Tenses of English - Revision history

NBlöcher: /* Literature */

2014-07-27T16:34:45Z

Literature

KPolitt: categorization

2013-05-23T13:49:30Z

categorization

Carlotta carlyle at 14:19, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T14:19:59Z

Carlotta carlyle at 13:16, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T13:16:12Z

Carlotta carlyle at 13:13, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T13:13:07Z

Carlotta carlyle at 13:12, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T13:12:16Z

Carlotta carlyle at 13:11, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T13:11:39Z

Carlotta carlyle at 13:10, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T13:10:36Z

Carlotta carlyle at 13:07, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T13:07:55Z

Carlotta carlyle at 13:07, 11 February 2011

2011-02-11T13:07:26Z

@@ Line 227: / Line 227: @@
 == Literature ==
-Declerck, Renaat (1991). ''Tense in English: Its Structure and Use in Discourse.'' London: Routledge.
+*Declerck, Renaat (1991). ''Tense in English: Its Structure and Use in Discourse.'' London: Routledge.
+*Declerck, Renaat (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Tense System: a Comprehensive Analysis.'' Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-Declerck, Renaat (2006). ''The Grammar of the English Tense System: a Comprehensive Analysis.'' Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
+*Klein, Wolfgang (1995). A Simplest Analysis of the English Tense-Aspect System. In: Riehle, Wolfgang/Keiper, Hugo (eds.). ''Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1994.'' Tübingen: Niemeyer. 139-151.
+*König, Ekkehard (1995). On Analyzing the Tense-Aspect System of English: A State-of-the-Art Report. In: Riehle, Wolfgang/Keiper, Hugo (eds.). ''Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1994.'' Tübingen: Niemeyer. 153–169.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 23 May 2013
Line 234:		Line 234:

	König, Ekkehard (1995). On Analyzing the Tense-Aspect System of English: A State-of-the-Art Report. In: Riehle, Wolfgang/Keiper, Hugo (eds.). ''Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1994.'' Tübingen: Niemeyer. 153–169.		König, Ekkehard (1995). On Analyzing the Tense-Aspect System of English: A State-of-the-Art Report. In: Riehle, Wolfgang/Keiper, Hugo (eds.). ''Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1994.'' Tübingen: Niemeyer. 153–169.
		+
		+
		+	[[Category:En]]
		+	[[Category:DICT]]
		+	[[Category:Morphology]]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *future II,
-which might rather be used by linguists who recognize these as 'basic' tenses,.
+which might rather be used by linguists who recognize these as 'basic' tenses.
 The binary approach is found in “many structuralist accounts” (König 1995: 154) such as the comprehensive grammar by Quirk et al. (1985).

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 === Two Tense Approach ===
-Linguists who favor a binary approach argue that different tenses have to be distinguished morphologically, that is they have to be reflected in inflectional morphology. Accordingly, there are only two tenses, namely ‘past’ and ‘non-past’, as this is the only distinction that is reflected morphologically.
+Linguists who favor a binary approach argue that different tenses have to be distinguished morphologically, that is they have to be reflected in inflectional [[morphology]]. Accordingly, there are only two tenses, namely ‘past’ and ‘non-past’, as this is the only distinction that is reflected morphologically.
 (1)	He work - s.
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 === Three Tense Approach ===
 Some linguists have argued against regarding a sentence like ''We will/'ll miss the train'' as a combination of the present + the verb ''will'' + the infinitive ''miss''. König (1995: 154) considers such an interpretation “untenable and synchronically inadequate”, as ''will'' has lost both morphological substance (it may be reduced to '''ll'') and semantic substance (since it no longer solely expresses volition, is no longer restricted to human beings and combines freely with the progressive and have).
-These developments allow for the interpretation of ''will'' as a future tense marker. ''Will'' has undergone a process of grammaticalization, during which a new grammatical category has developed. This view of the existence of three tenses (present, past, future) can be found in Klein (1994) and Hatav (1993), among other authors.
+These developments allow for the interpretation of ''will'' as a future tense marker. ''Will'' has undergone a process of [[grammaticalization]], during which a new grammatical category has developed. This view of the existence of three tenses (present, past, future) can be found in Klein (1994) and Hatav (1993), among other authors.
 === Six Tense Approach ===
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 Relative tenses are: past perfect, conditional.
-The future perfect and the conditional perfect express two temporal relations at the same time: “the time of the situation is represented as anterior to an orientation time which is itself represented as posterior to another time” (Declerck 2006: 25). In the case of the future perfect, this 'other time' is t<sub>0</sub>, which makes the future perfect an [[absolute-relative tense]], because it relates its situation time to an orientation time (this is the relative component) which is itself related to t<sub>0</sub> (this is the absolute component). With the conditional perfect, neither of the orientation times is t<sub>0</sub>, which means that this tense has two relative components; Declerck calls this tense a 'complex relative tense' (2006: 25).
+The future perfect and the conditional perfect express two temporal relations at the same time: “the time of the situation is represented as anterior to an orientation time which is itself represented as posterior to another time” (Declerck 2006: 25). In the case of the future perfect, this 'other time' is t<sub>0</sub>, which makes the future perfect an [[absolute-relative tense]], because it relates its situation time to an orientation time (this is the relative component) which is itself related to t<sub>0</sub> (this is the absolute component). With the conditional perfect, neither of the orientation times is t<sub>0</sub>, which means that this tense has two relative components; Declerck calls this tense a '[[complex relative tense]]' (2006: 25).
 === Tenses ===

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 === Temporal Relations – Absolute and Relative Tenses ===
-Declerck differentiates between absolute and relative tenses. [[Absolute tense]]s are those which express “a direct temporal relation with the temporal zero-point (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (Declerck 2006: 25), just as in (6). Relative tenses are those which express “a single temporal relation between the time of the situation referred to and an orientation time other than the zero-time (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (ibid.), just like in (7). Relative tenses express one of the following temporal relations:
+Declerck differentiates between absolute and relative tenses. [[Absolute tense]]s are those which express “a direct temporal relation with the temporal zero-point (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (Declerck 2006: 25), just as in (6). [[Relative tense]]s are those which express “a single temporal relation between the time of the situation referred to and an orientation time other than the zero-time (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (ibid.), just like in (7). Relative tenses express one of the following temporal relations:
 *anteriority: the situation time precedes the orientation time: He said he had got up early.
 *simultaneity: the situation time coincides with the orientation time: He said he didn't feel well.
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 Relative tenses are: past perfect, conditional.
-The future perfect and the conditional perfect express two temporal relations at the same time: “the time of the situation is represented as anterior to an orientation time which is itself represented as posterior to another time” (Declerck 2006: 25). In the case of the future perfect, this 'other time' is t<sub>0</sub>, which makes the future perfect an absolute-relative tense, because it relates its situation time to an orientation time (this is the relative component) which is itself related to t<sub>0</sub> (this is the absolute component). With the conditional perfect, neither of the orientation times is t<sub>0</sub>, which means that this tense has two relative components; Declerck calls this tense a 'complex relative tense' (2006: 25).
+The future perfect and the conditional perfect express two temporal relations at the same time: “the time of the situation is represented as anterior to an orientation time which is itself represented as posterior to another time” (Declerck 2006: 25). In the case of the future perfect, this 'other time' is t<sub>0</sub>, which makes the future perfect an [[absolute-relative tense]], because it relates its situation time to an orientation time (this is the relative component) which is itself related to t<sub>0</sub> (this is the absolute component). With the conditional perfect, neither of the orientation times is t<sub>0</sub>, which means that this tense has two relative components; Declerck calls this tense a 'complex relative tense' (2006: 25).
 === Tenses ===

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == What is a Tense?  ==
-As pointed out by Klein (1995: 141), 2500 years of research have not led to any precise or universally acknowledged definition of the category '[[tense]], there is a widespread understanding of what 'tense' basically means. Such an 'understood' definition is for instance given in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Bybee 1992: 223f.):
+As pointed out by Klein (1995: 141), 2500 years of research have not led to any precise or universally acknowledged definition of the category '[[tense]]', there is a widespread understanding of what 'tense' basically means. Such an 'understood' definition is for instance given in the ''International Encyclopedia of Linguistics'' (Bybee 1992: 223f.):
 Tense refers to the grammatical expression of the time of the situation described in the proposition, relative to some other time. This other time may be the moment of speech, e. g. the past and future designate time before and after the moment of speech, respectively [...]. Tense is expressed by inflections, by particles, or by auxiliaries in construction with the verb [...].
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 === Temporal Relations – Absolute and Relative Tenses ===
-Declerck differentiates between absolute and relative tenses. Absolute tenses are those which express “a direct temporal relation with the temporal zero-point (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (Declerck 2006: 25), just as in (6). Relative tenses are those which express “a single temporal relation between the time of the situation referred to and an orientation time other than the zero-time (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (ibid.), just like in (7). Relative tenses express one of the following temporal relations:
+Declerck differentiates between absolute and relative tenses. [[Absolute tenses]] are those which express “a direct temporal relation with the temporal zero-point (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (Declerck 2006: 25), just as in (6). Relative tenses are those which express “a single temporal relation between the time of the situation referred to and an orientation time other than the zero-time (= t<sub>0</sub>)” (ibid.), just like in (7). Relative tenses express one of the following temporal relations:
 *anteriority: the situation time precedes the orientation time: He said he had got up early.
 *simultaneity: the situation time coincides with the orientation time: He said he didn't feel well.

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 (12)	I lived in a flat for ten years. (implicates that I don't live in a flat anymore)
-As with other implicatures, this interpretation of the entire situation having ended can be cancelled by the context. Thus, a situation in the past tense can of course still be actualizing at t0:
+As with other implicatures, this interpretation of the entire situation having ended can be cancelled by the context. Thus, a situation in the past tense can of course still be actualizing at t<sub>0</sub>:
 (13)	[“Where is John?” – “I don't know. But look in the kitchen.] He was there two minutes ago. [Perhaps he is still there.”]

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 If the entire situation is durative and homogeneous, and if there is no indication that the situation time is not the time of the entire situation, the past tense normally implicates that the entire situation is completely over at t<sub>0</sub>. This implicature is founded on the assumption that, since statements about the present are more relevant than statements about the past or future, a situation that includes t<sub>0</sub> should be located in the present, not in the past. Hence, if a speaker uses the past tense, this is interpreted as a sign that the speaker cannot use the present tense because the situation is completely over:
-(12)	I lived in a flat for ten years. (''implicates that I don't live in a flat anymore'')
+(12)	I lived in a flat for ten years. (implicates that I don't live in a flat anymore)
 As with other implicatures, this interpretation of the entire situation having ended can be cancelled by the context. Thus, a situation in the past tense can of course still be actualizing at t0: