2. Different approaches to the interpretation of perfect forms

• Tense interpretation

Grammarians differ greatly in defining the linguistic nature of the Perfect forms in English. The range of opinions is strikingly broad. Some linguists think that the perfect is a peculiar tense category, i.e. it is a category that should be classed in the same list as the present and past. This interpretation of the perfect forms is called the “tense view”. Among the adherents of this approach you can find H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, G.O. Curme and some others. Among Russian linguists here belong N.N. Rayevskaya and N.F. Irtenyeva who consistently developed this theory.

According to the tense interpretation of the Perfect forms the main difference between the perfect and non-perfect forms of the verb consists in the fact that the perfect denotes a secondary temporal characteristic of the action. It shows that the denoted action precedes some other action in the present, past, or future.

This approach was criticized by several Russian linguists (B.A. Ilyish, M.Y. Blokh, B.S. Khaimovich & B.I. Rogovskaya). Their stance against the tense-view boils down to a number of arguments.

If we are to find out whether the perfect can be a tense category, i.e. a tense among tenses, we must consider its relations to the tenses, which are already established and raise no doubts as to their the existence. These tenses are past, present and future. On the other hand, we all know about the existence in Modern English of forms which are called Present Perfect, Past Perfect and Future Perfect. The fact that the present, past and future are tense categories has been firmly established and has never been doubted by anyone. If we consider that the Perfect is also a tense category, a Present Perfect would be a union of two different tenses (the past and the perfect), the same refers to the Past and Future Perfect. But this is impossible: if a form already belongs to a tense category, it cannot simultaneously belong to another tense category, since two tense categories cannot exist in one form, they would destroy each other. It follows from here that the category of perfect cannot be a tense category. Thus this approach was qualified inadequate, as it does not correlate with the notion of a grammatical category and the theory of opposition.

• Aspect view

A number of linguists think that the category of the perfect forms is a peculiar aspect category. Within this interpretation the Perfect is treated as one of the aspective forms of the verb alongside the progressive / continuous aspect. Among the proponents of this approach you can find M. Deutschbein, M. West, G. Leech, J. Svartvik, S. Greenbaum, R. Quirk, the authors of Longman Grammar, D. Crystal. In Russian linguistics this view is shared by G. N. Vorontsova. She emphasizes the fact that the perfect forms express the idea of the successive connection of two events. She is inclined to think that the main meaning of the perfect is transmission of a pre-situation to a post-situation. Prof. G.N. Vorontsova stresses the aspective nature of the perfect.

The aspective nature of the perfect is ascribed by some linguists to the resultative meaning conveyed by the perfect form. Prof. Vorontsova does not think so. She believes that the aspective character of the perfect is manifested in its transmissive functional semantics. In other words, according to G.N. Vorontsova’s approach the perfect realizes the idea of transmission of a pre-situation to a post-situation, in this way demonstrating its aspective character, or aspective properties. Thus G.N. Vorontsova interprets the perfect as conveying the meaning of connection of a past event with a later one.

This logic is very similar to the analysis found in Longman Grammar. According to the authors of Longman Grammar, “the perfect aspect designates events or states taking place during a period leading up to the specified time. <…> Compared with present perfect aspect, past perfect aspect has a straight forward function – to refer to a time that is earlier than some specified past time” [Longman Grammar 2000: 460].

This approach to the problem of the perfect forms was also criticized along the similar lines as the tense-view. The main idea of the opponents of this interpretation is how we can have two aspects in one form, for example present/past/future perfect continuous. This form does not live up to the requirements of the theory of opposition. In addition to this, there should be no difference between continuous and perfect forms, as they are both aspective forms and opposed to non-aspective forms.

• The blend-view

The third approach to the problem of the perfect in modern English is called tense-aspect blend view. It is I.P. Ivanova who developed this approach. V.V. Gurevich also supports it. According to this approach the perfect is recognized as a form of double temporal-aspective character, similar to the continuous. I.P. Ivanova is of the opinion that the perfect is of double nature, that the perfect forms are connected with both temporal and aspective spheres of verbal semantics. Indeed, perfect forms are of double nature, they indicate both time and aspect. This statement can be substantiated by the following examples:

1. He has lived in this country for a long time. – In this example the temporal meaning of the perfect is quite apparent. To prove the fact we can put such a time testing question to this sentence: How long has he lived in this country?

2. I haven’t met my friend for years, and I can hardly recognize him in a crowd. – In this sentence the aspective function of the perfect is revealed. This can be proved by the aspect-testing question, put to this sentence, such as: What is the consequence of your not having met your friend for years?

So, the analysis of these examples testifies to the fact that the perfect forms are of a double nature. This fact serves as the foundation for I.P. Ivanova’s idea that the perfect forms express temporal and aspective functions in a blend and are contrasted against the indefinite form as their common counterpart of neutralized aspective properties.

The main merit of this approach lies in the fact that it clearly demonstrates the double nature of the perfect forms, its inherent connection with both temporal and aspective spheres of verbal semantics.

This approach also found its critics, among them B.S. Khaimovich & B.J. Rogovskaya, B.A. Ilyish, M.Y. Blokh, etc. M.Y. Blokh thinks that one of the main drawbacks of this approach is the fact that “the tense-aspect conception loses sight of its categorial nature”. If we adhere to this approach we cannot clearly say which forms are opposed to which. For if we speak about the grammatical category, we must speak about grammatical oppositions, and in case of this approach it is not clear in what way the “categorial blend” of the perfect-continuous is contrasted against its three counterparts, namely the perfect, the continuous and the indefinite.