Главная страница | Контакты | Случайная страница Автомобили Астрономия Биология География Дом и сад Другие языки Другое Информатика История Культура Литература Логика Математика Медицина Металлургия Механика Образование Охрана труда Педагогика Политика Право Психология Религия Риторика Социология Спорт Строительство Технология Туризм Физика Философия Финансы Химия Черчение Экология Экономика Электроника

The verb. Category of aspect.

10. Аспект, он же вид.
Любая категория это оппозишн. Так вот, аспект это оппозишн континиус и нон-континиус форм.
Некоторые ученые считают, что аспект это одна из форм времени, которая показывает одновременность событий. То есть континиус не вид, а время. Свит и Джесперсон.
Другие считают, что это все-таки отдельная категория и никакое это не время. Потому что между глаголами прошедшего простого и прошедшего континиус нет оппозиции, они не противоречат друг другу. Потому что идея единовременности не клеется с перфект континиус форм. Потому что одновременность может быть показана и без континиуса. Потому что континиус может просто быть и не выражать одновременность с чем-то.
Бархударов считает, что у континиуса 2 значения: длительность и определенность или конкретность. Но и это спорно, ведь существуют такие глаголы как анлимитив(сидеть), которые тоже означают продолжительность действия. Да и про конкретность он соврал, потому что 'she is always grumbling'. Никакого определённого места и времени.

The category of aspect is a linguistic representation of the objective category of Manner of Action. It is realized through the opposition Continuous-Non-Continuous (Progressive-Non-Progressive). The realization of the category of aspect is closely connected with the lexical meaning of verbs.

There are some verbs in English that do not normally occur with progressive aspect, even in those contexts in which the majority of verbs necessarily take the progressive form. Among the so-called ‘non-progressive’ verbs are think, understand, know, hate, love, see, taste, feel, possess, own, etc. The most striking characteristic that they have in common is the fact that they are ‘stative’ - they refer to a state of affairs, rather than to an action, event or process. It should be observed, however, that all the ‘non-­progressive' verbs take the progressive aspect under particular circumstances. As the result of internal transposition verbs of non-progressive nature can be found in the Continuous form: Now I'm knowing you. Generally speaking the Continuous form has at least two semantic features - duration (the action is always in progress) and definiteness (the action is always limited to a definite point or period of time). In other words, the purpose of the Continuous form is to serve as a frame which makes the process of the action more concrete and isolated.

The aspective meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal meaning, reflects the inherent mode of the realisation of the process irrespective of its timing.

As we have already seen, the aspective meaning can be in-built in the semantic structure of the verb, forming an invariable, derivative category. In English, the various lexical aspective meanings have been generalised by the verb in its subclass division into limitive and unlimitive sets. On the whole, this division is loose, the demarcation line between the sets is easily trespassed both ways. In spite of their want of rigour, however, the aspective verbal subclasses are grammatically relevant in so far as they are not indifferent to the choice of the aspective grammatical forms of the verb. In Russian, the aspective division of verbs into perfective and imperfective is, on the contrary, very strict. Although the Russian category of aspect is deriv-ative, it presents one of the most typical features of the grammatical structure of the verb, governing its tense system both formally and semantically.

On the other hand, the aspective meaning can also be represented in variable grammatical categories. Aspective grammatical change is wholly alien to the Russian language, but it forms one of the basic features of the categorial structure of the English verb.

Two systems of verbal forms, in the past grammatical tradition analysed under the indiscriminate heading of the "temporal inflexion", i. e. synthetic inflexion proper and analytical composition as its equivalent, should be evaluated in this light: the continuous forms and the perfect forms.

The aspective or non-aspective identification of the forms in question will, in the long run, be dependent on whether or not they express the direct, immediate time of the action denoted by the verb, since a general connection between the aspective and temporal verbal semantics is indisputable.

The continuous verbal forms analysed on the principles of oppositional approach admit of only one interpretation, and that is aspective. The continuous forms are aspective because, reflecting the inherent character of the process performed by the verb, they do not, and cannot, denote the timing of the process. The opposition constituting the corresponding category is effected between the continuous and the non-continuous (indefinite) verbal forms. The categorial meaning discloses the nature of development of the verbal action, on which ground the suggested name for the category as a whole will be "development". As is the case with the other categories, its expression is combined with other categorial expressions in one and the same verb-form, involving also the category that features the perfect. Thus, to be consistent in our judgments, we must identify, within the framework of the manifestations of the category of development, not only the perfect continuous forms, but also the perfect indefinite forms (i.e. non-continuous).

The perfect, as different from the continuous, does reflect a kind of timing, though in a purely relative way. Namely, it coordinates two times, locating one of them in retrospect towards the other. Should the grammatical meaning of the perfect have been exhausted by this function, it ought to have been placed into one and the same categorial system with the future, forming the integral category of time coordination (correspondingly, prospective and retrospective). In reality, though, it cannot be done, because the perfect expresses not only time in relative retrospect, but also the very connection of a prior process with a time-limit reflected in a subsequent event. Thus, the perfect forms of the verb display a mixed, intermediary character, which places them apart both from the relative posterior tense and the aspective development. The true nature of the perfect is temporal aspect reflected in its own opposition, which cannot be reduced to any other opposition of the otherwise recognised verbal categories. The suggested name for this category will be "retrospective coordination", or, contractedly, "retrospect". The categorial member opposed to the perfect, for the sake of termi-nological consistency, will be named "imperfect" (non-perfect). As an independent category, the retrospective coordination is manifested in the integral verb-form together with the manifestations of other categories, among them the aspective category of development. Thus, alongside of the forms of perfect continuous and perfect indefinite, the verb distinguishes also the forms of imperfect continuous and imperfect indefinite.

11. The verb. Category of correlation of Order. Retrospective coordination

11. Коррелэйшн энд ордэр.
Это оппозишн перфекта и нон-перфекта. Ильиш описывает три подхода к восприятию:
1. Что это временная категория. Отто Джесперсон. 2. Это аспект, Воронцова так считает. 3. Грамматическая категория Смирнитского, которую он назвал тайм релэйшн.
Почему это не время, потому что, например, прэзэнт перфект это 2 времени сразу-прэзэнт и перфект, такого быть не может. Не аспект, потому что перфект континиус состоит тоже из двух аспектов- перфект и континиус имперфект, что невозможно вместе.
Те, кто считает, что это грам категория, говорят, что она заключается в первенстве действия. Перфект отражает первенство и он главный в оппозиции.
Смирнитский первый заговорил о том, что это грам.категория и использовал термин тайм релэйшн. Но его впоследствии заменили на коррелэйшн, иначе бы категория все ещё касалась бы времени.
А Хаймович и Роговская заменили коррелэйшн на ордэр. Потому что перфект создаёт идеальный порядок.
Блох называет категорию зэ кэтегори оф ретроспектив координэйшн. Я так и не поняла почему он это сделал. Но он считает, что эти отношения между перфектом и нон перфектом заслуживают места в отдельной категории и что тож приоритет выражает она и какие то аспектив трансмишонс.
Иногда эта категория усложняется оттенками значений перфекта под влиянием лингвистических и экста-лингвистических факторов.
По Ильишу:
1.Лексическое значение глагола: тут тоже отсылка к лимитив и инлимитив глаголам.
2. Временная категория.
Презент перфект выражает первостепенность к настоящему, а паст к прошлому, фьюча к фьюча. Ильиш говорит, что они оба паст и фьюча относятся к настоящему, ведь это центр, начало всех моментов.
3. Синтактик контекст. Например, в каких то случаях перфект может относиться к моменту говорения, а в каких то нет.

It manifested by the system of 2 member oppositions such as:

· Write

· Has written

· Will be written

The interpretation of relation between perfect and non-perfect forms reference to the most disputive problem of English verbs.

There’s an options on the matter inquest have been summarized by Iliysh. He describes 3 main approaches to the problem.

1. The category of perfect is a peculiar tense of category. A category that should be claused of the same list as the category of present and past. This view was put forward by Otto Jesperson.

2. The perfect category is a aspect category this view was put formed by Prof. Vorontsova so-called term-smised aspect. Pr. Ivanova regards the perfect as part of the tense aspect system. Other linguist employed such term as:

a. Retrospective aspect

b. Succestive aspect

c. Resultive aspect

3. The category of perfect is of tense and one of the aspect besta special gram. Category.

The idea was first expressed by Prof. Smirnitsky.

He names the cathegory “time relative”. IF we stick to the 1^st point of view it’s necessary to established the relation of the perfect forms to already known and not cotying tense forms.

EX: IF perfect is a tense category the Present perfect should be a unit of 2 tenses.

The past perfect is likewise a unit of 2 dist tenses the past and the perfect which is impossible.

Is a form belings to a tense cont (say the present) cannot simultaneously belong to anothervtense category.

In the same way those who consider the perfect apun of aspect system are constanted with a serious difficulty.

Since presiding form this point of view it’s not easy matter to explain the nature of perfect cont.

The form in which 2 aspect resutilive perfect on one hand and continuous imperfective on the other appear to have merged into one which is also hardly possible.

So the 2d point cannot be recognized either. Those linguists who think that the perfect forms constituted and independent gramm category expressed an idea that essence of this category is president of priority where is the perfect servers to expresses priority the non-perfect member of opposition leaves the actions unspecisied as it’s being prefer of not to another action of situation or point of time

ОТ БУ

11.The category of correlation and order
The Modern English perfect forms have been the subject of a lengthy
discussion which has not so far brought about a definite result.
The interpretation of relation between perfect and non-perfect verbs refers to one of the most disputable problems of english grammar. Pr.Ilysh describes 3 main approaches to this problem:
1/ The category of perfect is a peculiar tense category, i. e. a category which
should be classed in the same list as the categories "present" and "past". This view
was held, for example, by O. Jespersen.
2/ The category of perfect is a peculiar aspect category, i. e. one which should
be given a place in the list comprising "common aspect" and "continuous aspect".
This view was held by a number of scholars, including Prof. G. Vorontsova. Those
who hold this view have expressed different opinions about the particular aspect
constituting the essence of the perfect forms. It has been variously defined as
"retrospective", "resultative", "successive", etc.
3/ The category of perfect is neither one of tense, nor one of aspect but a
special grammatical category different from both. It should be designated by a special term and
its relations to the categories of aspect and tense should be investigated. This view
was expressed by Prof. A. Smirnitsky. He took the perfect to be a means of
expressing the category of "time relation" (временная отнесенность).
The category denotes correlation of the action expressed by the finite verb to
some moment in the past, present or future.
This category is based on the opposition “perfect vs. non-perfect”.
Members like have written, had written presenting a process as prior to semanthic situation constituting to perfect order.And those like wrote or was writing which dont specify the action as to its being prior to another action belong to the non-perfect order.
Perfect forms denote priority to the moment in the past, present or future.
Non-perfect forms denote simultaneity with a moment in the past, present of
future.

12. Category of voice.

The form of the verb may show whether the agent expressed by the subject is the doer of the action or the recipient of the action (John broke the vase - the vase was broken). The objective relations between the action and the subject or object of the action find their expression in language as the grammatical category of voice. Therefore, the category of voice reflects the objective relations between the action itself and the subject or object of the action:

The category of voice is realized through the opposition Active voice::Passive voice. The realization of the voice category is restricted because of the implicit grammatical meaning of transitivity/intransitivity. In accordance with this meaning, all English verbs should fall into transitive and intransitive. However, the classification turns out to be more complex and comprises 6 groups:

1. Verbs used only transitively: to mark, to raise;

2.Verbs with the main transitive meaning: to see, to make, to build;

3. Verbs of intransitive meaning and secondary transitive meaning. A lot of intransitive verbs may develop a secondary transitive meaning: They laughed me into agreement; He danced the girl out of the room;

4.Verbs of a double nature, neither of the meanings are the leading one, the verbs can be used both transitively and intransitively: to drive home - to drive a car;

5.Verbs that are never used in the Passive Voice: to seem, to become;

6. Verbs that realize their passive meaning only in special contexts: to live, to sleep, to sit, to walk, to jump.

Some scholars admit the existence of Middle, Reflexive and Reciprocal voices. "Middle Voice" - the verbs primarily transitive may develop an intransitive middle meaning: That adds a lot; The door opened; The book sells easily; The dress washes well.
"Reflexive Voice": He dressed; He washed - the subject is both the agent and the recipient of the action at the same time. It is always possible to use a reflexive pronoun in this case: He washed himself.
"Reciprocal voice”: They met; They kissed - it is always possible to use a reciprocal pronoun here: They kissed each other.

We cannot, however, speak of different voices, because all these meanings are not expressed morphologically.

The verbal category of voice shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the syntactic construction.

The voice of the English verb is expressed by the opposition of the passive form of the verb to the active form of the verb. The sign marking the passive form is the combination of the auxiliary be with the past participle of the conjugated verb. The passive form as the strong member of the opposition expresses reception of the action by the subject of the syntactic construction (i.e. the "passive" subject, denoting the object of the action); the active form as the weak member of the opposition leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. it expresses "non-passivity".

In colloquial speech the role of the passive auxiliary can occasionally be performed by the verb get and, probably, become* Cf.:

Sam got licked for a good reason, though not by me. The young violinist became admired by all.

The category of voice has a much broader representation in the system of the English verb than in the system of the Russian verb, since in English not only transitive, but also intransitive objective verbs including prepositional ones can be used in the passive (the preposition being retained in the absolutive location). Besides, verbs taking not one, but two objects, as a rule, can feature both of them in the position of the passive subject. E.g.:

I've just been rung up by the police. The diplomat was refused transit facilities through London. She was undisturbed by the frown on his face. Have you ever been told that you're very good looking? He was said to have been very wild in his youth. The dress has never been tried on. The child will be looked after all right. I won't be talked to like this. Etc.

Still, not all the verbs capable of taking an object are actually used in the passive. In particular, the passive form is alien to many verbs of the statal subclass (displaying a weak dynamic force), such as have (direct possessive meaning), belong, cost, resemble, fail, misgive, etc. Thus, in accord with their relation to the passive voice, all the verbs can be divided into two large sets: the set of passivised verbs and the set of non-passivised verbs.

A question then should be posed whether the category of voice is a full-representative verbal category, i.e. represented in the system of the verb as a whole, or a partial-representative category, confined only to the passivised verbal set. Considerations of both form and function tend to interpret voice rather as a full-representative category, the same as person, number, tense, and aspect. Three reasons can be given to back this appraisal.

First, the integral categorial presentation of non-passivised verbs fully coincides with that of passivised verbs used in the active voice (cf. takes — goes, is taking — is going, has taken — has gone, etc.). Second, the active voice as the weak member of the categorial opposition is characterised in general not by the "active" meaning as such (i.e. necessarily featuring the subject as the doer of the action), but by the extensive non-passive meaning of a very wide range of actual significations, some of them approaching by their process-direction characteristics those of non-passivised verbs (cf. The door opens inside the room; The magazine doesn't sell well). Third, the demarcation line between the passivised and non-passivised sets is by no means rigid, and the verbs of the non-passivised order may migrate into the

passivised order in various contextual conditions (cf. The bed has not been slept in; The house seems not to have been lived in for a long time).

Thus, the category of voice should be interpreted as being reflected in the whole system of verbs, the non-passivised verbs presenting the active voice form if not directly, then indirectly.