Проблема перфектних форм у сучасній англійській мові

Вона теж є однією з найскладніших з теоретичної точки зору проблем сучасної англійської граматики. Перфектні форми виникли ще в середньо-англійський період розвитку англійської мови, а перфектні подовжені часи виникли аж на ранніх етапах сучасної англійської мови. Це "гібридна" форма, у якій поєднується значення минулого і теперішнього часів. Мабуть, у цьому і криється головна причина різних трактувань сутності перфектних форм сучасної англійської мови.

Фундаментальний зміст перфектних форм увесь час інтерпрету-иався лінгвістами у чотирьох головних напрямках:

1) Такі лінгвісти старшого покоління, як Г. Суіт, О. Єсперсен, М. Брайянт, Н. Ф. Іртеньєва, М. О. Ганшина, Н. М. Василевська та ін. вважали, що перфектні форми сучасної англійської мови— це різновид часових форм. Відповідно, перфектні форми — це засіб податкової часової характеристики присудка (дії), а саме: перфектні форми сигналізують, що дія даного речення передує часу якоїсь іншої дії (у теперішньому, минулому чи майбутньому).

Проте з цієї точки зору, наприклад, у формі Present Perfect tense одночасно співіснують два несумісні граматичні часи: теперішній час (Present) і перфектний час, що є логічною суперечністю. Як слушно зауважує проф. Б. О. Ільїш, прихильники цього погляду не зважали на видовий характер перфектних форм, тому їхню точку зору можна легко спростувати, вона не є переконливою. Дехто вважає, що сам термін Present Perfect абсурдний (Мороховська, 1993).

2) За іншою інтерпретацією внутрішнього змісту перфектних форм, вони трактуються як різновид видових форм дієслова (М. Дойчбайн, А. С. Уест, Г. Н. Воронцова та ін.). Увагу прихильників цієї точки зору, очевидно, в першу чергу привернуло видове значення результативності у перфектних формах, яке дійсно дуже відчувається у багатьох "граничних" (terminative) дієсловах ( break, finish, kill, bring, build, take та ін.), проте далеко не в усіх: (та ін.)- Цей новий вид, який начебто співіснує з відомими видовими формами Continuous і Соmmon аspect, вони називали "результативним видом" (Ільїш, 1948), або "ретроспективним видом" (Воронцова, 1960). Проте існування "гібридних форм" (іЬе РегГесі Сопііпиоиз Гогтз), наприклад, has been writing, також свідчить проти такої точки зору, бо тоді б ми знову мали випадок одночасного співіснування зразу двох граматичних видів у одній і тій же граматичній формі, а саме: співіснування подовженого виду і результативного виду, що було б логічним абсурдом, тому що два однокатегоріальних значення у одній і тій же формі не можуть співіснувати.

3) За третьою інтерпретацією сутності перфектних форм у сучасній англійській мові (проф. І. П. Іванова), перфектні форми — це часо-видові форми (а не чисто часові або видові форми), як це має місце з точки зору тієї ж лінгвістки, у формах Continuous. У цих формах, на її погляд, нерозривно співіснують додаткові часове і видове значення (Іванова, 1961).

Проте це твердження теж можна спростувати шляхом зведення до абсурду. Таким чином, вищерозглянуті точки зору, так би мовити, доповнюють одна одну, проте жодназ нихнеє безперечно переконливою. Першим лінгвістом, який довів категоріальну неподільність перфект­них форм у англійській мові, був славетний російський лінгвіст О. І. Смирницький. Він показав, що внутрішню сутність перфектних форм не можна звести до категорії часу, чи до категорії виду, чи до того й іншого. Він довів, що ці форми репрезентують окрему (самостійну) граматичну категорію, яка тісно пов'язана з категорією часу і виду, але не може бути зведена до жодної з них. Він назвав цю нову категорію "категорією часової співвіднесеності" (time relation, або просто: tha category of correlation). Вона базується на двочленній опозиції не-перфектних і перфектних форм.

За цією теорією, перфектні форми виражають передування у часі, тоді як у неперфектних формах таке значення відсутнє. Точка зору О. І. Смирницького переконлива і несуперечлива і, на відміну від вищезгаданих точок зору, її неможливо звести до абсурду. Згідно і теорією О. І. Смирницького, вищезгадану форму has been writing можна логічно послідовно і несуперечливо проаналізувати таким чином: 1) теперішній час, 2) подовжений вид, 3) активний стан, 4) дійсний спосіб, 5) третя особа, 6) однина, 7) перфектна кореляція ( або просто: перфект).

Проф. М. Я. Блох у своїй книзі "А Сourse in Theoretical English Grammar" (1994) підтримує точку зору О. І .Смирницького і додає, і по ця категорія є семантично проміжна між часовим і видовим значеннями, проте не зводиться до жодного з них. Проф. М. Я. Блох пропонує називати цю категорію "категорією ретроспективної координації", або ж "категорією ретроспекту" (Блох, 1994: 151).

Theme 4

THE VERB

The system of the English verb is the most complicated system of the language. Verbs are subdivided into numerous subclasses (modal verbs, auxiliary verbs, verbs of saying, of sense perception, transitive and intranlive, etc). Grammatically the verb is the most complicated and difficult part of speech, as it has many grammatical categories: the category of tense, aspect, voice, mood, correlation, etc. That is why some grammarians say: «To know the English verb is to know English* (Rayevska N. M.). The verb is characterized by seven grammatical categories.

The category of tense

Time is a concept of physics and philosophy. Time and space are the basic forms of the existence of matter.

There are three main divisions of time: the past, present and future. The past and future are interminable, while the present is theoretically but a fragment of a moment, but it is the most important moment for us because ii is the moment of the speaker's immediate perception of the objective reality and thus it always coincides with the moment of our speech.

The objective time is reflected in the human thought in the form of the notion of temporality and then is represented and consolidated in language with the help of various lingual devices: a) lexical (L): yesterday, to day, tomorrow , then, now, etc. b) lexico-morphological (L/M): pre-war, antedeluvial, etc. c) lexico-syntactical (L/S): in two days, this week two weeks ago, three months ago, etc., and, at last, morphologically (M), i.e. with the help of t e n s e forms (speaks, translated, will speak, has translated, spoke, has been speaking, etc. (see the diagram on p. 36).

It is self-evident that the most abstract means of expressing temporal­ity is the morphological one, i.e., when the very grammatical form of the verb, though in a very generalized, abstract way, indicates the time of the action spoken of (e.g.: (he) goes — a present time action; (he) went there — a past time action; (he) will go there — a future time action, etc.). Here the tense form «went» only indicates in a very generalized mode that the action of «going» took place before the moment of speaking without any further concretization of the exact moment of the event, while the tense form will go only shows that the action will take place after the moment of our speaking. The same may be said about the tense forms (he) is com­ing, (he) has come, etc.

Thus, the category of tense may be defined as a morphological category reflecting the objective time and expressing the relationship between the time of the action denoted by the predicate verb and the time of speak­ing. The form of the verb indicating the time of the action spoken about is called a tense-form.

The category of tense is based on a three-member opposition of the past, present and future. Though grammatical tenses are commonly correlated with the three main divisions of the objective time, sometimes they are used in the so-called functional transposition, that is, in a different from its ordinary function. Prof. N. M. Rayevska names such cases as a «non-temporal use of tenses» when the opposition between some tense-forms is neutralized. For instance, in the sentence: «Just imag­ine: yesterday I come home and see the door of my room unlocked!» Here the Present Indefinite Tense forms «come» and «see» are used instead of the Past Indefinite Tense forms for a greater vividness of narration. (For more detail see: Rayevska, 1976: 45-50, 139-146, 272-273, 280-281; Starikova, Alova, 1980: 52-54).

The system of tenses in Modern English is rather ramified because it has a number of additional tense-aspect sub-divisions (see the diagram on p. 38).

The grammatical category of tense in Modern English is generally rec­ognized but some grammarians question the existence in it of morphologi­cally expressed future tenses (O. Jespersen, L. S. Barkhudarov and others) on the ground that the auxiliary verbs "shall" and "will" allegedly still re-lain their original modal meanings of obligation and volition correspond­ingly, and thus the future tense forms are modal phrases, i.e., belong Id syntax, but not to morphology. But Prof. B. A. llyish convincingly dis­proves such assertions by giving some examples where the words «shall» and «will» are unquestionably only future tense auxiliaries but not modal verbs: 1) He will be ninety to-morrow; 2) The weather will be fine tomorrow; 3) I shall go to the cinema to-morrow. It is clear from the examples that one cannot ascribe the meaning of volition to the verb «will» in the first two examples (because the age of a person does not depend upon his will and the weather does not possess any will of its own). Equally, the modal meaning of obligation cannot be ascribed to the verb «shall» in the third example, because the speaker will go to the cinema of his own will but not because lie is obliged to do it.

Question for self-correction:

1. What is time and tense?

2. On what kind of opposition is the category of tense based in Modern English and Ukrainian?

3. What do they call «functional transposition of grammatical forms?

4. How many tense forms are there in Modern English and Ukrai­nian?

5. Give comment on the problem of the future tense forms.

The category of aspect

The category of aspect is a morphological category of the verb denoting i lie way (aspect) in which the action of the predicate is going on (as presented by the speaker). Aspect verbal forms are one of the most important means of expressing the conceptual category of aspectuality.

The category of aspect in Modern English is based on a two member opposition, one of which (represented by -ing forms) denotes an action in its progress.

Some linguists hold it that the Continuous aspect forms are, in fact, not aspect forms but special tense forms expressing actions simultane­ous with the moment of speech (the Present Continuous forms) or with some other action in the past or future (the Past and the Future Continuous forms of the verb) (O. Jespersen, N. P. Irtenyeva and some others). They call such verb forms «definite tenses» (compare with the so called «indefinite tenses»). Some verbs, as is well-known, are commonly not used in Continuous forms (to be, to have, to see, to hear, to want, to understand, to love, to like, to hate, to know, to guess, to belong (to), to recognize, etc.).

Though there are two aspect forms both in Modern English and Ukrai­nian, their inner content is different and there is no direct correlation be­tween them: the English Common aspect, for instance may correspond both to the Ukrainian Imperfective and Perfective aspects (depending upon the context). Compare: 1) She wrote a letter and went out to post it; 2) Jane wrote letters to her mother every week (писала). It means that the English Common aspect is broader in its meaning than the Ukrainian Perfective aspect. On the other hand, the English Continuous aspect forms always correspond only to the Ukrainian Imperfective aspect forms.

Lexico-grammatical means of expressing the conceptual category of aspectuality

Some grammarians (G. Curme, A. Kennedy, N. M. Rayevska) also describe the so-called lexico-grammatical means of expressing the category of aspectuality in Modern English. Such means, as Prof. N. M. Rayevska rightly points out, are brought into life due to the scarcity of morphological devices in Modern English.

The following lexico-grammatical "aspects" are described in Modern English:

1. The so-called Ingressive (or: Inchoative) aspect;

2. The Progressive (Durative) aspect;

3. The Iterative aspect (or: the Frequentative aspect);

4. The Momentaneous aspect.

The Ingressive (Inchoative) aspect is formed with the help of some semi-auxiliary verbs (fall, come, get, grow, take and some others) followed by an infinitive, gerund or noun: 1. Pegotty fell to kissing the key hole as she could not kiss me. (Ch. Dickens) 2. He took to reading (drinking) (Пеготі кинулась цілувати замкову шпарку... 2. Він призвичаївся до читання). 3. He got to thinking about it (= He began to think...). 4. Jane set to writing the letter. 5. We Jell into discussion. 6. Mr. Smith flew into a rage. 7. She burst into tears. 8. (Gradually) Alice came to like him (= Alice began to like him).

As we can see from the examples, different verbs imply different aspec-tive shades of meaning: the verbs «to get», «tofall», «to burst» imply a s u d -den beginning of an activity, while the verbs "to come", «to grow» imply a gradual beginning of an action.

The standardized verb-phrases with some verbs of movement (come, go + Participle I) imply the perfective aspectual meaning: 1. The police come running. (O. Henry) (Набігла поліція). 2. But the moral code ... came crushing down on her afterwards. (H. Lee) (Але потім цей моральній кодекс на її голову). 3. He threw a pebble and it went skipping over the smooth water of the pond.

The above mentioned means of expressing beginning of an action enrich Modern English and make it more expressive and idiomatic.

The Progressive (Durative) aspect or, rather, durativeness of an ac-, on, may be signalled by the verbs «stand», «lie», etc., followed by the Participle or by the verbs «keep», «continue», «go on», etc. followed by a non-perfect "Tibet gerundial form: 1. She stood wondering (Вона стояла і дивувалась); 3) June lay reading; 3. Tom went on plavins; 4. Peter kept smiling. 5. Tom continued talking (= to talk) (see: Rayevska, 1976: 134).

The Iterative (Frequentative) aspect implies repetition of an mil is formed with the help of the semi-auxiliary verbs «will» («would») or n,\ed» followed by an infinitive, for instance: He would come and sit here for ours (or: He used to come here and sit...) (Він, бувало приходив і сидів тут годинами). The aspective meaning of momentaneousness of an action may be expressed with the help of some fixed grammatical patterns with the verbs «to give», «to have», «to take»: to give a start — здригнулись; have a smoke —попалити; to have (take) a bath (drink) — прийняти ванну, душ (трохи випити). The actions expressed by such fixed patterns are called "actions of single occurence" (or "point actions") or "momentaneous actions". Such sentences are translated int. Ukrainian by the Perfective aspect.

It should be remembered that some aspectual shades of meaning may be also expressed lexically (by repetition of some lexical units). For example: On and on they went; up and up they flew, etc. (For a more detailed treat­ment of the issue see: Rayevska, 1976: 130-136).

Questions for self-correction:

1. Give a definition of the category of aspect.

2. What type of opposition is the category of aspect based on in Modern English and Ukrainian?

3. What is the difference and correlation between English and Ukrainian tense-aspect forms?

4. What other means (besides the grammatical) of expressing the lexico-grammatical category of aspectuality do you know?

5. What is the main reason for the existence of the ramified system of means of expressing aspectuality in Modern English?

The category of voice

The category of voice is a verbal category showing whether the per­son or thing denoted by the g r a m m a t i c a 1 subject of the sentence is the doer or the sufferer of the action denoted by the grammatical predicate (In symbolic notation: a) S -> O (an active voice form) b) S <— O (a passive voice form)*. S — grammatical subject, O — grammatical object

The category of voice in Modern English is based on a binary (= two-member) opposition of the so-called active forms of the verb against the passive forms, the latter being the strong (marked) member of the opposi­tion.

In Modern English the Passive voice forms are used much more often than in Modern Ukrainian (or Russian). In Modern English not only tran­sitive but even objective prepositional verbs can have passive forms. E.g.: They often laughed at him (an active form) -» He was often laughed at (by them) (a passive voice form). Besides, with the verbs capable of taking two grammatical objects at a time the speaker can, as a rule, put any of the objects in the position of the subject of the corresponding passive sentence (which is impossible in Modem Ukrainian or Russian). E.g.: They gave a book to the boy —* a) A book was given to the boy; b) The boy was given a book. Sometimes even an adverbial modifier of place may become the sub­ject of a sentence with the predicate in the passive form: Nobody lived in the house —> The house was not lived in (by anybody).

However, there exist some verbs in English which commonly cannot be used in the passive voice form. They are called "non-passivised verbs": (to fail, to belong, to resemble, to cost, etc.). (Compare with the semantically correspondent Ukrainian verbs).

It should be borne in mind that not all the grammatical forms of the V_be + V_en pattern may be treated as verbal predicates in the passive forms: sometimes they represent a compound nominal predicate and denote a state of a thing or an object. Compare: a) The window was broken by this boy (we observe here a simple verbal predicate in the passive voice form), b) The window was broken at the moment we saw it (a compoud nominal predicate).

In such examples we observe the phenomenon of neutralization of the opposition «active/passive forms*. In the second example «to be» is a pure link verb, while in the first example «to be» is the passive voice auxiliary.

There was a problem concerning the category of voice. It was the prob­lem of existence of the so called «medial» (проміжні) voices, that is, voices other than the Active voice and the Passive voice. They were: 1. The so-called Reflexive voice: He found himself in darkness (in our symbolical notation: S ^→← O). 2. The so-called Reciprocal voice (взаємний стан): They greeted each other (or: one another) (in symbolic presentation: SO ↔ OS). 1. The so-called Middle voice: a) This book sells well, b) The door opened at last (in symbolic presentation: SO). In the last two examples the mean­ing of the verbs is not active but the verb form is active; the actions are represented here as if going on of their own accord, as it were, within them­selves.

By the present day the existence of the Reflexive and the Reciprocal voice has been put to a great doubt (for the arguments see: Ilyish, 1971: 116-119) and as far as the Middle voice is concerned, Prof. B. O. Ilyish proposed to give a broader definition of the Active voice so as to cover by I lie definition the Active voice and all the above mentioned "voices" (Ily­ish, 1973: 121). He even proposed a name to his broadly defined voice — I he Common voice (on analogy with the Common aspect and the (common case). So, according to B. O. Ilyish, in Modem English there ex­ist only the Common voice and the Passive voice. Such a point of view seems to be quite supportable.

o

for self-correction:

1. What do we call the category of voice?

2. What verbs can be used in passive forms in English?

3. Comment on the use of the Passive voice in Modern English.

4. Comment on the problem of number of voices in Modern English.

The category of mood

The category of mood is an explicit (morphological) category of the verb denoting the relation of the action denoted by the predicate to objective reality as stated by the speaker. It is one of the most important means of expressing the wider category of m o d a l i t y which can also be expressed by modal verbs (can, may, must, etc.) and modal words (maybe, perhaps, probably, evidently, etc.). (See Supplemetn 5.)

Presumably, (according to Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky) in Modern there exist two the so-called «direct» moods (the Indicative and the Im­perative mood) and f o u r the so-called oblique (= indirect) moods: Sub­junctive I, Subjunctive II, the Suppositional and the Conditional mood (Smirnitsky, 1950). When using the Indicative mood the speaker presents the action of the predicate as r e a 11 y taking (or not taking) place, as a real fact; when he uses the Imperative mood form he directly induces the listerner(s) to perform the action required by him, but when he uses a form of an oblique mood he presents the action not as a real fact but only as de­sirable, necessary, possible, imaginary, etc. E.g.: 1. I wish he came to me to morrow (a desirable action); 2. // is necessary (that) you should go there im­mediately (the necessity of an action is stated); 3. If I were (was) sixteen now I should (would) be happy (an imaginary state), etc.

The problem of the n u m b e r of moods in Modern English is the most controversial and vexing problem of the present day English theoretical grammar. A great variety of views is observed in this field and not only as to the number of moods but also as to their meaning and classification. The polar points of view are those of the German grammarian M. Deutchbein and the Russian linguist V. Y. Plotkin.

M. Deutchbein found 16 moods in Modem English, while V. Y. Plotkin denies the existence of any morphological category of mood in Modern English. I. B. Khlebnikova finds only three oblique moods forms in Eng­lish: the Conditional mood (should go, would go), the Subjunctive mood which includes all the synthetic oblique moods forms and, at last, the oblique mood forms which do not constitute one integral system (e.g.: a) However it might be....; b) May all your dreams come true!; c) ... for fear that it would cause trouble. (Khlebnikova, 1958). Prof. L. S. Barkhudarov denied the existence of morphologically expressed oblique moods in Modern English on the assumption that the traditional oblique moods auxiliaries «should» and "would" are actually not mood auxiliary verbs but remain modal verbs since they still preserve part of their original modal meanings of obligation (should) and of volition (would) and they may be used in free word combinations like any other full-fledged modal verbs. (Cf: It is neces­sary that you should go there now = You should go there now (in the second example we observe a free modal word combination). As far as the forms like «If I knew about it now, ...» or: «If I had known about it at that time...» are concerned L. S. Barkhudarov thinks them to remain forms of the Past Indefinite and Past Perfect Indicative correspondingly but in a special con­textual environment (Barkhudarov, 1975: 130). Such a variety and controversy of views and opinions as to the her and the very essence of the Modern English oblique moods is mainly caused by the fact of absence of direct correspondence between the f o r m and meaning of the oblique mood forms: different grammatical forms may render the same grammatical meaning and vice versa: e.g.: 1. It is nec­essary that you should go there now (the Suppositional mood form) = ft is necessary that you go there now (the Subjunctive I); 2. a) It is necessary (hat I should go there now (the Suppositional mood) ≠ b) If I knew her now I should go to her (the Conditional mood) ≠ c) You should go there , (a modal phrase). In the second group of examples the same grammati­cal form «should go» has three different meanings. That is why depending upon what criterion: that of form or meaning a grammarian takes as a basis his classification of moods he will arrive at different results. M. Deutchbein took the criterion of form as a basis for his classification (16 moods) while A. I. Smirnitsky took into consideration both the form meaning of the predicate.

As Prof. B. A. Ilyish rightly points out, the simplest view and the i he preferred is that the Indicative mood forms in a special use («If I knew ..», «If he had come yesterday ...») or a modal phrase («It's necessary that you should come here now») are observed in such cases. (Ilyish, 1971: I n our view, if there is no formalsign (an inflexion or an anxiliary i here is no grammatical category.

Questions for self-correction:

1. What means of expressing modality do you know?

2. What is the category of mood? Give a definition.

3. How many moods are there in Modern English, Ukrainian and Russian?

4. What is the reason for the existing controversy of views on the essence and number of moods in Modern English?

5. Do any implicit lexico-grammatical categories restrict the realization of the category of mood in Modern English, Ukrainian und Russian?

6. i 6. What is Prof. B. O. Ilyish's view of such verb forms as «If I knew her address (now) I would write a letter to her» and: «If he had known ... he would have written ...», etc.? Do you challenge or support him? Why?

The perfect forms

The Perfect forms of Modern English and their semantic content pje-ciited one more big problem for grammarians.

The fundamental essence of the Perfect forms has been interpreted in four different ways:

1) The first view was the view of it as a specific tense form (H. Sweet,G. Curme, M. Bryant, O. Jespersen, N. F. Irtenyeva, M. A. Ganshina. N. M. Vasilevskaya and some others). According to them the perfect forms in Modern English denote a secondary temporal characteristic of an ac­tion, namely: they show that the action precedes in time some other ac­tion. In other words, they express precedence in time (while the Continu­ous forms express simultaneity in time, it is their secondary tense quality).

But the adherents of the «tense view» of the Perfect forms seem to ig­nore their aspective characteristics which in many cases is obvious enough because the result of the action is connected with the moment of speech or some past or future moment (E.g.: He has broken a cup).

2. According to the second interpretation the Perfect is considered to be a peculiar aspective form of the verb (M. Deutchbein, A. S. West, G. N. Vorontsova and some other linguists). But the adherents of this point of view seem to exaggerate the resultative meaning of the perfect forms. B. A. Ilyish (1948) even named his newly identified "aspect" as "the Resultative aspect". G. N. Vorontsova called it "The Retrospective aspect" which coexists with the Common and the Continuous aspect. But if we ac­cept such a point of view then we shall have to admit that in such a gram­matical form as "has been sitting" there co-exist two aspects at a time: the Continuous aspect and the Retrospective aspect, which is logically contro­versial, because a grammatical category (in our case it is the category of aspect) cannot be represented twice in the same form (Ilyish, 1971: 91).

3. In accordance with the third, the so called «tense-aspect» ap­proach, the Perfect is recognized as a form of a double temporal-aspective character (similarly to the Continuous forms). Such an interpretation was developed in the works of the well known Russian grammarian Prof. I. P. Ivanova (see: Ивановa, 1961). Her view vividly demonstrates the ac­tual double nature of the perfect forms and it overcomes the one-sided approach of the two previous conceptions. But again one cannot fail to notice a logical controversy in I.P.Ivanova's theory if one analyses the same form (has been writing). One will have to admit that here we have two tenses (present and perfect) and two aspects (continuous and resultative) in the same grammatical form, which is again a logical discrepancy.

Thus, the three above-mentioned interpretations complete each other but all of them have failed to explain the real semantic essence of the Per­fect forms without logical discrepancies.

4) The categorial indivisibility of the Perfect was first noticed and re­vealed by the eminent linguist A. I. Smirnitsky: his view was, as it were, .i «t i m e relation » view, according to which the content of the Perfect lorms cannot be reduced either to the category of tense or to the category of aspect. A. I. Smirnitsky convincingly proved that the Perfect forms if present an individual grammatical category though closely connected both with the category of tense and the category of aspect. This category, according to A.I.Smirnitsky, is based on a binary (two member) opposition of the n o n - p e r f e c t forms to the perfect forms and expresses cor­relation in time between two actions or between an action and the moment of speaking. He named his newly revealed category «the category of time relation (or simply: «the category of correlation). The functional content of the category of correlation was defined by A. I. Smirnitsky as an expres­sion of priority (in the present, past or future) expressed by the perfect lorms contrasted against the non-expression of priority in the non-perfect forms.

Within the category of correlation the "enigmatic" Perfect Continuous forms, such as «has been writing», can be interpreted without logical contra-dictoriness: (He) has been writing -»the Present tense, Continuous aspect, Active voice, Indicative mood, Perfect correlation (or simply "Per­fect"). (Compare: (He) is writing→ the Present tense, Continuous aspect, Active voice, Indicative mood, non-perfect, third person, singular).

In his book (Blokh, 1994) Prof. M. Y. Blokh also treats the Perfect forms as representing a separate verbal category serrantically intermedi­ate between the aspective and temporal meanings. Fie named this catego­ry «The category of retrospective coordination (retrospect) (Blokh, 1994: 172). B. S. Khaimovich, B. I. Rogovskaya name this category «The catego­ry of order* (see: Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 1967: 130).

Questions for self-correction:

1. How did the Perfect forms originate historically? (Consult a manual on history of English).

2. What are the various interpretations of the grammatical status and t he semantic content of the Perfect forms? What are the pro- and contra- arguments as to their status?

3. What is A.I.Smirnitsky's interpretation of the essence of the Perfect forms of the verb?

4. What name did A.I. Smirnitsky give to his newly-identified morpho­ logical category of the verb? Why?

5. What are the gnosiological roots of the existing difficulties in the identification of the meaning of the Perfect? Give your personal opinion of it.