The Verb. The Category of Phase (order, correlation)

The position of the perfect forms in the system of the English verb is a problem which has been treated in many different ways. Among the various views on the essence of the perfect forms in Modern English, the following three main trends should be mentioned:

1) Otto Jespersen regards the category of perfect as a peculiar tense category, i.e. the category that should be classed in the same list with the categories of present and past (Henry Sweet, Curme, Bryant and N.F. Irtenieva);

2) in the opinion of Vorontsova, the category of perfect is a peculiar aspect category that means that it should be given a place in the list comprising common aspect or continuous aspect (West, Deutschbein, Sonnenschien);

3) Professor Smirnitsky took the perfect to be a means of expressing the category of 'time relation' (временная отнесенность). The category of perfect is neither one of tense, nor one of aspect; it is a specific category different from both.

Speaking about the opinions of modern linguists, we are to mention Boris Ilyish. He thinks that the category of perfect can't be a tense category. He explains it in the following way. In Modern English there are the forms: present perfect, past perfect and future perfect. There is no doubt that present, past and future are tense categories, so for example, the present perfect would be a union of two different tenses: the present and the perfect. The past perfect is the union of two tenses (the past and the perfect). The future perfect = the future and the perfect. But it is impossible if a form already belongs to tense category it can't simultaneously belong to another tense category, since two tense categories in one form would collide and destroy each other.

Professor Bloch also disapproves the fact that the perfect can be an aspect category. Professor Bloch calls the opposition of the perfect forms of the verb to the non-perfect as the category of retrospective coordination. In his opinion, the marked of the opposition is the perfect which is built up by the auxiliary 'have' + past participle of the notional verb. Criticizing the three above mentioned trends on the essence of the perfect forms, Bloch recognizes all the merits of the aspect approach, but he shows two serious drawbacks.

Professor Ivanova developed the tense-aspect interpretation of the perfect. According to her, the two verbal forms expressing temporal and aspective are contrasted against the indefinite form, but the tense aspect conception by professor Ivanova loses site of its categorial nature, because it leaves undisclosed how the grammatical function of the perfect is effected in contrast to the continuous or indefinite.

The opinion of Smirnitsky should be mentioned, but as a separate one. He showed the categorial individuality of the perfect. The perfect form by means of its oppositional mark builds up its own category, different from both the tense (present, past and future) and the aspect (continuous, indefinite). The functional content of the category of time correlation was defined as priority expressed by the perfect forms in the present, past or future contrasted against the non-expression of priority by the non-perfect forms.

Professor Bloch considers the perfect as the marking form of a separate verbal category, semantically intermediate between aspective and temporal, but quite self-dependant in the general categorial system of the English verb.

Reznik involves a new category for the perfect. It is the category of order (this is similar with the opinion of Barkhudarov). The marked member here is perfect, and the unmarked - non-perfect. A perfect form is different from corresponding non-perfect form mainly in one respect. The perfect form presents events as prior to other events and the non-perfect form does not show this,

E.g. He reads such books with pleasure.

He has read such books.

07.03.13