Correlation Between States of Action And Tenses: Are Simples Not Perfectives?

Rajalaxmi Pradhan HOD, Department of Computer Science & IT Vignan Institute of Technology & Management Berhampur, Orissa & Gouri Sankar Mahapatro Faculty, De Paul, +2 Section Berhampur Tense is the linguistic realization of real world states of actions which occur on a noncontinuum time line. We assume that a time line inherits space as we cannot perceive an amount of time devoid of space. Association of space facilitates the perception of past, present, etc., on a continuum of time. An action can be defined to have two states, such as completed and continuous. There cannot be a third state. Discontinuity of a continuous state of action results in a state of another completed/continuous action and continuity of a completed action becomes continuous. For example, a state of walking results in stand/ standing, when discontinued. This paper examines the correlations between state of actions and their representation in language. The vocabularies, simple, perfect, perfect continuous etc., are ambiguous, carrying confusions. Correlation of tense categories with real world states and synchronization of the pair of past, present and future states of action can resolve the ontological issues on tense. On these lines of arguments and evidence, we have analyzed Tense in English and its correspondence to Indian language. Biographical Sketch: Ms. Rajalaxmi Pradhan HOD, Department of Computer Science & IT Vignan Institute of Technology & Management, Berhampur, Odisha. Mr. Gouri Sankar Mahapatro has been working as teacher in De Paul +2 section teaching English 1 I(ISC Board). Accepted

1 |Page

Correlation Between States of Action And Tenses: Are Simples Not Perfectives? Rajalaxmi Pradhan HOD, Department of Computer Science & IT Vignan Institute of Technology & Management Berhampur, Orissa & Gouri Sankar Mahapatro Faculty, De Paul, +2 Section Berhampur Revised Abstract We have assumed that tense is the linguistic realization of real world states of actions which occur on a non-continuum time line. We assume that a time line inherits space as we cannot perceive an amount of time devoid of space. Association of space facilitates the perception of past, present, etc., on a continuum of time. An action can be defined to have two states, such as completed and continuous. There cannot be a third state. Discontinuity of a continuous state of action results in a state of another completed/continuous action and continuity of a completed action becomes continuous of the same action or transformed into another action. For example, a state of walking results in stand/ standing, when discontinued. This paper examines the correlations between state of actions and their representations in English language. The vocabularies, simple, perfect, perfect continuous etc., are ambiguous and confusing. We have correlated tenses with real world states and analyses the synchronization aspects of the dichotomous relations within past, present and future states of action. This resolves some of the ontological issues on tense. Biographical Sketch: Ms. Rajalaxmi Pradhan HOD, Department of Computer Science & IT Vignan Institute of Technology & Management, Berhampur, Odisha. Mr. Gouri Sankar Mahapatro has been working as teacher in De Paul +2 section teaching English 1 I(ISC Board).

Correlation Between States of Action And Tenses: Are Simples Not Perfectives?
2 |Page

Introduction
Action can be defined as a realization of a state having spatial dimensions that are acquired through the transformation of time. That is, space can be a function of time. An action has two and only two states such as continuous and completed. ACTION is a continuum that changes states either to continuous or completed. In the state of continuity, action is equivalent to a state at motion and completed actions are in a state at rest, For instance, in A man is going market can result in The man has reached market; that is a continuous action is changed into a completed action. The chain of actions changing the states can go on till the death of the man. Even death is a permanent state at rest. That is all elements are in a state of either continuous or completed actions; either at rest or at motion which is seized or changed into a permanent state in the non existence of the element. To exist is therefore to be in a state of action. Tense is a linguistic category that represents the state of actions as either continuous or completed. Traditionally, tense is classified as past, present and future. Each of these tenses has further classifications into simple, perfect and perfect continuous tenses. There is lot of disagreement and confusion regarding the nature and interrelationships among these tenses. In the sections to follow, we have discussed the interrelationship among the various tenses and the mapping of states of actions into grammatical forms.

Simples and Perfectives in Past

In this section we will consider the interrelationship between simples and perfectives. In the sentences They go school, They went school, the verb forms go and went are described as simple present and simple past. The term simple- a relatively recent adoption is preferred to the old term indefinite. Obviously, the consideration for the new terminology is based on the forms of the verb in such cases. In contrast to have gone, had gone and are going, were going- counterpart perfectives and progressives of the simple are relatively simple. The basis of this assumption contradicts the notional basis of the concepts such as perfective and progressive. Let us consider the forms of verb in the past. There are four possibilities, as: 1. He went home yesterday. 2. He had gone home yesterday. 3. He was going home. 4. He had been going home.(temporal adverb is left) Let us consider the sentences (1&2). The verb forms went and had gone in the sentences (1&2) are in past; went is considered as simple past and had gone is considered as past perfect. Traditionally, it is held that past perfect connotes the completion of an action. But both the forms imply a completion of action. The difference between them is not the completion or incompletion of action. We can consider the connected sentences to analyze the difference, as: 5. Once, he (i)played a prank on his roommate, Arun, who (ii)had gone out for the evening. The path Arun (iii)took back to the hostel (iv)ran beside a shallow but dirty, pond. When Arun (v)returned, Jacob (vi)sprang at him from behind a bush
3 |Page

and (vii)pushed him into the pond. As Arun (viii)emerged, his once white kurta now (ix)streaked with green slime, Jacob (x)roared with laughter. At (5), the verb forms are shown in bold letters; we have (ii), that is, had gone is in past perfect and all other verb forms that is (i) and (iii-x) are in simple past. A semantic analysis would show that the action denoted at (ii) precedes all other actions at (5), that is, the action denoted at (ii) is the earliest in time then all other actions at (5). This shows that completed actions in past consequent upon each other can be classified as earliest that is remote past and near past.

Simple, Perfect and Progressive in Past Relationship

Now, consider the relationship between remote past and past progressive and simple past. We may consider the following sentences in this regard: 6. The plane (i)had reached an altitude of 50 meters and its pilot (ii)was trying to return to the airport when the plane (iii)went down. Analysis of the verb forms at (6) shows that the earliest action at (6i), that is had reached is in past perfect whereas the succeeding actions was trying and went are in either past progressive as at (ii) or simple past as at (iii). was trying at (6) is considered as a counterpart progressive of simple past, as simple past is already treated as denoting a complete action, therefore, it can be considered as NEAR PAST PROGRESSIVE in contrast to past perfect continuous. From discussions at (5) and (6), it seems that tense represents completed or continuous actions and their sequences in relation to some reference time.

Past and Present

Traditionally, past is defined as A verb tense that expresses actions or states in the past; it denotes a time that has elapsed and present is defined as A verb tense that expresses actions or states at the time of speaking, that is, the period of time that is happening now; any continuous stretch of time including the moment of speech. In the context of present discussion, we will examine the relationship between near past (that is also near to present) and present perfect, as in: 7. The joint family (i)has ceased to exist. But it once (ii)had great value since it (iii)was a form of social security and every age group (iv)had a role to play in it. At (7 ii-iv), the succeeding actions (ii)had, (iii)was and (iv)had to (i)has ceased are in simple past, whereas the preceding that is, the recent action has ceased is in present perfect at (i). We have already seen that forms without be...ing are completed actions. Then this is evident that simple past (near past), not the past perfect (remote past) succeeds the present perfect. These analyses show that the terminology PERFCT is misleading. Instead, the use of the terms NEAR PAST and REMOTE PAST to denote simple past and past perfect is more appropriate. And past perfect, simple past and present perfect are all completed (that is perfect) actions. The relationship among simple past, past perfect and present perfect can be shown in the following diagram:
4 |Page

 Past Perfect Past Simple Present Perfect

Fig. 1
Figure 1shows the relationships among the perfect and simple actions in past and present on a time line.(The dashed lines should be treated as continuous) Now, we will go back to examples (1-4) repeated here as (8-11): 8. He went home yesterday. 9. He had gone home yesterday. 10. He was going home. 11. He had been going home.(temporal adverb is left) Using temporal adverbs we can have the sentence (12-13) to analyze the relationship between past perfect and simple past at (8) and (9); as: 12. He had gone home ten days ago, again he went yesterday. 13. He went home ten days ago, again he had gone yesterday. Sentence (12) denotes two completed actions in past which are consequent upon each other and are expressed as remote past and near past (using our terminology)respectively. Sentence (13) is ungrammatical (asterisk denotes ungrammaticality) since the relationship between Simple past and past perfect are incompatible with the temporal adverbs. So far, we have discussed the completed (perfect) past actions as REMOTE and NEAR. In contrast to progressives completed actions can be perceived as occurring as a point on a time line, whereas continuous as duration. This is shown in the following diagram: Past Perfect Past Simple Past perfect continuous Past continuous

Fig. -2
Figure -2 shows that the completed actions in the past can be represented as points on a time line, whereas continuous is represented as durations denoted by the dashed lines. An important implication of this representation is that there is a conversion of the time, that is here time is perceived as a point or as duration. Same implication is applicable to the perception of simple past or past perfect. That is, in the absence of simple past within PAST, past perfect can occupy the whole time line and vice-versa.

Future
Future is synchronised with simple past and past perfect. Consider the following sentences: 14. i. Men will reach Mars after 20 years. ii. Men will have reached Mars after 20 years.
5 |Page

15. i. They will have reached by this evening, and then they will go back. ii. They will reach by this evening, and then they will have gone back. FUTURE can be NEAR or FAR (counterpart of PAST REMOTE). Sentence (14ii) is ungrammatical because the temporal adverbial 20 years is incompatible with the time denoted by the verb form will have reached. Sentence (15) shows that will reach denotes FAR FUTURE and will have reached denotes NEAR FUTURE. Interchange of these forms is resulted in ungrammaticality as shown in (15 ii). There is a logical relationship between PAST and FUTURE. This is shown in the following diagram:

PRESENT Remote Past Near Past Far Future Near Future

Fig. -3
Notice, that in figure-3, past perfect is away from PRESENT whereas far future (counterpart of past perfect/REMOTE PAST) is close to PRESENT. The near future is the per se future, that is more and more close to the future.

Present
We have seen a dichotomous relation in past and future. This type of partition can not be possible in case of PRESENT, since present denotes a happening at the moment. But PRESENT also displays some sort of dichotomy. Let us consider the following sentences in this regard: 16. Research (i)has shown that dangerous conditions (ii)occur when a mild winter spell (iii)is followed by a sharp drop in temperature. Exposure to cold (iv)makes people more vulnerable to infection. At (16), we can see that (i) is in present perfect and (ii-iv) are in simple present. Semantically, the action at (i) denotes a specific situation at present whereas the situations at (ii-iv) are in present but not specified. That is, simple present is a special tense that converses the whole time line past, present and future. In other words, simple present is true timelessly. And present perfect is a specification within present. We can consider some more data in this regard; as: 17. i. Everyday he goes by cycle, but today he has gone by car. ii. Everyday he goes by cycle, but today he goes by car. First clause in (17) is in simple present and the second is in present perfect. Analysis of the verb forms at (17i) shows that goes denotes a situation that encompasses the whole time
6 |Page

line. The time adverb today specifies the situation; 17(ii) violates the norm, therefore ungrammatical. Present perfect and simple present can be represented as follow: Present Perfect

Simple Present

Fig. -4
We have already discussed that PRESENT can not be near or remote/far present which is logically impossible. In the diagram 4 above, the whole time line represents present(simple present) and the dot represents a specific situation (present perfect). It is also shown that simple and perfect within PRESENT have inclusive relationship.

Pedagogical Implications & Conclusion

Tense in the context of past, present and future can be divided into the dichotomous REMOTE PAST-NEAR PAST, FAR FUTURE-NEAR FUTURE and PRESENT-PRESENT PERFECT. There are other tenses that we have not discussed in this paper. In the context of teaching tense, temporal adverbs can be used to impart the knowledge of six divisions of tense. These six tenses are similar to the six of ten La-karas (tenses) of Sanskrit. A contrastive presentation of English and Indian languages with regard to tense would be highly effective.

References
Bickel, Balthasar. (1997). Aspectual Scope and the Difference between Logical and Semantic Representation. Lingua 102: 115-131. Binnick, Robert I. (1991). Time and the Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Comrie, Bernard. (1976). Aspect An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ------ (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Osten (1985), Tense and Aspect Systems, Oxford: Blackwell ------.(1995). The Marking of the Episodic/Generic Distinction in Tense-Aspect Systems. In G. Carlson and F. Pelletier, (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 412-425. ------ (2001) Time and Aspect, In Wilson Keil (2001), pp. 831-832. Herweg, Michael. (1991). Perfective and Imperfective Aspect and the Theory of Events and States. Linguistics 29: 969-1010. Joos, Martin. (1964). The English Verb: Form and Meaning. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Klein, Wolfgang. (1992). The Present Perfect Puzzle. Language 68: 525-552.
7 |Page

----- (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge. Langacker, Roland W. (1986) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1. Stanford University Press. ------ (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2. Stanford University Press. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1969) Towards a Semantic Description of English, London: Longman ------ Meaning and the English Verb, N. Y.: Longman 8 Le Poidevin, Robin, (2002) The Experience and Perception of Time, In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics, volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahapatro, Gouri Sankar (2004) Representation of Tense, Aspect and the Notion of time in Oriya In Tense and Time Notion in Indian Languages (ed.) S. Natanasabapathy Aannamalai University Mahapatro, Gouri Sankar & Pradhan Rajalaxmi (2012) Time and Space Correlates 20121st International Conference on Tense Aspect and Modality: Central Institute of Indian languages Mysore, Feb. 3-5 McCawley, James D. (1981). Notes on the English Perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 81-90. Michaelis, Laura A. (2006). Time and Tense In B. Aarts and A. McMahon, (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. -------(1998). Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. London: Routledge. Prior, Arthur. (1967). Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reichenbach, Hans. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan. Slobin, Dan I. (1994). Talking Perfectly: Discourse Origins of the Present Perfect. In W. Pagliuca, (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 119-133. Vasu, Sirisa Chandra (ed & Tra.) (1891) The Asthadhyayi of Panini, Vol. I & II, Motilal Banarasidas. Vlach, Frank. (1981). The Semantics of the Progressive. In P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen, (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, volume 14. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 415- 434. Wilson, Andrew; Frank C. Keil (eds.)(1999). MIT encyclopedia of cognitive sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality. John B. Carroll (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.

8 |Page