, Vilniaus universitetas (literatūrologija)
Doc. dr. Dalia SATKAUSKYTĖ, Vilniaus universitetas (literatūrologija)
Svetimosios kalbos – ats. red. doc. dr. Danutė SABROMIENĖ, VPU Filologijos fakultetas
Studentų g. 39, faksas 272 81 36, [email protected]
Prof. habil. dr. Aloyzas GUDAVIČIUS, Šiaulių universitetas (kalbotyra)
Prof. dr. Gintautas KUNDROTAS,������������������������������������������������
Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (kalbotyra)
������������
Prof. habil. dr. Werner LEHFELDT, Getingeno universitetas (kalbotyra)
Prof. habil. dr. Jan MIODEK, Vroclavo universitetas (kalbotyra)
Prof. habil. dr. Irena MUSTEIKIENĖ, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (edukologija)
Prof. habil. dr. Marina REMNIOVA, Maskvos M. Lomonosovo valstybinis universitetas (kalbotyra)
Filosofija – ats. red. doc. dr. Dalius JONKUS, VPU Socialinių mokslų fakultetas
T. Ševčenkos g. 31, faksas 213 55 94, [email protected]
Prof. dr. Jūratė BARANOVA, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (filosofija)
Doc. dr. Liutauras DEGĖSYS�������������������������������������������������
, Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas (filosofija)
Prof. dr. Saulius GENIUŠAS, James Madison universitetas (filosofija)
Prof. dr. Algis MICKŪNAS, Ohajo universitetas (filosofija)
Prof. dr. Rita ŠERPYTYTĖ, Vilniaus universitetas (filosofija)
Prof. habil. dr. ������������������������������������������������������
Arvydas ŠLIOGERIS, Vilniaus universitetas (filosofija)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ISSN 1392-8600
Žurnalas atspindimas šiose duomenų bazėse:
CSA: Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts
MLA: Modern Language Association International Bibliography
EBSCO Publishing: Humanities International Complete
EBSCO Publishing: TOC Premier
EBSCO Publishing: Current Abstracts
C.E.E.O.L
The Philosopher's Index
© Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, 2010
žmogus ir žodis 2010 III
Turinys
Contents
�
k albot yra
Janina BUITKIENĖ, Laimutis VALEIKA
Dar kartą apie anglų kalbos perfektą / Revisiting the English Perfect...........................................4
Gražina DROESSIGER
Zur epistemischen Lesart der Modalverben im Sprachgebrauch des Deutschen /
Apie modalinių veiksmažodžių epistemiškumą vokiečių kalboje...................................................12
Edita KATINAITĖ-KALČIŪNIENĖ
Anglų kalbos intonacija: tyrimo istorija, dabartis ir perspektyvos / The Historical
Background and Current Status of English Intonational Studies................................................19
Jurgita KOHRS
Zur Äußerung der Bewertung in wissenschaftlichen Rezensionen / Vertinimo raiška
mokslinėse recenzijose.....................................................................................................................28
Jurgita MATAČIŪNAITĖ, Vilhelmina VITKAUSKIENĖ
Particularités du juron dans le français québécois / Keiksmažodžiai Kvebeko provincijos
prancūzų kalboje.............................................................................................................................36
Gerda MAZLAVECKIENĖ
Postmodern Eelements of Character Portrayal in Ralph Ellison’s Novel "Invisible
Man" / Postmodernistiniai veikėjų paveikslo kūrimo principai Ralpho Ellisono romane
„Nematomas žmogus“.....................................................................................................................43
Natalia TICHOMIROVA
Метеонимы в Белозерских говорах / The Group of Мeteonym’s in Belozersk
District Dialects...............................................................................................................................51
Natalia������������������������������
VOLKOVA����������������������
�����������������������������
, ��������������������
Jekaterina����������
SAFRONOVA
���������
Языковая личность в диалектном пространстве / The Linguistic Personality
in the Dialect Area...........................................................................................................................55
Maria ZAKHAROVA
Языковая игра как факт современной языковой действительности / Language
game as the fact of the modern language validity..........................................................................60
�l ing v od id ak t ik a
Jelena KAZIMIANEC
Реализация принципа интерактивности в учебной книге по аудиовизуальному
курсу русского языка / Interaktyvumo principo taikymas audiovizualinio rusų kalbos
kurso mokomojoje knygoje..............................................................................................................67
�j a un ų j ų mok sl in ink ų d a r ba i
Исторические и лингвистические данные о литовцах в Дисненском уезде
за 1795–1939 гг. / Istoriniai ir kalbiniai duomenys apie Dysnos apskrities lietuvius
1795–1939 m....................................................................................................................................73
ISSN 1392-8600
Аleksandras АDAMKOVIČIUS
Dar kartą apie anglų kalbos perfektą
k albot yra
Revisiting the English Perfect
Dar kartą apie anglų kalbos
perfektą
Revisiting the English Perfect
Janina BUITKIENĖ, Laimutis VALEIKA
Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas
Studentų g. 39, LT-08106 Vilnius
[email protected]
Santrauka
Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas anglų kalbos perfektas,
jo istorija, reikšmė bei vaidmuo tekste. Perfektas „neperfektyvizuoja“ (t.y. nekeičia eigos veikslo įvykio
veikslu) proceso. Perfekto paskirtis yra kitokia: jis
aktualizuoja įvykusį ar vykusį procesą, siedamas jį
su deiktiniu (pirminiu ir antriniu) centru. Perfektinių
formų indėlis į teksto kūrimą nėra didelis: dialoguose
dažnesnės yra present perfect formos, o monologinėje kalboje – past perfect formos. Palyginti retos yra
future perfect formos.
Esminiai žodžiai: proceso pirmumas, absoliutus
perfektas, anaforinis, kataforinis, kohezija, deiktinis
centras, perfektyvizuoti, pragmatinė funkcija, reliatyvus perfektas.
The article examines the English perfect, its history, meaning, and function in the text. The perfect
form does not perfectivize the process, i.e. it does
not render an imperfective process perfective. Its role
is to actualize a past or a future process (completed
or incompleted) by relating it to the deictic centre
(primary or secondary). The contribution of perfect
forms to the production of the text is not significant:
in dialogues, more common are present perfect
forms; in monologues, past perfect forms. Relatively
rare are future perfect forms.
Key words: anteriority, absolute perfect, anaphoric, cataphoric, cohesion, deictic centre, perfectivize, pragmatic function, relative perfect.
1. Introductory Observations
Old English on the basis of the wesan / bēon plus
past participle structure. To quote the scholar, “the
phrase expressed a state which the subject acquired
as a result of his own action” (ibid., 109). However,
points out the scholar, the same meaning was also
expressed by the phrase habban plus past participle.
This eventually led to the replacement of wesan /
bēon by habban. Consider:
The English perfect cannot be said to have ever
lacked interest and attention on the part of English
grammarians. The problem of the perfect has been
addressed and is still being addressed by a relatively
great number of scholars. What keeps attracting researchers to this construction? The answer is simple
enough: there remain some important questions
unanswered. One of the most important questions is
the meaning of the construction. Another question is
its grammatical status, and the other question is its
discourse function. In what follows we will make an
attempt to look at the above mentioned questions.
Let us now recall the origin of the perfect. According
to Ilyish (1972, 109), English perfect forms arose in
Is his eafore hēr cumen “His son is come here” –
His eafora hēr hafap cumen “His son has come
here”
The process of the replacement was gradual and
lasted well into the 19th century, i.e. into Modern English. So, for instance, in the novel “Shirley” (Moscow,
Janina BUITKIENĖ, Laimutis VALEIKA
Summary
žmogus ir žodis 2010 III
k albot yra
“He is come. I am certain. I saw Murgatsoyd lead
the horse into the yard by the back-way”. (p. 83)
“But would you like to go? It is a cold night; and,
as Fanny is come, there is no necessity – “(p. 96)
“Then the evening is gone already, “she observed.
(p. 95)
The relics of this construction can still be seen in
present-day English. Consider:
Many of the old houses are gone now.
The snow is melted. vs. The snow has melted.
The door slammed and he was gone.
To quote Hornby (1962, 98), “In older English be
was often used with verbs that indicate motion where
have is used in modern English. Thus, is come was
used where today we use has come. The finites of
be are still used in some cases. Their use makes it
possible to make a distinction. E.g.:
The snow has melted. (This draws attention to the
process or happening)
The snow is melted. (This calls attention to the
result, to the fact that the streets etc are now clear
of snow)”.
The perfect, as it is used today, was fully formed
only in the Modern English period (Ilyish, op. cit.,
287). We can already observe it in Shakespeare’s text
though occasionally we can find here perfect forms
with the verb be (ibid., 287). Consider:
If I have too austerely punished you, your compensation makes amends…
The deep of night is crept upon our talk, whither
are they vanished?
But, as already said, in the course of time, the
be plus past participle construction, with a few
exceptions, have been replaced by the have plus
past participle construction. The exceptions, such
as The snow is melted, The duty is fulfilled, The
work is finished, The door is closed, have caused
considerable debate concerning their linguistic status. So, for instance, according to Khaimovich and
Rogovskaya (1967, 128), the construction is fulfilled
cannot be treated as the passive voice of fulfills since
the construction does not express action but that of
state, the result of an action; the sentence The duty
is fulfilled, according to the scholars, corresponds
to He has fulfilled his duty rather than He fulfills his
duty. As can be seen, the scholars are inclined to
treat such constructions as variants of the perfect.
Other linguists (Barkhudarov and Shteling, 1960,
147-148, Vorontsova, 1960, 234–235) think that
such constructions have a passive meaning, and,
therefore, they should be treated as the passive
voice despite the fact they have no corresponding
active voice construction. We adhere to the opinion
that such constructions are in fact relics of the older
perfect: the clause The duty is fulfilled is semantically related to He has fulfilled the duty.
2. The Linguistic Status of the
Perfect
The linguistic status of the English perfect has
been the subject of a lengthy discussion. There are
three views on the problem: 1) the tense-view; 2) the
aspect-view; and 3) the specific category-view.
Sweet (1892, 97-105), Curme (1931, 2, 231-232),
Jespersen (1931, 112-113) and other traditional
grammarians treat the perfect as tense. According
to the second view, the perfect is a peculiar aspect
category. So, for instance, Lyons (1968, 315) argues
that English has two main aspects “which combine
fairly freely with tense and mood: the ‘perfect’ (e.g. I
have / had read the book, I will / would have read the
book) and the ‘progressive’ (e.g. I am / was reading
the book, I will / would be reading the book)”. The
scholar also speaks of other aspectual distinctions,
e.g. the ‘habitual’ (I used to read), the ‘mutative’ (e.g.
I got killed). According to the third view, the perfect
is neither tense nor aspect, but a specific category
different from both.
Smirnitsky (1959, 274-316) was the first to draw
attention to the fact that the forms writes – has
written – had written or to write – to have written
represent a grammatical category different from that
of tense. The scholar proposed to call it “the category
of time relation”. Later, the term was replaced by “the
category of correlation” since it was thought that the
former term might imply that the perfect was a special
kind of tense. The term “the category of correlation”
was adopted by Ilyish (1971, 93) “until a better term
is found”. Khaimovich and Rogovskaya (op. cit.,
132) find the term inconvenient. They suggest the
term “the category of order”, which, according to
ISSN 1392-8600
1956) by Charlotte Brontë (1816 – 1855), we can still
come across perfect constructions with the verb be
and the past participle mostly deriving from a verb
of motion, i.e. intransitive verb, which is in keeping
with the Old English tradition. Consider:
scholars, reveal the essence of the category better.
Blokh (1983, 156) suggests the term “the category
of retrospective coordination” or, contractedly, “the
category of retrospect”. Slonimskaya (1975, 98)
calls the opposition of perfect – non-perfect forms
“the category of taxis”. We could suggest one more
term – the category of relevant retrospect or the
category of relevant precedence. But in this paper
we will use the term the category of order. The reasons are: 1) it has already taken root in Anglistics;
2) it is brief and to the point: perfect forms express
the order of processes, i.e. they present a process as
prior (anterior) to the moment of speaking or to some
other moment.
The past form had worked and had finished refer
to working and finishing before some moment which
is itself in the past.
3. The Function of the Perfect
The present perfect = the past + the present (the
deictic center).
There are languages which have no perfect forms,
for instance, Russian. As for Lithuanian, it is similar
to English in this respect: it has the perfect. However,
Lithuanians, the younger generation in particular, do
not always use it: instead of Jonas yra parašęs daug
gražių eilėraščių we often hear Jonas (jau) parašė
daug gražių eilėraščių. The speakers of the younger
generation are showing a tendency to replace the analytic constructions (i.e. the perfect) with grammatically simpler structures, i.e. with the corresponding
synthetic constructions, the function of precedence
(anteriority is, then, expressed by the co-text and / or
the situation). Why do we use the perfect? The simple answer to this question is: we use it to actualize
(revive) a process that is anterior to another process
or another moment of time. In other words, to show
its relevance to the deictic center, or the reference
point: if the anterior process is relevant to the deictic
centre which is the moment of speaking, we use the
present perfect; if the anterior process was relevant
to the deictic centre located in the past, we use the
past perfect; and if the anterior process is relevant
to the deictic centre located in the future, we use the
future perfect. Consider a few examples:
A.
I have worked in London for three years.
I have finished already.
The present forms have worked and have finished
refer to working and finishing up to or before the
moment of speaking (i.e. the deictic center).
B.
I had worked in London for three years.
I had finished already.
Revisiting the English Perfect
C.
I will have worked in London for three years.
I will have finished.
In the sentences, the future form will have worked
and will have finished the working or finishing is prior
to the moment which is itself in the future.
The semantic structure of the perfect can be represented as follows:
The past perfect = past (1) + past (2) (the deictic
centre).
The future perfect = future (1) + future (2) (the
deictic centre).
As can be seen, the deictic centre is either the
present (the absolute perfect) or the past, or the future
(the relative perfect). Theoretically, the explication
of the deictic centre of the perfect through the use of
special temporal constructions is not necessary: it is
already expressed grammatically – by the auxiliaries
have, had, will have. As language is a redundant
system (i.e. a system that has more signals than is
minimally necessary), the deictic centre is additionally expressed by the co-text (i.e. by the use of special
temporal constructions – so far, now, up to now, until
now, until then etc) or the situation. Consider:
A.
We have finished five chapters so far.
He has lived in the United States four years
now.
Up to now, we have not found the kind of paint
we need for the job.
He will not come to the party until he has written
his essay.
It should be observed that the term absolute, when applied to the
present perfect, does not have the same meaning as the absolute
tense: the absolute perfect expresses a non-inclusive process while
the absolute tense expresses an inclusive process. Thus, when we
say John has been to London, we do not mean that John is still in
London. Cf. John is in London.
Janina BUITKIENĖ, Laimutis VALEIKA
Dar kartą apie anglų kalbos perfektą
žmogus ir žodis 2010 III
k albot yra
B.
He had already graduated from the University
by then.
Before then, nobody had dared enter the castle.
He had just (already) gone to bed when the telephone rang.
After I had spoken, I realized my mistake.
of precedence (anteriority) is expressed lexically by
the perfective verb parašyti which stands in opposition to the imperfective rašyti.
When we use the perfect (or the simple past) with
unbounded (durative) verbs, we are often under the
impression that the situation being described still
holds at the time indicated by the reference point:
C.
By then, we will have visited London.
On June 10 she will have been a widow for two
years.
When he retires from his work, he will have made
more than a million dollars.
He has lived in London for many years. vs. He
lived in London for many years.
We finished five chapters so far.
He just (now) came in.
He recently published his memoirs.
If this tendency gains ground, we can expect a
reduction in the patterns in which the perfect occurs. We can hardly predict total disintegration of
the perfect since there are patterns in which the
perfect is obligatory, e.g. He will not go to the party
until he has written the essay. The form has written
is used to express precedence (anteriority) and cannot be replaced with the form writes which, if used,
could express simultaneity, e.g. *He won’t go to the
party until he writes the essay. But if the verb has
a perfective meaning, it can be used in the present
non-perfect form, e.g. He won’t go to the party until
he completes (finishes) his essay. The difference between the perfect and the non-perfect form is that of
the degree of explicitness: the perfect form renders
the precedence (anteriority) of the process more
explicitely. Cf. Lith. Jis neis į pobūvį, kol neparašys
(nebus parašęs) rašinio, where neparašys has a
perfective meaning. As can be seen, Lithuanian can
manage without the perfect form here – the function
Perfective processes are temporally anterior processes with
respect to the deictic centre while imperfective processes are
simultaneous processes. But aspect is not a deictic category: it
becomes deictic only when it is realized by tense (past, present,
future). Cf. Jis nori parašyti jai laišką. vs. Jis parašė jai laišką.
There is no deictic meaning in parašyti (a non-finite form). Only
parašė expresses connection to the deictic centre.
He has lived in London for many years, and he
still does.
(or: As far as I know, he still does / doesn’t live
there any longer. )
The same indeterminacy, or vagueness, is characteristic of progressive perfect forms:
He has been living in London for many years.
The progressive perfect form has been living
describes a situation that is usually interpreted as
including the deictic centre, or the reference point.
In point of fact, the form itself does not say this.
Consider another example:
A. Why are you shivering?
B. I have been swimming.
The context clearly shows that speaker B is not
swimming now. No such indeterminacy arises when
we use simple perfect forms based on bounded
verbs:
Father has painted the house.
It will be obvious that the process is already over
and no such implicatures can be derived from the
sentence. But if we use progressive perfect forms,
ISSN 1392-8600
Theoretically, the use of the perfect is not necessary when the relevance to the deictic centre is
expressed by the situation or the co-text: it could be
replaced by non-perfect forms. Thus, according to
Frank (1972: 81), “except for since and for, most of
the other past-to-present time expressions may be
used informally with the past tense”:
Does it mean that he still lives in London? It may
or it may not, but the form itself has nothing to do
with it: the role of the perfect is to relate the anterior
situation to the deictic (the reference) point by showing that the situation has occurred, had occurred, or
will have occurred before the deictic point. If the
person in question is still in London, this is not part
of the meaning of the perfect; this is only an implicature. To show that the person is still in London, we
can use the so-called qualifying structure; if he is no
longer in London, we can use a canceling structure.
Consider:
we shall be able to derive the same implicature, e.g.
Father has been painting the house. The process of
painting may be interpreted as being over or as still
in progress. However, the form itself only means that
the process of painting has occurred before the time
of the deictic centre. Consider:
Father has been painting the house, and he still
is / but he no longer is.
There is another question relating to the perfect,
viz. temporal distance between the anterior process
and the deictic centre. For instance, when we say
John has written another novel, we of course know
when John wrote this novel, i.e. we know the temporal distance. However, the addressee may not know
it since there is nothing in the perfect form that can
tell him / her whether the anterior process occurred
recently (a short time ago) or a long time ago. It will
be obvious that the speaker often uses the perfect
form to convey the most recent events only. Cf:
1. The King has died. Long live the King!
2. Have you been to London?
The context of the first sentence shows that the
process of has died is recent; it is ‘hot’ news. The
sentence Long live the King! reinforces the idea of
recency: a new king is generally appointed immediately after the death of the former king, which suggests
that the interval between the death of the king and the
appointment of the new king is rather short – the death
occurred a short while ago. The second sentence is
rather indefinite in this respect: it has no context of
situation or a proper co-text which could help us to tell
whether the process is recent or not recent. Besides
the situation, the recency of a process can be conveyed
by such adverbial structures as just, recently, lately,
of late, finally, already, since (+ noun; + predication),
today, this week, (month, year, century, millennium),
this morning, this Saturday, etc. The notion recency
should not be confused with the relevance of the anterior process to the deictic centre. Cf:
1. John wrote a letter just now. (just now = a moment ago)
2. John has just written a letter. (just = a very
short time ago)
According to Crystal and Quirk (1964: 39), the probability of
the more distant past may be conveyed by laying more emphasis
on the past participle: I’ve ‘been to the old Vic in opposition to
the heavily stressed ‘Vic which refers to a very recent past – I’ve
been to the old ‘Vic.
Revisiting the English Perfect
As can be seen, both processes are recent. Yet they
have different perspectives: wrote merely locates
the process in the past while has written focuses on
the relevance of the past process to the moment of
speaking (the deictic centre).
4. The Perfect and the Perfective
Aspect
In traditional grammar, the perfect is said to express
a process as a completed whole, i.e. the perfect is
identified with the perfective aspect in such languages
as Lithuanian or Russian. In fact, the perfect has nothing to do with the perfective aspect. As pointed out
by Barkhudarov (1972, 3), partially the source of this
interpretation is the Latin term perfectum used in Latin
for forms of the verb denoting the non-continuity of
the process. Non-continuous forms in Latin cover a
perfect and a non-perfect meaning (Comrie, 1998, 53).
Another source, points out the scholar, is the fact that
in many cases the English perfect is often translated
into Russian by perfective-aspect forms. Cf.
I have already written the letter.
Я уже написал письмо. ���������
Cf. Lith.
Aš jau parašiau laišką.
After the teacher had gone, the students dispersed.
После того как учитель ушёл, студенты разошлись. ���������
Cf. Lith.
Kai dėstytojas išėjo, studentai išsiskirstė.
However, this kind of coincidence is by no means
absolute: there are many cases when the perfect is
translated into Russian (or Lithuanian) by using
imperfective aspect forms:
Only fancy, I have not read anything of his yet!
Представьте, я егo ещё нечитала! Cf. Lith.
Tik pagalvokit, aš jo dar nieko neskaičiau!
All this goes to say that the English perfect is
indifferent to aspect. It is as indifferent as the past
simple. Cf. I wrote the letter. vs. I skated yesterday. It
is not the perfect form that renders the verb perfective
in meaning but the meaning of the verb: if the verb
denotes a perfective process only irrespective of the
form - the simple past or perfect - the meaning of
verb form is perfective. Consider:
For the semantic classification of the verb, see Valeika & Buitkienė (2003, 63 – 71). For more information on the relationship
of the perfect and the perfective aspect, see Dušková (1974, 2);
also Valeika (1975, 8).
Janina BUITKIENĖ, Laimutis VALEIKA
Dar kartą apie anglų kalbos perfektą
žmogus ir žodis 2010 III
k albot yra
If the verb denotes a perfective and an imperfective aspect (i.e. if it is a dual aspect verb), the actual
meaning of the perfect form is determined by the
co-text. Cf.
A.
We sat on the couch and she played records. We
drank and watched TV. vs.
We have played records. We have drunk and
watched TV.
How did he earn his living? He made films. vs.
He has made films.
John smoked for two years. vs. John has smoked
for two years.
B.
He saved some money. vs. He has saved some
money.
He wrote two letters. vs. He has written two letters.
She made a movie. vs. She has made a movie.
All these examples demonstrate the role of
the co-text in actualizing the aspect of the verb:
1) bounded verbs used absolutely or followed
by objective complements used in the plural or
process circumstances (e.g. adverbials of duration or frequency) will convey an imperfective
meaning; 2) bounded verbs followed by objective
complements used in the singular or preceded by a
quantifier (a numeral or a respective pronoun) or by
other process-restricting structures (e.g. adverbials
of quantity, direction, or adverbial particles) will
convey a perfective meaning irrespective of the
tense: the simple past or the perfect.
Thus far our attention has been focused on
bounded processes. Unbounded processes (walk,
dance, move, etc.) are imperfective in meaning, and
the use of the perfect form with such processes has
no perfectivizing effect. They may turn perfective
only on condition they turned into bounded processes. Consider:
We walked a lot.
He walked to the station. vs. He has walked to
the station.
She ran up the stairs. vs. She has run up the
stairs.
5. The Perfect and the Production of
the Text
At the deep level, the text is a flow of mutually
related processes which at the surface level are expressed by appropriate tense forms. Tense forms
(present, past and future) relate processes to the
deictic centre (either the speaker’s time or some
other time). As the deictic centre is often expressed
by a predication, we can say that such processes are
mutually related, the relationship being expressed
grammatically, i.e. through tense forms. Consider a
few examples:
I am watching TV (the process of watching TV
coincides with the speaker’s time, i.e. NOW: I am
saying now that I am watching TV).
When she came, I was watching TV (the process of
watching TV preceded the process of coming; when
she came is the secondary deictic centre).
She came and watched TV (the process of coming
preceded the process of watching TV; the secondary
deictic centre is when she came).
I visited London in 2008 (the process of visiting
London occurred before the speaker’s time, i.e.
NOW, which is the primary deictic centre).
I am telling you that I visited London in 2008
(the process of visiting London occurred before the
speaker’s time, the primary deictic centre, which is
realized through a predication).
I must tell you that I have already visited London
(the process of visiting London occurred before the
speaker’s time (the primary deictic centre), realized
predicatively).
I had visited London when I met her (the process
visiting London occurred before the process of meeting her, the secondary deictic centre being expressed
predicatively).
I will have visited London when I meet her (the
process of visiting London will occur before the
process of meeting her, the secondary deictic centre
being expressed predicatively).
Metaphorically speaking, the deictic centre, expressed predicatively or non-predicatively, is like
the sun round which revolve planets (processes).
Tense forms tie the processes to the deictic centre
ISSN 1392-8600
The child broke the vase. vs. The child has broken
the vase.
John sold his car to Mary. vs. John has sold his
car to Mary.
You look worried. What happened? vs. You look
worried. What’s happened?
You dropped your purse. vs. You have dropped
your purse.
The train stopped there. vs. The train has
stopped.
and then act cohesively. But the perfect is not tense;
it is a pragmatic supplement to tense. Hence it has no
cohesive function. As already shown, the function of
the perfect is to actualize (‘activate’) a process that
occurred or will occur before the deictic centre and
thus show its importance to the situation expressed by
the deictic centre. It provides, as it were, the relevant
background to the deictic centre. This pragmatic
feature is often realized by speakers, newspaper
reporters in particular, to introduce the news which
presents situations that occurred or will occur before
the time of the deictic centre. Consider:
Madonna opens Malawi school.
Pop-star Madonna has marked the start of the
construction of the girls’ school she is building in
Malawi (BBC News, 27 October 2009).
As can be seen, the reporter expressed the most
important information (‘the hot news’) by the use
of a present perfect form. But, strange as it may
seem, the same ‘hot news’ is also expressed in the
headline using the simple present tense. This can
be accounted for by stylistic considerations: the
use of the present perfect in the headline and in
the topic sentence would be “too much of a good
thing” and would sound monotonous. The use of
the simple present, despite its temporary ambiguity,
makes it possible to express the idea economically
and thus concentrate on the words expressing the
most important information. It should be noted that
it is only in the topic sentence that we generally
come across the present perfect: the succeeding
sentences are generally based on simple past tense
forms. Consider:
The 51-year old cut a ribbon and planted a tree at
the ground-breaking ceremony at the Raising Malawi
Academy for Girls. The star’s four children including
David, 4, and Mary, 3, - whom Madonna adopted
from the country – were also present at the event.
This kind of pattern (present perfect + simple past)
is also found in dialogues. Consider:
“Where have you been?” Macomber asked in
the darkness.
“Hello”, she said. “Are you awake?”
“Where have you been?”
“I just went out to get a breath of air”.
“You did, like hell”. (Ernest Hemingway. Selected
Stories. Moscow 1971, p. 254)
10
Revisiting the English Perfect
As can be seen, present perfect forms ‘open’ the
discourse by ‘reviving’ a process that occurred in
the past with the aim of initiating a discourse. The
speaker’s purpose in doing this is the desire to bring
past events back to the present, i.e. the primary
deictic centre, and thus turn them into the topic of
the discourse. The events leading to it serve as topic
generators. Consider:
A. Have you ever been to London?
B. Of course, I have.
A. Then I think you visited the Tower. Could you
tell me about the Beefeaters?
The addressee’s visit to London has generated
the topic “Beefeaters”. Besides this type of use, the
present perfect is often used to enumerate events that
took place prior to the present time. Consider:
“Today is Monday, the twenty-second of November, and nothing sensational has happened since
yesterday…. Lord Lord Halifax has been in Germany
for the last few days…. Neither he nor the Government have yet made any statement on the result of his
visit”. (Brian Kelly. An Advanced English Course for
Foreign Students. Longman, 1962, p. 107)
What about the past perfect? It will be obvious
that these forms do not generally ‘open’ a discourse
the way present perfect forms do: they describe the
background relevant to the situation presented in the
topic sentence, a sentence that serves as the deictic
centre. Past perfect forms, as it were, tell the reader
how the situation came into existence. Sentences with
the past perfect and the topic with the simple past
present a text based on cause and effect. Consider:
So his mother prayed for him and then they stood
up and Krebs kissed his mother and went out of the
house. He had tried so to keep his life from being
complicated. Still, none of it touched him. He had
felt sorry for his mother and she had made him lie.
(Ernest Hemingway, op. cit., p. 112)
A similar analysis can be extended to future perfect forms. Consider:
Next birthday, I shall have been on this planet
forty years, and with very little to show for it. In
another twenty years, if I am still alive, at best I
shall be having difficulty in making ends meet; and
at worst I shall have gone to the wall. (Brian Kelly,
op. cit., p. 140)
Janina BUITKIENĖ, Laimutis VALEIKA
Dar kartą apie anglų kalbos perfektą
žmogus ir žodis 2010 III
k albot yra
References
Barkhudarov, L. S., 1972, Rusko-anglyskye Jazykovye Paraleli.
In: Ruskij Jazyk za Rubezhom. (4), 65- 68. – Moskva.
Barkhudarov, L. S., Shteling, D. A., 1960, Gramatika
Anglyskovo Jazyka. – Moskva.
Blokh, M. Y., 1983, A Course in Theoretical Grammar. –
Moscow.
Comrie, B., 1998, Aspect. - Cambridge: CUP.
Crystal, D., Quirk, R., 1964, Systems of Prosodic and
Paralinguistic Features in English. In: Janna
Linguarum. Serious Minor (39), 28 – 36.
Curme, G. O., 1931, A Grammar of the English Language. –
London & New York.
Dušková, L., 1974, The Perfect Tenses in English. vs.
The Perfective Aspect in Czech. – In: Philologica
Pragensia (2), 67– 91.
Frank, M., 1972, A Practical Reference Guide. – Prentice
Hall, Inc.
Hornby, A. S., 1962, A Guide to Patterns and Usage in
English. – Oxford: OUP.
Ilyish, B., 1971, The Structure of Modern English. –
Leningrad.
Ilyish, B., 1973, History of the English Language.–
Leningrad.
Jesperson O., 1931, A Modern English Grammar on
Historical Principles. Part 4. – Heidelberg.
Khaimovich B. S., Rogovskaya B. I., 1967, A Course in
English Grammar. – Moscow.
Lyons J., 1968, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. –
Cambridge: CUP.
Slonimskaya N., 1975, The Category of Taxis. In: The
Morphology of the English Verb. Tense, Aspect
and Taxis ed. by O. Akhmanova and V. Belenkaya,
61–65. – Moscow.
Smirnitsky A. I., 1959, Morfologija Anglyskovo Jazyka. –
Moskva.
Sweet H., 1892, A New English Grammar. Logical and
Historical – Oxford.
Valeika L., 1975, Atliktiniai laikai ir veikslas anglų kalboje.
In: Tarybinė mokykla (8), 42–45.
Valeika L., Buitkienė J., 2003, An Introductory Course in
Theoretical English Grammar. – Vilnius: Vilnius
Pedagogical University Press.
Vorontsova G. N., 1960, Očerky po Gramatike Anglyskovo
Jazyka. – Moskva.
ISSN 1392-8600
The time adjunct next birthday serves as the
deictic centre. The situations expressed by the future
perfect forms provide the background to the situation
expressed by the time adjunct, i.e. they tell the addressee what events will have occurred by the time
indicated by next birthday. As with the past perfect,
the process expressed by the future perfect is anaphoric to the deictic centre, i.e. it looks back while
the time adjunct looks forward (i.e. cataphoric) with
respect to the moment of speaking (i.e. the primary
deictic centre), which is NOW (“I am saying now
that next birthday I shall have lived…”).
The contribution of perfect forms to the production of the text is not as great as one might be
inclined to think. This was demonstrated by our
statistical analysis of tense forms used in Somerset
Maugham story “The Verger” (Moscow, 1977). The
short story is based on 276 indicative mood finite
forms: 175 simple past forms; 47 simple present
forms; 45 perfect forms; 5 simple future, and 4
simple progressive forms. As expected, simple past
tense forms predominated in this 10-page story.
This is but natural since the text examined is a narrative. As for the perfect forms, 15 were perfect and
30 – past perfect forms. The present forms occurred
in minor dialogues (exchanges) while the past forms
occurred in non-dialogue prose. We hope that statistical analysis would reveal other data if we examined
other genres or longer texts. For instance, in plays
there should be more present perfect forms than past
perfect forms. But all this is only a prediction, which
needs testing out.
Returning to perfect forms, their contribution to
the cohesion of the text is not great. Pragmatically,
however, their contribution to the production of the
text as a semantic unit is significant but not as significant as one might be inclined to think: perfect forms
only come to the fore when the speaker or writer
wishes to ‘revive’ ‘dead’ processes (present and past
perfect forms) or to predict processes subsequent to
the secondary deictic centre expressed by a future
construction.
11