 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
80
Smirnitsky to advance the new interpretation of the perfect was the peculiar structure of the perfect continuous
form in which the perfect, the form of precedence, i.e. the form giving prominence to the idea of two times
brought in contrast, coexists syntagmatically with the continuous, the form of simultaneity, i.e. the form
expressing one time for two events, according to the "tense view" conception of it. The gist of reasoning here is
that, since the two expressions of the same categorial semantics are impossible in one and the same verbal form,
the perfect cannot be either an aspective form, granted the continuous expresses the category of aspect, or a
temporal form, granted the continuous expresses the category of tense. The inference is that the category in
question, the determining part of which is embodied in the perfect, is different from both the tense and the
aspect, this difference being fixed by the special categorial term "time correlation".
The analysis undertaken by A.I. Smirnitsky is of outstanding significance not only for identifying the
categorial status of the perfect, but also for specifying further the general notion of, a grammatical category. It
develops the very technique of this kind of identification.
Still, the "time correlation view" is not devoid of certain limitations. First, it somehow underestimates the
aspective plane of the categorial semantics of the perfect, very convincingly demonstrated by G.N. Vorontsova
in the context of the "aspect view" of the perfect, as well as by I.P. Ivanova in the context of the "tense-aspect
blend view" of the perfect. Second, and this is far more important, the reasoning by which the category is
identified, is not altogether complete in so far as it confuses the general grammatical notions of time and aspect
with the categorial status of concrete word-forms in each particular language conveying the corresponding
meanings. Some languages may canvey temporal or aspective meanings within the functioning of one integral
category for each (as, for instance, the Russian language), while other languages may convey the same or
similar kind of meanings in two or even more categories for each (as, for instance, the English language). The
only true criterion of this is the character of the representation of the respective categorial forms in the actual
speech manifestation of a lexeme. If a lexeme normally displays the syntagmatic coexistence of several forms
distinctly identifiable by their own peculiar marks, as, for example, the forms of person, number, time, etc., it
means that these forms in the system of language make up different grammatical categories. The integral
grammatical meaning of any word-form (the concrete speech entry of a lexeme) is determined by the whole
combination ("bunch") of the categories peculiar to the part of speech the lexeme belongs to. For instance, the
verb-form has been speaking in
the sentence "The Red Chief has just been speaking" expresses, in terms of
immediately (positively) presented grammatical forms, the third person of the category of person, the singular
of the category of number, the present of the category of time, the continuous of the category of development,
the perfect of the category under analysis. As for the character of the determining meaning of any category, it
may either be related to the meaning of some adjoining category, or may not - it depends on the actual
categorial correlations that have shaped in a language in the course of its historical development. In particular,
in Modern English, in accord with our knowledge of its structure, two major purely temporal categories are to
be identified, i.e. primary time and prospective time, as well as two major aspective categories. One of the latter
is the category of development. The other, as has been decided above, is the category of retrospective
coordination featuring the perfect as the marked component form and the. imperfect as its unmarked
counterpart. We have considered it advisable to re-name the indicated category in order, first, to stress its actual
retrospective property (in fact, what is strongly expressed in the temporal plane of the category, is priority of
action, not any other relative time signification), and second, to reservp such a general term as "correlation" for
more unrestricted, free manipulations in non-specified uses connected with grammatical analysis.
§ 8. Thus, we have arrived at the "strict categorial view" of the perfect, disclosing it as the marking form of
a separate verbal category, semantically intermediate between aspective and temporal, but quite self-dependent
in the general categorial system of the English verb. It is this interpretation of the perfect that gives a natural ex-
planation to the "enigmatic" verbal form of the perfect continuous, showing that each categorial marker - both
perfect and continuous-being separately expressed in the speech entry of the verbal lexeme, conveys its own
part in the integral grammatical meaning of the entry. Namely, the perfect interprets the action in the light of
priority and aspective transmission, while the continuous presents the same action as progressive. As a result,
far from displaying any kind of semantic contradiction or discrepancy, the grammatical characterization of the
action gains both in precision and vividness. The latter quality explains why this verbal form is gaining more
and more ground in present-day colloquial English.
As a matter of fact, the specific semantic features of the perfect and the continuous in each integrating use
can be distinctly exposed by separate diagnostic tests. Cf:.
A week or two ago someone related an incident to me with the suggestion that I should write a story on it,
and since then I have been thinking it over (S. Maugham).