In general, Jespersen, unlike the CGEL, doesn’t explain the use of the following tenses as one would expect from a standard grammar (the CGEL clearly explains the meanings and the use of the three tenses in question by clarifying these aspects by means of easily comprehensible examples), but relates the Present Perfect, the Past Tense and the Past Perfect to each other and gives various quotations for each aspect he deals with. Therefore, it may sometimes be a bit confusing to comprehend every detail of Jespersen’s way of argumentation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definition of the Present Perfect
3. Relations between the Present Perfect and the Simple Present
4. Relations between the Present Perfect and the Past Tense
4.1 Various Subjuncts
4.2 Time not expressly indicated
4.3 Past Tense for Before-Past
4.4 The Perfect
4.5 Perfect for Before-Future
4.6 Tenses with ‚since‘
5. The Past Perfect
6. Imaginative use of Tenses
7. Back-Shifting
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to provide a comparative analysis of Otto Jespersen's grammatical theories and the standard classifications found in the "Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (CGEL), specifically focusing on the usage and conceptualization of the Past Tense, Present Perfect, and Past Perfect.
- Comparative analysis of linguistic argumentation styles between Jespersen and the CGEL.
- Definitions and functional relationships of the Present Perfect, Past Tense, and Past Perfect.
- The role of temporal and non-temporal subjuncts in determining tense usage.
- The concept of "imaginative" or hypothetical tense usage.
- Rules and mechanisms of back-shifting in indirect speech.
Excerpt from the Book
4.2 Time not expressly indicated:
The MEG states that very often there is no express indication of time, and yet the preterit may be required because a special point of time is implied by the context or by the whole situation, e.g. if one asks you in the morning: „Did you sleep well?“ - the implication being ‘in the night just passed’ (J, 65).
Furthermore, it is a natural consequence of the definition given that also in speaking of dead people the preterit is necessary, except when the reference is to the result as affecting the present day. So we may say e.g. „Newton has explained the movements of the moon“(=> in a way that is still known or thought to be correct), while „N. explained the movements of the moon“ would imply that the explanation has since been given up (J, 66).
Moreover, the preterit may be used without exact indication of time, when a comparison is drawn between present and past conditions, e.g. „Life is not so pleasant as it was“ (J, 68).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter highlights the fundamental differences in approach between Jespersen's grammar and the CGEL regarding the explanation of English tense systems.
2. Definition of the Present Perfect: This section contrasts Jespersen's view of the Perfect as a "retrospective" or "inclusive" present with the CGEL’s focus on the Present Perfective’s current relevance.
3. Relations between the Present Perfect and the Simple Present: This chapter examines how Jespersen relates these tenses through expressions like "have got" and the concept of "inclusive time."
4. Relations between the Present Perfect and the Past Tense: This chapter analyzes how specific time-subjuncts and contextual factors dictate the choice between the Past Tense and the Present Perfect.
5. The Past Perfect: This section discusses the function of the Past Perfect as a "past-in-the-past" or retrospective past and its usage with various conjunctions.
6. Imaginative use of Tenses: This chapter explores how past verbal forms are utilized to express unreality, impossibility, or hypothetical states.
7. Back-Shifting: This chapter details the mechanics of tense adjustment in indirect speech and the limitations thereof.
Keywords
Otto Jespersen, CGEL, English Grammar, Present Perfect, Past Tense, Past Perfect, Tense, Aspect, Inclusive Time, Subjuncts, Imaginative Tenses, Back-Shifting, Comparative Linguistics, Retrospective Present, Preterit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The paper focuses on comparing the grammatical descriptions of the Past Tense, Present Perfect, and Past Perfect as presented by Otto Jespersen against those provided in the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).
What are the primary thematic fields addressed?
The study covers tense definitions, the impact of time-indicating expressions (subjuncts) on tense selection, the usage of tenses in hypothetical contexts, and the rules governing back-shifting in reported speech.
What is the main goal of this comparison?
The goal is to analyze how Jespersen’s unique, more argumentative style of grammatical explanation compares to the standardized, example-driven approach of the modern CGEL.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a comparative analytical method, scrutinizing specific grammatical definitions and linguistic examples from both source texts to highlight similarities and discrepancies in their reasoning.
What topics are explored in the main body?
The main body treats the definition of the Present Perfect, the interaction between different tenses, the role of specific conjunctions like 'since' and 'after', and the use of tenses for non-temporal purposes like expressing unreality.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Otto Jespersen, CGEL, Tense, Aspect, Present Perfect, Past Tense, Back-Shifting, and Imaginative Tenses.
How does Jespersen define the "inclusive time" concept?
Jespersen uses "inclusive time" to describe durations that imply an action or state initiated in the past which continues to be relevant or lasting at the time indicated in the sentence.
Why does Jespersen sometimes call the Past Perfect a "Pluperfect"?
Jespersen uses "Pluperfect" as a terminological synonym for the Past Perfect, emphasizing its role in describing events anterior to a past point of orientation.
- Quote paper
- Oliver Kast (Author), 2000, Jespersen's and the CGEL's accounts of the Past Tense, the Present Perfect and the Past Perfect - a comparison, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/14315
