Robert Binnick (1991: vii) wrote „whoever has read in one book that English has three tenses, in another that it has two, and in yet a third that is has sixteen (...) may be pardoned for some confusion and some skepticism as to the claim of linguistic scholars to know a great deal about tense“. This quotation illustrates the problem of the classification of the English tense system on which the focus of this paper will be based. Although linguists’ knowledge of the tense system has increased over the years, the problem is that, as Robin Lakoff wrote, they “cannot account for many ways in which tenses are used in English” (Binnick 1991: vii). Therefore, English tense(s) have not yet been understood completely. By comparing different authors and frameworks, this paper will present different approaches to the English tense system. The aim is not to provide a perfect solution to all answers but to introduce different viewpoints and to go a step beyond the common conceptualization of the English language by presenting competing theories.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. How many tenses are there in the English language?
2. Describing temporal systems
2.1 Hans Reichenbach
2.2 William E. Bull
2.3 Generative Semantics
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the complex classification of the English tense system by comparing various linguistic frameworks and theoretical approaches. It addresses the fundamental ambiguity regarding the number of tenses in English and explores how different models, such as those by Reichenbach and Bull, attempt to bridge the gap between morphological forms and temporal meaning.
- The historical and traditional debate on the number of English tenses.
- Critique of the "three-time, three-tense" model in English grammar.
- Comparative analysis of temporal system theories (Reichenbach, Bull).
- Generative semantics approaches to tense and auxiliary verbs.
- The role of context and modal auxiliaries in expressing future time.
Excerpt from the Book
1. How many tenses are there in the English language?
Binnick quotes grammarian James Harris to illustrate the “natural” (Binnick 1991: 3) way of a division into three times: “The most obvious Division [sic] of Time is into Present, Past, and Future, nor is any Language complete, whose verbs have not Tenses to mark these Distinctions.” (Harris 1968: 97). Therefore, he assumes that there are three times and three corresponding tenses. The ancient Greeks shared this perspective as they wrote about “the three times” (Binnick 1991: 3) and Homer referred to “things that were, the things to come and the things past” (Binnick 1991: 4). Grammarian Dionysius Thrax had a similar similar viewpoint. He wrote “[t]here are three Tenses: Present, Past, Future” (Binnick 1991: 6). This analysis of English consisting of three tenses and three times has “become an integral part of the Western grammatical tradition” (Binnick 1991: 8) and is therefore taught in schools. A closer look into a recent grammar book confirms this thesis. David Crystal (2008: 479 f.) defines the term tense as “a category used in the grammatical description of verbs (along with aspect and mood).” He continues “traditionally, a distinction is made between past, present and future tenses, often with further divisions (perfect, pluperfect, etc).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter introduces the ongoing academic debate regarding the classification of the English tense system and establishes the paper's aim to compare competing linguistic frameworks.
1. How many tenses are there in the English language?: This section discusses the traditional "three-tense" model and challenges its validity by highlighting the lack of formal morphological marking for a future tense in English.
2. Describing temporal systems: This chapter serves as the theoretical core, evaluating different models—specifically Reichenbach, Bull, and Generative Semantics—that attempt to explain the mechanics of English time references.
2.1 Hans Reichenbach: This section details Reichenbach’s influential theory involving speech time, reference time, and event time, while also noting Richard Matthews' critique of the model.
2.2 William E. Bull: This part examines Bull’s expansion of temporal orientation axes to better account for complex forms like the conditional perfect.
2.3 Generative Semantics: This section explores how generative grammarians treat tense and modal auxiliaries, specifically looking at proposals where auxiliaries are analyzed as full verbs.
Conclusion: This final section synthesizes the findings, emphasizing that the relationship between tense and time is not strictly one-to-one and remains a subject of ongoing theoretical disagreement.
Keywords
English tense system, temporal systems, Hans Reichenbach, William E. Bull, generative semantics, morphology, verb forms, time reference, linguistics, modal auxiliaries, speech time, reference time, grammatical classification, syntax, aspect.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper focuses on the classification and description of the English tense system, specifically analyzing why defining the number of tenses in English remains a subject of debate among linguists.
Which theoretical models are examined to explain temporal systems?
The paper provides a comparative analysis of the theories developed by Hans Reichenbach and William E. Bull, alongside perspectives from Generative Semantics.
What is the central research question?
The research explores whether the traditional "three-time/three-tense" classification is sufficient to describe English and how alternative frameworks handle the complexities of English verb forms.
What methodology does the author employ?
The work utilizes a literature-based comparative approach, contrasting historical grammatical traditions with modern linguistic theories and frameworks.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body covers the historical definition of tenses, the critique of the formal "future tense," and detailed technical breakdowns of various models that map the relationship between tense, time, and aspect.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include English tense system, temporal systems, Reichenbach, Bull, Generative Semantics, and verb morphology.
Why is there skepticism regarding a formal "future tense" in English?
Critics argue that English lacks a specific inflectional morpheme for the future, unlike the past tense (marked by -ed), relying instead on modal auxiliaries like 'will' or context-dependent phrases.
How does the generative semantics approach differ from traditional grammar?
Generative semantics attempts to formalize tense through tree diagrams and by treating modal auxiliaries as full verbs that govern the structure of a sentence, rather than just as auxiliary markers.
What specific problem does William E. Bull solve in his model?
Bull introduces additional orientation axes—such as the Recalled Point and Anticipated Point—to better integrate complex structures like the conditional perfect, which Reichenbach's model struggled to illustrate.
- Citation du texte
- Marc Schubert (Auteur), 2011, A comparatative approach to the English tense system, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/183793
