18. The tense.

The verbal category of tense in the most general sense expresses the time characteristics of the process denoted by the verb.

It is necessary to distinguish between time as a general category and time as a linguistic category. Time in the general philosophical presentation along with space is the form of existence of matter; it is independent of human perception and is constantly changing. Time is reflected by human beings through their perception and intellect and finds its expression in language, in the meaning of various lexical and grammatical lingual units. The moment of immediate perception and reflection of actual reality, linguistically fixed as “the moment of speech”, makes the so-called “present moment” and serves as the demarcation line between the past and the future. Linguistic expression of time may be either oriented toward the moment of speech, “present-oriented”, “absolutive”, or it may be “non-present-oriented”, “non-absolutive”. The “absolutive time” denotation embraces three spheres: the past, the present and the future. The sphere of the present includes the moment of speech and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as this moment, today, this week, this millennium, etc. The sphere of the past precedes the sphere of the present by way of retrospect and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as last week, yesterday, many years ago, etc. The sphere of the future follows the sphere of the present by way of prospect and can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as soon, in two days, next week, etc. The “non-present-oriented” time denotation may be either “relative” or “factual”. The “relative time” denotation shows the correlation of two or more events and embraces the priority (the relative past), the simultaneity (the relative present) and the posteriority (the relative future) of one event in relation to another. Relative time is lexically expressed by such words and word-combinations as after that, before that, at the same time with, some time later, soon after, etc. The factual expression of time denotes real astronomical time or historical landmarks unrelated with either the moment of speech or any other time center; it can be expressed lexically by such words and word-combinations as in the morning, in 1999, during World War II, etc.

Factual time can be expressed only lexically (as shown above), while absolutive and relative expressions of time in English can be not only lexical, but also grammatical. The grammatical expression of verbal time through morphological forms of the verbs constitutes the grammatical category of tense (from the Latin word “tempus” – “time”).

The tense category in English differs a lot from the verbal categories of tense in other languages, for example, in Russian. The tense category in Russian renders absolutive time semantics; the three Russian verbal tense forms present the events as developing in time in a linear way from the past to the future, cf.: Он работал вчера; Он сегодня работает; Он будет работать завтра. In English there are four verbal tense forms: the present (work), the past (worked), the future (shall/will work), and the future-in-the-past (should/would work). The two future tense forms of the verb express the future in two separate ways: as an after-event in relation to the present, e.g.: He will work tomorrow (not right not), and as an after-event in relation to the past, e.g.: He said he would work the next day. The future forms of the verb in English express relative time – posteriority in relation to either the present or the past. The present and the past forms of the verb render absolutive time semantics, referring the events to either the plane of the present or to the plane of the past; this involves all the finite verb forms, including the perfect, the continuous, and the future forms. Thus, there is not just one verbal category of tense in English but two interconnected tense categories, one of them rendering absolutive time semantics by way of retrospect (past vs. present) and the other rendering relative time semantics by way of prospect (after-action vs. non-after-action).

This approach is vindicated by the fact, that logically one and the same category cannot be expressed twice in one and the same form: the members of the paradigm should be mutually exclusive; the existence of a specific future-in-the-past form shows that there are two tense categories in English.

The first verbal tense category, which can be called “primary time”, “absolutive time”, or “retrospective time”, is expressed by the opposition of the past and the present forms. The suffix “-ed” of the regular verbs is the formal feature which marks the past as the strong member of the opposition. Besides this productive form, there are some unproductive past forms of verbs, such as suppletive forms (e.g.: eat – ate), or past forms homonymous with the present (cut – cut). The marked forms denote past actions which receive retrospective evaluation from the point of view of the moment of speech. The present, like any other weak member of an opposition, has a much wider range of meanings than its strong counterpart: the present denotes actions taking place in the sphere of the present, during the period of time including the moment of speech, e.g.: What are you doing?; Terrorism is the major threat of the twenty first century; it may denote repeated actions, e.g.: We go out every Friday night; actions unchanged in the course of time, e.g.: Two plus two makes four; universal truths, e.g.: He who laughs last laughs best; instantaneous actions which begin and end approximately at the moment of speech (as in sports commentaries), e.g.: Smith passes to Brown; etc. To stress its weak oppositional characteristics the present is also referred to as “non-past”.

The opposition of the past and the present can be reduced in certain contexts. For example, the present tense form of the verb can be used to describe past events in order to create a vivid picture of the past, as if to make one’s interlocutor the eyewitness of the past events, e.g.: I stopped to greet him and what do you think he does? He pretends he doesn’t know me! This type of transposition is known as “historic present” (or, “preterite present”). It is one of the rare cases when the use of the weak member of the opposition instead of the strong member results in transposition and is stylistically colored. The transposition of past tense forms into the context of the present is used to express various degrees of politeness, e.g.: Could you help me, please? These cases are known as “preterite of modesty”, or “attitudinal past”.

The second verbal tense category, which may be called “prospective”, or “relative”, is formed by the opposition of the future and the non-future separately in relation to the present or to the past. The strong member of the opposition is the future, marked by the auxiliary verbs shall/will (the future in relation to the present) or should/would (the future in relation to the past). It is used to denote posterior actions, after-actions in relation to some other actions or to a certain point of time in the present or in the past.

The two tense categories interact in the lingual presentation of time: any action in English is at first evaluated retrospectively as belonging to the sphere of the past or to the sphere of the present, and then it is evaluated prospectively as an after-action or a non-after-action to either the past or the present. In terms of oppositional presentation, the interaction of the two tense categories, which results in the four verbal tense forms, can be presented in the form of a table showing the strong and the weak members and the characteristics of each form in the two oppositions combined:

The opposition of the prospective time category can be reduced. Present forms are regularly used to denote future actions planned, arranged or anticipated in the near future: We go to London tomorrow; or in subordinate clauses of time and condition: If you stay, you will learn a lot of interesting things about yourself. These two examples can be treated as cases of neutralization: the weak member of the opposition is used instead of the strong one with no stylistic coloring involved. Transposition takes place when the future forms are used to express insistence, e.g.: When he needs something, he will talk and talk about it for days on end.

One more problem is to be tackled in analyzing the English future tenses: the status of the verbs shall/will and should/would. Some linguists, O. Jespersen and L. S. Barkhudarov among them, argue that these verbs are not the auxiliary verbs of the analytical future tense forms, but modal verbs denoting intention, command, request, promise, etc. in a weakened form, e.g.: I’ll go there by train. = I intend (want, plan) to go there by train. On this basis they deny the existence of the verbal future tense in English.

As a matter of fact, shall/will and should/would are in their immediate etymology modal verbs: verbs of obligation (shall) and volition (will). But nowadays they preserve their modal meanings in no higher degree than the future tense forms in other languages: the future differs in this respect from the past and the present, because no one can be positively sure about events that have not yet taken place or are not taking place now. A certain modal coloring is inherent to the future tense semantics in any language as future actions are always either anticipated, or foreseen, or planned, or desired, or necessary, etc. On the other hand, modal verbs are treated as able to convey certain future implication in many contexts, cf.: I may/might/ could travel by bus.

This does not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse shall/will and should/would the status of auxiliary verbs of the future. The homonymous, though cognate, verbs shall/will and should/would are to be distinguished in contexts, in which they function as purely modal verbs, e.g.: Payment shall be made by cheque; Why are you asking him? He wouldn’t know anything about it, and in contexts in which they function as the auxiliary verbs of the future tense forms with subdued modal semantics, e.g.: I will be forty next month

Older grammar textbooks distinguish the auxiliary verbs shall/will and should/would from their modal homonyms in connection with the category of person in the following way: the auxiliary shall/should are used with first person verbal forms, while the auxiliary will/would - with second and third persons verbal forms to denote pure future; when used otherwise, they express pure modal meanings, the most typical of which are intention or desire for I will and promise or command on the part of the speaker for you shall, he shall. It is admitted, though, that in American English will is used as functionally equal for all persons to denote pure future and shall is used only as a modal verb. The contracted form -‘ll further levels the difference between the two auxiliary verbs in colloquial speech.

In British English the matter is more complicated: in refined British English both verbs are used with the first person forms to denote the future. Some linguists treat them as functionally equal “grammatical doublets”, as free variants of the future tense auxiliary. Still, there is certain semantic difference between shall/should and will/would in the first person verbal forms, which can be traced to their etymological origin: will/would expresses an action which is to be performed of the doer’s free choice, voluntarily, and shall/should expresses an action which will take place irrespective of the doer’s will, cf.: I will come to you. = I want to come to you and I will do that; Shall I open the window? = Do you want me to open the window? The almost exclusive use of the auxiliary shall in interrogative constructions in British English is logically determined by the difference outlined: it is quite natural that a genuine question shows some doubt or speculation rather than the speaker’s wish concerning the prospective action. The difference between the two auxiliary verbs of the future in British English is further supported by the use of the contracted negative forms won’t and shan’t. Thus, in British English will + infinitive and shall + infinitive denote, respectively, the voluntary future and the non-voluntary future and can be treated as a minor category within the system of the English future tense, relevant only for first person forms.