Different interpretation of Perfect-Non-Perfect forms

The interpretation of perfect – non-perfect forms establishing the grammatical category of phase given above is not the only one to be found in English Grammar.

The problem of the perfect forms has long been a controversial one. The point that arouse controversy are as follows:

• What is the grammatical meaning of the perfect forms?

• To what grammatical category do perfect forms belong?

There are at least four approaches to answer these questions.

Perfect – Non-perfect forms as Tense

Grammarians of the traditional school treat the opposition of perfect & non-perfect forms as tenses (Sweet, Curme, Jespersen).

Non-Perfect forms are seen as primary tenses, while perfect forms – as secondary tenses. Primary tenses refer an action to a certain period of time in the past, present (the moment of speaking) or future. Secondary tenses do not refer an action to a certain point of time but express priority to a point of time in the past, present or future.

Thus, the present perfect is regarded as a tense form, which denotes an action that occurs before the moment of speaking. The past perfect tense denotes an action, which took place before a certain moment in the past & the future perfect tense (if you admit it as analytical form), denotes an action which will take place before a certain moment in the future. Later the terms ‘relative’ (secondary) tenses with regard to perfect forms and ‘absolute’ (primary) tenses with regard to non-perfect forms were introduced, but the treatment remains basically the same: these forms are tense-forms.

Perfect – Non-Perfect forms as Aspect

The second grammatical interpretation of the perfect was the ‘aspect view’. According to this interpretation perfect & non-perfect forms are related as aspective forms of the verb. The proponents of this approach are M. Deutschbein, West, Vorontsova & some others.

Vorontsova develops the idea of the successive connection of the two events, one of which is expressed by the Perfect. She calls it the transmissive aspect (предельный вид преемственности, или трансмиссивный вид). Thus, the present perfect, according to prof. Vorontsova, shows a completed action, which is connected with the present – there is continuity between the past & the present (Воронцова, Смирницкий).

B.A. Ilyish in his earlier papers suggested that the past perfect & the future perfect shoul be regarded as relative tenses, because they express priority, while the present perfect should be treated as an aspect form, that of the resultative aspect. Names as ‘retrospective aspect’, ‘successive aspect’ & some others have been introduced by grammarians with regard to perfect forms. All of them emphasize the meaning of succession & limited duration expressed by perfect forms, which is aspective by nature, However, this meaning is not the leading one in the semantics of the Perfect.

Perfect – Non-Perfect forms as Tense-Aspect

The third grammatical interpretation of the perfect is the ‘tense-aspect’ view. It was developed in the works of I.P. Ivanova. According to her, the perfect forms express temporal & aspective functions in a blend.

The achievements of the tense-aspect view of the perfect is that it demonstrate the actual double nature of the form under analysis, its temporal (situation-external time) & aspective (situation-internal time) spheres of verbal semantics.

However, as Bloch states, the tense-aspect conception loses sight of the categorical nature of the perfect altogether (Bloch). It does not explain the difference between tense-aspect forms on the one hand & tense forms & aspect forms on the other hand, e.g. the difference between past perfect & past continuous forms, or past perfect continuous forms. All the three are past with regard to tense, and all the three have some aspective semantics. But why is the difference in the form? Moreover, there is no such category as tense-aspect in English.