* REALISATION OF GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES OF THE VERB
*
The Problem of Futurity *Expressing the future time in English is particularly fraught with problems not only because there are so many different forms to choose from, but also because the distinction between them is not always clear. Future Tense Simple Future: I will see Future Progressive: I will be seeing Future Perfect: I will have seen Future Perfect Progressive: I will have been seeing Simple Future in the Past: He said he would go to the dentist. Continuous Future in the Past: He was planning how he would be sipping cocktail on his vacation. Perfect Future in the Past: We hoped we should have done our homework by midday. Perfect Continuous Future in the Past: He told us he would have been working on the plant for 30 years next December.
*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.
* Another British-American linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum supports the idea that the English language has no future tense. * Instead of a future tense, English makes use of slew of verbs (auxiliary and nonauxiliary, modal and non-modal) such as be, come, go; may, shall, and will, various adjectives such as about, bound, and certain, and various idiomatic combinations involving infinitival complements. Reference to a variety of future times of different degrees of proximity can thus be achieved, often with some kind of modality (necessity or possibility) mixed in. Among the idioms used in Standard English are all of these: is to be is to come to be is going to come to be is about to come to be is bound to come to be is certain to come to be may come to be will come to be shall come to be
* The fact that there is a stubborn tendency in English grammar books to misrepresent will be as the future tense of be doesn't make it right. The arguments that will does not form a tense are briefly summarized in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, chapter 3, section 10. 1, pp. 208 -212, and set out in more detail in an article by Rodney Huddleston ("The case against a future tense in English", Studies in Language 19: 399446, 1995). The arguments include the fact that will expresses volition as well as future temporal location, and that it shows its own tense contrast between present and preterite. In fact every single one of the above constructions can be put into the preterite (simple past) tense as well as the present tense: was to be was to come to be was going to come to be was about to come to be was bound to come to be was certain to come to be might come to be would come to be should come to be
*The claim he is making is not that ”It’s not like reference to future time cannot be made in English; of course it can”, he says. And the claim is not that will cannot be thus used: probably over 80 percent of its occurrences involve some kind of future time reference. “My claim — Huddleston's claim — is simply that the varied ways we have of referring to future time in English are not part of the tense system; they involve a significant-sized array of idioms and periphrastic work-arounds — and the modal verb will has no particularly privileged place in that array”. *“If you would like to be convinced that will simply cannot be convincingly analyzed as a future tense marker, consider the examples below. What they show is that will has a wide range of meanings, ranging over volition, inclination, habituation, tendency, inference, and prediction. That is, will X can mean is firmly determined to do X, is inclined toward doing X, has a regular habit of doing X, has tended toward X in the past, can be inferred to be doing X right now, is predicted to do X, and various other shades of meaning.
Step this way, if you will, sir. Means "if you wish to", not "if you are definitely going to". Won't you join us? Means "Don't you wish to join us? " — it's used to issue an invitation, not to request confirmation of a prediction. That will be Mike. Uttered when the doorbell rings, this means I expect that it is Mike ringing the bell right now (not that it isn't yet but it is going to be). My parents won't know that I'm here yet, so I should call them. Means that they don't know I'm here, not that a time is coming along in the future at which they will cease to know. Ted and Alice cannot resolve their disputes; they will sometimes fight for hours until they're utterly exhausted. Means they have a habit of engaging such fights, in the past in particular. (Notice, Ted abd Alice might go into family counseling tomorrow, and the fighting might never happen again. That wouldn't make the statement false. ) The reason Warren Buffett has made so much Means that he has a firm policy of not investing money in his life is that he will not invest in fly-by-night operations, exemplified by his -by-night operations. past practice. The sentence does not suggest that future refusals to invest in fly-by-night operations can explain past financial success!
Metallic potassium will explode on contact with Means potassium already does explode on water. contact with water, and has habitually done so in past experiments — not that it is going to at some future time. I've warned him time and time again, but he won't listen; I'm finished with him. Means he doesn't listen, as a matter of habitual practice through all the past times I've warned him. (Notice, I'm finished with him: I'm not issuing any more warnings, so my claim is not about what the future is going to be like. ) If he was on that plane, he will have spent last Means that in the world of the assumption that night in an airport hotel in Cleveland. he caught the plane, he has already had his night in Cleveland. The reference is to a possible world that may or may not be the one we're in, but if we are in it, then the night at the airport hotel is already in our past. The folks back home will be missing me right now. Means that they are missing me right now. It's not claiming that they'll spend Wednesday March 19 th missing me on Tuesday March 18 th. That's not even coherent. It would involve time travel.
Скачать презентацию REALISATION OF GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES OF THE VERB
TENSE fut.ppt