Б. С. Хаймович, Б. И. Роговская теоретическая грамматика английского языка

The Category of Order
(Time Correlation)

§ 212. The category of order is a system of two-member opposemes, such as writes — has written, wrote — had writ­ten, writing — having written, to be written — to have been written, etc. showing whether the action is viewed as prior to ('perfect'), or irrespective of ('non-perfect'), other actions or situations. The interpretation of this category belongs to the most controversial problems of English grammar.

§ 213. Linguists disagree as to the category the 'perfect' belongs to.

Some Soviet authors (B. A. Ilyish, G. N. Vorontsova) think that it forms part of the aspect system (the 'result­ative' aspect — according to B. A. Ilyish, the 'transmissive' aspect — 'вид преемственности' — according to G. N. Vo­rontsova). This point of view is shared by quite a number of grammarians both in our country and abroad.
Other linguists treat the 'perfect' as belonging to the sys­tem of tense. I. P. Ivanova regards the 'perfect' as part of the 'tense — aspect' system.
Those who take the 'perfect' for part of the aspect system are up against a very serious difficulty, since proceeding from this point of view it is difficult to explain the nature of the 'perfect continuous', where two aspects ('resultative', 'perfective' or 'transmissive', on the one hand, and 'contin­uous' or 'imperfective', on the other) seem to have merged into one, which is hardly possible. We cannot imagine a verb as having positive indications of two tenses, two voices, etc. at the same time.

§ 214. Though there is a considerable dissimilarity. be­tween the three views mentioned above, they have something in common. They underestimate the peculiarities charac­teristic of the 'perfect' system in English.

A. I. Smirnitsky was the first to draw attention to the fact that opposemes like writes — has written, wrote — had written or to write — to have written represent a grammatical category different from that of tense, though closely allied to it.

§ 215. If we take a close look at the 'perfect' (whether it be a finite verb or a verbid, a verb in the indicative or in the subjunctive mood), we cannot fail to see that it conveys the meaning of priority, precedence.

Cf. She has come (priority to the situation in the pre­sent, to the act of speech).
She had come before Mrs. B. phoned over (priority to the act of Mrs. B. 's phoning over).
She'll have come by that time (priority to the point of time indicated by the adverbial expression).
She is known to have come (priority to the action of knowing). To have come expresses priority though it has no tense opposites.
She behaves as if she had come unwillingly (priority to the action of behaving). Had come expresses priority though it has no tense opposites.
From the string of examples above it is clear that the 'perfect' serves to express priority, whereas the non-perfect member of the opposeme (write as opposed to have written or wrote as opposed to had written) leaves the action unspecified as to its being prior or not to another action, situation or point of time.
A. I. Smirnitsky calls the category represented by writes — has written, writing — having written, the category of time correlation — категория временной отнесен­ности. He gives a fine, detailed analysis of the category, but the terms he uses are very inconvenient. It is impossible to use them alongside of such terms as "present tense", "active voice" when analysing a certain verb. So accepting the argu­ments of A. I. Smirnitsky, we are bound to look for another term that would serve as a name for the category described.

§ 216. Let us take an extract from J. Galsworthy's novel To Let:

"On Friday night about eleven he had packed his bag and was leaning out of his window, half miserable and half lost in a dream of Paddington Station, when he heard a tiny sound, as of a finger-nail tapping on his door. He rushed to it and listened."
All the verbs here indicate actions taking place in the past, so that there is no difference between them as far as tense is concerned. But the actions did not take place at the same time, they followed each other in a certain succession or order. First he packed his bag, then he leaned out of the window (this action is described by means of the 'continuous aspect' form was leaning as if developing slowly before the eyes), then he heard the tapping, then he rushed to the door and at last he listened.
We know of this order of actions from the order of the verbs in the text. If it were written "He listened for a while and rushed to the door", we should know that the order of actions was reversed. So listened and rushed are indifferent to order.
This is not the case with had packed. We know that the action denoted by it preceded the other actions not only because it comes first in the text but because the very form shows that.
In sentences like He knew what she h a d me a n t to say. or He thought with a curious pride that he and his family had done little or nothing to help this feverish expansion. only the forms of the verbs show the order of the actions they express ¹.
We name the category represented by such opposemes as wrote — had written, writing — having written, etc. the category of order. Members like had written presenting a process as prior to some action or situation are opposites of the 'perfect' order, those like wrote, writing which do not specify the action as to its being prior to another situation or action — of the 'non-perfect' order.
Cf. I gave her a book to read.
She returned the book I h a d given her. By 8 o'clock everyone had returned.
Both gave and had given express an action in the past. Only gave represents the action as irrespective of other past events, whereas had given indicates that the same action preceded some other event in the past, namely, the action denoted by the word returned. In the third sentence had returned also indicates an action preceding some event in the past, in this case, the situation denoted by the words 8 o'clock.
The same with actions taking place in the future: I shall r e a d the book tomorrow. By noon I s h a l l have read it.
Shall read expreses an action irrespective of other future events, whereas shall have read shows that the same action will precede some event in the future, in this case, the situa­tion denoted by the word noon.
In the sentence "He has already come and is waiting for you" has come expresses an action preceding another action in the present.
^{_______________________________________
1} The order of actions may also be expressed lexically with the help of before, after and similar words, just as the time of an action may be expressed lexically by such words as yesterday, tomorrow, etc.

§ 217. As elsewhere, all the opposemes of the category of order are exactly alike with regard to the content. They have the same particular meanings of 'perfect' and 'non-perfect' order united by the general meaning of the category, that of 'order'. In this respect writes — has written and wrote — had written are identical.

Some linguists speak of the heterogeneity of the 'per­fect' members of 'order' opposemes. A form like had written, they say, usually expresses 'priority', but a form like has written expresses 'result'.
In this connection it is necessary to remind the reader of the difference between a word in the language system and the same word in speech. In an opposeme all the meanings of a word are neutralized save the particular meaning of the given category which is singled out relatively in contrast to the meaning of the opposite member. In speech the word is not contrasted with its opposite, no grammatical meaning is singled out. On the contrary, a whole bunch of grammatic­al, lexical and lexico-grammatical meanings are interlaced with the meanings of neighbouring words to make a commu­nication. Naturally, the resulting effect is different with different words or with the same word in different environ­ments. The usage of various verb grammemes in speech is discussed in a special chapter of this book. But a few words with regard to the 'heterogeneity' of the 'perfect' grammemes would probably not be amiss here.
Whatever difference there is in the usage of the so-called 'present perfect' and 'past perfect', it is primarily connected with the difference between the 'present' and the 'past', and not with the different shades of the 'perfect' meaning. When we describe an action prior to some past action, both actions must be mentioned, and the notion of 'priority' is obvious. When an action prior to the present is described, the present need not be mentioned, since it is the act of speech. Therefore the notion of priority is not so obvious. I have read this book can be interpreted not as a description of an action prior to the act of speech, but as one containing the present result of a past action or some implicit conclusion for the present from an action in the past, etc. But then an integral grammatical category is replaced by a host of usages.