- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- British English
- Home Country
- Czech Republic
- Current Location
- Czech Republic
Tense and Aspect: 1. Introduction
For many people learning English, and indeed for some teachers, the verb system of English seems incredibly complex. Thousands of papers, chapters and whole books gave been written on the subject since Bullokar devoted seventeen pages to it in 1586[1].
I believe the tense/aspect system of English verbs is far less complex than many suppose. There is an underlying logic to the system that, when understood, clears away most of the problems that have caused misery to many learners and their teachers.
I am going to submit to the Linguistics forum a series of threads, one tense/aspect to each thread, in the hope that one or two people might be interested in discussing my ideas.
Before I begin, it will be useful to look at two key words, tense and aspect. Traditionally, Tense is generally defined in ways such as: the relationship of the form of the verb and the time of the action it describes[2]. For those who may be interested, I am posting here a couple of (very boring) lists of quotations from a number of writers about tense. Aspect is generally defined in ways such as: a grammatical category which deals with how the event described by a verb is viewed, such as whether it is in progress, habitual, repeated, momentary[3],etc.
Although many writers in the past wrote of a future tense in English[4], if we confine ourselves to the form, then it is clear that English has only two simple (i.e. unmarked by inflection for any other aspect) tenses, as shown in the pairs play/played, work/worked, want/wanted, sing/sang. The first of these forms is traditionally called the present Simple, the second past simple. However, as we see below, both tenses can refer to past, present, future, and general time:
Present tense for past time:
Present tense for present time:
Present Tense for 'general' time:
Present Tense for future time:
Past tense for past time:
Past tense for present time:
Past tense for 'general' time:
Past tense for future time:
Marked and Unmarked Tense
The traditional names are clearly misleading. In these threads, therefore, I will refer to the traditionally-named present simple forms of the verb that display no suffixes or change of form to refer to time as unmarked (tense) forms, and the traditionally-named past simple tense as the marked (tense) forms. As both forms show tense, but not aspect, I consider the word Simple redundant.
The Aspects
Some writers use the word tense for such forms as I am/was working and I have/had worked. Like many others, I refer to these, and to two other forms noted below as aspects. The form shown in I am/was working is traditionally known as the continuous or progressive. I prefer to refer to this as the durative aspect. The form shown in I have/had worked, is traditionally known as the perfect. I call it the retrospective aspect.
I find it useful to think of as aspects: the be going to future, or prospective aspect and the used to past, or habitual aspect.
The two tenses are mutually exclusive; a verb form can be either marked or unmarked, not both. We can combine certain aspects, however, as we shall see in later threads.
[1] Those who refer to grammar books will find that Palmer’s ‘The English Verb’ (1974) contains 268 pages, Jespersen’s Modern English Grammar (1931) a whole volume (373 pages) to consider the intricacies of the English verb, while in 2006 there appeared the first volume of Declerk’s Grammar of the English Verb Phrase - over 800 pages, with three more volumes to follow.
Binnick (2001) compiled a bibliography of 6,600 articles, chapters, reports, conference papers, monographs, dissertations, and books, on verbs, 1,242 of them on English verbs.
[2] Richards J C, Platt, J, and Platt, H. 1992. 376
[3] ib. p22
[4] In the first published grammar of English, Wiliam Bullokar (1586.24.) wrote, “Thér be threʾ Týmƺ calʾed Tencʾeƺ. The tým that iƺ Now, calʾed the Preſent-Tencʾ: aƺ, I lou. The tým Paſt, calʾed the Preter-Tencʾ: aƺ, I loued. The tým Too Com, calʾed the Futur-Tencʾ: aƺ, I ſhalʾ or wilʾ lou”.
Writers who reject the idea of a future tense in English, accepting only present and past tenses include Jespersen (1931.3-4), Joos (1964,120-121), Christophersen and Sandved (1970.43), Leech ([1971] 2004,3), Palmer (1974,37) Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, ([1983] 1999.95) Quirk et al (1985,176.) Lewis (1986.139), Aitken (1992.63), Crystal ([1995] 2003.196,224) Huddleston and Pullum (2002.208), Yule (1998.58), Carter and McCarthy (2006.629).
Those who accept a future tense in English include Poutsma (1926.207), Curme (1931.362), Stannard Allen ([1947] 1959.116), Wood (1954. 165-6, 189,) Eckersley (1960.161) Zandvoort ([1967] 1969.76), Alexander (1988.178), Sinclair et al (1990.255), Declerck (2006.24).
For many people learning English, and indeed for some teachers, the verb system of English seems incredibly complex. Thousands of papers, chapters and whole books gave been written on the subject since Bullokar devoted seventeen pages to it in 1586[1].
I believe the tense/aspect system of English verbs is far less complex than many suppose. There is an underlying logic to the system that, when understood, clears away most of the problems that have caused misery to many learners and their teachers.
I am going to submit to the Linguistics forum a series of threads, one tense/aspect to each thread, in the hope that one or two people might be interested in discussing my ideas.
Before I begin, it will be useful to look at two key words, tense and aspect. Traditionally, Tense is generally defined in ways such as: the relationship of the form of the verb and the time of the action it describes[2]. For those who may be interested, I am posting here a couple of (very boring) lists of quotations from a number of writers about tense. Aspect is generally defined in ways such as: a grammatical category which deals with how the event described by a verb is viewed, such as whether it is in progress, habitual, repeated, momentary[3],etc.
Although many writers in the past wrote of a future tense in English[4], if we confine ourselves to the form, then it is clear that English has only two simple (i.e. unmarked by inflection for any other aspect) tenses, as shown in the pairs play/played, work/worked, want/wanted, sing/sang. The first of these forms is traditionally called the present Simple, the second past simple. However, as we see below, both tenses can refer to past, present, future, and general time:
Present tense for past time:
- 1939. 15 March: Germany invades Czechoslovakia. Hitler claims that …
- Jane tells me you've not been too well since you got back.
Present tense for present time:
- My stomach hurts.
- And Gray blocks the ball, passes to McNally on the edge of the box and … it’s a goal!
Present Tense for 'general' time:
- Babies normally lose weight in the early days.
- I never drink alone.
Present Tense for future time:
- I leave on the eleventh, but I come back overnight, so I’m back here on the twelfth.
Past tense for past time:
- Freda started school last year.
Past tense for present time:
- I wondered if you had a couple of minutes?
- (Receptionist, to guest in a hotel What was the name, please?
- They would be here with us if they had the time.
Past tense for 'general' time:
- If you were as poor as I am, you’d feel differently.
- I wish I had a memory like yours.
Past tense for future time:
- If I went back on the train tonight, it'd be cheaper.
Marked and Unmarked Tense
The traditional names are clearly misleading. In these threads, therefore, I will refer to the traditionally-named present simple forms of the verb that display no suffixes or change of form to refer to time as unmarked (tense) forms, and the traditionally-named past simple tense as the marked (tense) forms. As both forms show tense, but not aspect, I consider the word Simple redundant.
The Aspects
Some writers use the word tense for such forms as I am/was working and I have/had worked. Like many others, I refer to these, and to two other forms noted below as aspects. The form shown in I am/was working is traditionally known as the continuous or progressive. I prefer to refer to this as the durative aspect. The form shown in I have/had worked, is traditionally known as the perfect. I call it the retrospective aspect.
I find it useful to think of as aspects: the be going to future, or prospective aspect and the used to past, or habitual aspect.
The two tenses are mutually exclusive; a verb form can be either marked or unmarked, not both. We can combine certain aspects, however, as we shall see in later threads.
[1] Those who refer to grammar books will find that Palmer’s ‘The English Verb’ (1974) contains 268 pages, Jespersen’s Modern English Grammar (1931) a whole volume (373 pages) to consider the intricacies of the English verb, while in 2006 there appeared the first volume of Declerk’s Grammar of the English Verb Phrase - over 800 pages, with three more volumes to follow.
Binnick (2001) compiled a bibliography of 6,600 articles, chapters, reports, conference papers, monographs, dissertations, and books, on verbs, 1,242 of them on English verbs.
[2] Richards J C, Platt, J, and Platt, H. 1992. 376
[3] ib. p22
[4] In the first published grammar of English, Wiliam Bullokar (1586.24.) wrote, “Thér be threʾ Týmƺ calʾed Tencʾeƺ. The tým that iƺ Now, calʾed the Preſent-Tencʾ: aƺ, I lou. The tým Paſt, calʾed the Preter-Tencʾ: aƺ, I loued. The tým Too Com, calʾed the Futur-Tencʾ: aƺ, I ſhalʾ or wilʾ lou”.
Writers who reject the idea of a future tense in English, accepting only present and past tenses include Jespersen (1931.3-4), Joos (1964,120-121), Christophersen and Sandved (1970.43), Leech ([1971] 2004,3), Palmer (1974,37) Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, ([1983] 1999.95) Quirk et al (1985,176.) Lewis (1986.139), Aitken (1992.63), Crystal ([1995] 2003.196,224) Huddleston and Pullum (2002.208), Yule (1998.58), Carter and McCarthy (2006.629).
Those who accept a future tense in English include Poutsma (1926.207), Curme (1931.362), Stannard Allen ([1947] 1959.116), Wood (1954. 165-6, 189,) Eckersley (1960.161) Zandvoort ([1967] 1969.76), Alexander (1988.178), Sinclair et al (1990.255), Declerck (2006.24).
Last edited: