tense and time (part2)
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:30 pm
8. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Some of us know in our bones that tense and mood truly are form. Members of the "last medieval generation", those baby-boomers who had to study Classical Latin and/or Greek at school before the advent of modernity, will probably less than fondly remember that it is possible to sing out the tense, mood, person, and number of any verb under the sun, as in 'Now, then, Sullivan, give me the third person plural imperfect subjunctive of esse, and don't dither, boy'. And easy meat it was - if you could master the system. The Latin form escapes me now, but in Spanish the third person plural imperfect subjunctive of ser is (ellos/ellas/Ustedes) fueran, and in German the third person plural past subjunctive of sein is (sie/Sie) wären. Alas, the third person plural past subjunctive of be is more than a tad slow rolling off my tongue. One rarely commented-upon fact speaks volumes about why this could be so. Contemporary grammars of English never provide for learners the exhaustive indicative and subjunctive paradigms that are always to be found in grammars of highly inflected tongues like Spanish, and for good reason since it is hard to conjure up non-existent forms out of thin air. To be sure, a formal dismissal of subjunctive is a more nuanced enterprise than our swift dispatch of future, but English possesses no true subjunctive system today like those of German or Spanish.
Subjunctive is - was - form and not meaning, as would be obvious did it still truly exist. Future, on the other hand, is meaning and not form, for English and German get along quite happily despite lacking future tenses. In effect, disentangling tense from time shows up the redundancy of a "notional" approach to these matters. No longer need learners be bamboozled by fictitious "future tense", even less by "will plus present tense", and still less by "idiomatic future tense", or by impossibly "tenseless" modals and slippery "subjunctives".
Much more elegant and to the point is the startling sleekness of verb formation:
· The first - or only - verbform in the verbphrase carries tense, and all other verbforms are non-tenseforms.
· Tenseforms are formally either present-tense or past-tense, be they one-word main verbs or be they auxiliary verbs - regardless of the time reference they are involved in.
· All auxiliaries combine with other verbforms according to strict, unvarying patterns.
· Tense formation exhibits a non-/perfect and non-/continuous binary symmetry.
· Infinitive formation exhibits the same non-/perfect and non-/continuous binary symmetry.
Nonetheless, this rosy picture may not be so obvious to learners, especially if we consider the "traditional" verb fare they are served in beginners courses. First comes the present simple of be with nounphrase and adjective, next comes do-employing present simple for professions and habitual actions, plus modal can for ability, and then comes present continuous for incomplete actions, followed by the past simple of be and common "regular" and "irregular" verbs, and by past continuous in the "interrupted" past, all of which is often topped off by present perfect simple for "life experience". This is a formidable list of need-to-know structures, but each one is formally different from the previous one. What might be a more "form-friendly" sequence?
The first item on our menu, be, unfortunately happens to be the only verb in the whole of the English language that does not employ do in interrogation and negation. But, if we still start with be, it makes sense to reinforce it by moving immediately on to present continuous, especially since the patterns of be plus adjective and of be plus present participle are one and the same, and many present participles free-lance as adjectives, anyway. Patterns might then be less easily mixed up when do-employing present simple is subsequently presented, and can might serve as a bridge, as it takes infinitive like do.
No doubt learners are always a little fazed by 'What do you do?', but again it might make sense to move immediately on to past simple to reinforce the pattern. Here it is hard to avoid high-frequency "irregular" verbs, including the do-less past simple of be. However, a moment's reflection shows that, excepting be, the only "unusual" form that these verbs actually possess is their affirmative past simple (as well as past participle). In every other respect their formation is regular as clockwork, so learners should first be served the reinforcing interrogative, negative, short answer, and negative interrogative (?) forms so as to avoid immediately using the label "irregular", which is really a misnomer. Last on the menu comes past continuous combining and contrasting with past simple. An incursion into perfect is unnecessary at this level. Flaws will doubtless be seen in this sequence, too, but it shows that alternatives are possible.
At the end of the day, learners must be helped to get beyond the distractions posed by the two main "spoilers" in the system, namely auxiliary-less be and anomalous auxiliary do. As some learners never seem to recover from the shock, I strongly suggest that we take a leaf from the grammar books of German and Spanish so that learners may avoid the formal quagmire they so often seem to get stuck in. We should spell out to our learners:
· the nature of tense,
· the nature of verbphrase formation,
· the binary symmetry of tense and infinitive formation, and
· how be and do differ from it.
We should also list:
· the affirmative, negative, interrogative, short answer, and negative interrogative (?) tense forms, the infinitive forms, and all other forms of our spoilers be and do, and
· all forms of a "regular" verb like turn in combination and contrast with "irregular" verbs like have, eat, cut.
We can do more to help learners understand the workings of form. Consider that there are thousands of forms that have one grammatical function but two or more meanings, and that there are thousands more forms that have more than one grammatical function, and that in each function may have one or more meanings. For less advanced learners, to take very simple but potent examples, high-frequency baseform, -ed form, and -ing form can be mystifying cases in point. The baseform love may function as count or non-count noun or as stative verb, and as verb may be present-tense, infinitive, or "imperative". The form loved is always a verbform, but may be past-simple or past participle, as which latter it may occur in the verbphrase and in gerund and infinitive structures, or adjectivally. Finally, eating may be gerund, which has noun function, or present participle with the same verbal and adjectival functions as past participle. Think, too, of an exasperating baseform like cut, which is count noun or dynamic verb, and as verb may function as infinitive, present-tense, past-tense, past participle, or "imperative"! It is small wonder that learners get confused.
Learners will always commit verb formation errors for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, the handy possession of a visual aid of the type proposed above could go a long way in helping learners to produce correct verbforms on a consistent basis, and to internalise the principles involved. Even in our era of "communicative" learning, effective communication still depends not only on fluency but also on accuracy. A thorough-going exposition of the true nature of verb formation would surely give learners a chance to start off on the right foot, always going forwards.
9. The Missing Link.
As the thrust of this paper has been to formally rescue tense from the clutches of time, the area of time reference has gone unexamined. For there is one final twist to this whole business, over which the grammar gods are no doubt splitting their sides, and likely their infinitives. Having clearly established the formal workings of verbs, we are now free to consider what connection might exist between verbphrase and time reference. Interestingly, we find that it is a far from arbitrary one. Instrumental in creating the connection between the form of a verbphrase and its "meaning focus" is the non-/perfect and non-/continuous binary symmetry of tense and infinitive formation, which in relation to time reference usually goes by the name of "aspect". It may be possible to square the circle after all, but only on - and in - contemporary terms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
· Amis, M. 1992. Time's Arrow. New York: Vintage International.
· Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
· Givón, T. 1993. English Grammar (Vol. I). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
· Norris, J. 1983. Language Learners and their Errors. London: Macmillan.
· Pinker, S. 2000. Words and Rules. New York: HarperCollins.
· Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. 1990. A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
· Ramsden, H. 1959. An Essential Course in Modern Spanish. London: Harrap.
· Walker Chambers, W., & Wilkie, J. R. 1970. A Short History of the German Language. London: Methuen.
Some of us know in our bones that tense and mood truly are form. Members of the "last medieval generation", those baby-boomers who had to study Classical Latin and/or Greek at school before the advent of modernity, will probably less than fondly remember that it is possible to sing out the tense, mood, person, and number of any verb under the sun, as in 'Now, then, Sullivan, give me the third person plural imperfect subjunctive of esse, and don't dither, boy'. And easy meat it was - if you could master the system. The Latin form escapes me now, but in Spanish the third person plural imperfect subjunctive of ser is (ellos/ellas/Ustedes) fueran, and in German the third person plural past subjunctive of sein is (sie/Sie) wären. Alas, the third person plural past subjunctive of be is more than a tad slow rolling off my tongue. One rarely commented-upon fact speaks volumes about why this could be so. Contemporary grammars of English never provide for learners the exhaustive indicative and subjunctive paradigms that are always to be found in grammars of highly inflected tongues like Spanish, and for good reason since it is hard to conjure up non-existent forms out of thin air. To be sure, a formal dismissal of subjunctive is a more nuanced enterprise than our swift dispatch of future, but English possesses no true subjunctive system today like those of German or Spanish.
Subjunctive is - was - form and not meaning, as would be obvious did it still truly exist. Future, on the other hand, is meaning and not form, for English and German get along quite happily despite lacking future tenses. In effect, disentangling tense from time shows up the redundancy of a "notional" approach to these matters. No longer need learners be bamboozled by fictitious "future tense", even less by "will plus present tense", and still less by "idiomatic future tense", or by impossibly "tenseless" modals and slippery "subjunctives".
Much more elegant and to the point is the startling sleekness of verb formation:
· The first - or only - verbform in the verbphrase carries tense, and all other verbforms are non-tenseforms.
· Tenseforms are formally either present-tense or past-tense, be they one-word main verbs or be they auxiliary verbs - regardless of the time reference they are involved in.
· All auxiliaries combine with other verbforms according to strict, unvarying patterns.
· Tense formation exhibits a non-/perfect and non-/continuous binary symmetry.
· Infinitive formation exhibits the same non-/perfect and non-/continuous binary symmetry.
Nonetheless, this rosy picture may not be so obvious to learners, especially if we consider the "traditional" verb fare they are served in beginners courses. First comes the present simple of be with nounphrase and adjective, next comes do-employing present simple for professions and habitual actions, plus modal can for ability, and then comes present continuous for incomplete actions, followed by the past simple of be and common "regular" and "irregular" verbs, and by past continuous in the "interrupted" past, all of which is often topped off by present perfect simple for "life experience". This is a formidable list of need-to-know structures, but each one is formally different from the previous one. What might be a more "form-friendly" sequence?
The first item on our menu, be, unfortunately happens to be the only verb in the whole of the English language that does not employ do in interrogation and negation. But, if we still start with be, it makes sense to reinforce it by moving immediately on to present continuous, especially since the patterns of be plus adjective and of be plus present participle are one and the same, and many present participles free-lance as adjectives, anyway. Patterns might then be less easily mixed up when do-employing present simple is subsequently presented, and can might serve as a bridge, as it takes infinitive like do.
No doubt learners are always a little fazed by 'What do you do?', but again it might make sense to move immediately on to past simple to reinforce the pattern. Here it is hard to avoid high-frequency "irregular" verbs, including the do-less past simple of be. However, a moment's reflection shows that, excepting be, the only "unusual" form that these verbs actually possess is their affirmative past simple (as well as past participle). In every other respect their formation is regular as clockwork, so learners should first be served the reinforcing interrogative, negative, short answer, and negative interrogative (?) forms so as to avoid immediately using the label "irregular", which is really a misnomer. Last on the menu comes past continuous combining and contrasting with past simple. An incursion into perfect is unnecessary at this level. Flaws will doubtless be seen in this sequence, too, but it shows that alternatives are possible.
At the end of the day, learners must be helped to get beyond the distractions posed by the two main "spoilers" in the system, namely auxiliary-less be and anomalous auxiliary do. As some learners never seem to recover from the shock, I strongly suggest that we take a leaf from the grammar books of German and Spanish so that learners may avoid the formal quagmire they so often seem to get stuck in. We should spell out to our learners:
· the nature of tense,
· the nature of verbphrase formation,
· the binary symmetry of tense and infinitive formation, and
· how be and do differ from it.
We should also list:
· the affirmative, negative, interrogative, short answer, and negative interrogative (?) tense forms, the infinitive forms, and all other forms of our spoilers be and do, and
· all forms of a "regular" verb like turn in combination and contrast with "irregular" verbs like have, eat, cut.
We can do more to help learners understand the workings of form. Consider that there are thousands of forms that have one grammatical function but two or more meanings, and that there are thousands more forms that have more than one grammatical function, and that in each function may have one or more meanings. For less advanced learners, to take very simple but potent examples, high-frequency baseform, -ed form, and -ing form can be mystifying cases in point. The baseform love may function as count or non-count noun or as stative verb, and as verb may be present-tense, infinitive, or "imperative". The form loved is always a verbform, but may be past-simple or past participle, as which latter it may occur in the verbphrase and in gerund and infinitive structures, or adjectivally. Finally, eating may be gerund, which has noun function, or present participle with the same verbal and adjectival functions as past participle. Think, too, of an exasperating baseform like cut, which is count noun or dynamic verb, and as verb may function as infinitive, present-tense, past-tense, past participle, or "imperative"! It is small wonder that learners get confused.
Learners will always commit verb formation errors for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, the handy possession of a visual aid of the type proposed above could go a long way in helping learners to produce correct verbforms on a consistent basis, and to internalise the principles involved. Even in our era of "communicative" learning, effective communication still depends not only on fluency but also on accuracy. A thorough-going exposition of the true nature of verb formation would surely give learners a chance to start off on the right foot, always going forwards.
9. The Missing Link.
As the thrust of this paper has been to formally rescue tense from the clutches of time, the area of time reference has gone unexamined. For there is one final twist to this whole business, over which the grammar gods are no doubt splitting their sides, and likely their infinitives. Having clearly established the formal workings of verbs, we are now free to consider what connection might exist between verbphrase and time reference. Interestingly, we find that it is a far from arbitrary one. Instrumental in creating the connection between the form of a verbphrase and its "meaning focus" is the non-/perfect and non-/continuous binary symmetry of tense and infinitive formation, which in relation to time reference usually goes by the name of "aspect". It may be possible to square the circle after all, but only on - and in - contemporary terms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
· Amis, M. 1992. Time's Arrow. New York: Vintage International.
· Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
· Givón, T. 1993. English Grammar (Vol. I). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
· Norris, J. 1983. Language Learners and their Errors. London: Macmillan.
· Pinker, S. 2000. Words and Rules. New York: HarperCollins.
· Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. 1990. A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
· Ramsden, H. 1959. An Essential Course in Modern Spanish. London: Harrap.
· Walker Chambers, W., & Wilkie, J. R. 1970. A Short History of the German Language. London: Methuen.
El Merriassi. 
