View this article in Russian(On the materials of Kazakh and English languages)
A verb conveys information about an action, an occurrence or a state of being, also when an action occurs – present, past, future. When speaking of the expression of time by the verb, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the general notion of time, the lexical denotation of time, and the grammatical time proper, or grammatical temporality.
Parts of speech differ from each other in meaning, form and function, they have different lexical meanings. For example, verbs are words denoting processes and they have grammatical categories of person (who or what acts or experiences an action), number (how many subjects act or experience an action), mood (what attitude is expressed an action), tense (when action occurs), aspect (some specific characteristics of an action), voice (whether the subject acts or is acted upon). Parts of speech differ from each other in their syntactic functions. For example, verbs have the function of predicate in the sentence.
According to the form, the Present Continuous Tense can be described as an
analytical form which is built up by means of the auxiliary verb to be in the Present Indefinite and the ing -form (a present participle) of the notional verb. The grammatical meaning of the participle is closely connected with the lexical character of the verb. Here we can note that the present participle is formed by adding –ing to the simple form (to laugh- laughing). To function as a verb a present participle combines with one or more auxiliary verbs (He is laughing) It is used alone, present participles function as nouns (laughing is healthy) or as adjectives (my laughing friends)
According to the function, the Present Continuous Tense can be defined words making up the predicate of the sentence.
According to the semantics, the Present Continuous Tense can be admitted as the dynamic verbs, the most verbs are given a dynamic use on occasion in fundamental grammar.
The article will be based on the widely semantics of the Present Continuous Tense and learning rules can be related to their communicative potential.
We must be sure that the elements of semantics are introduced in hearing and experience. We can’t keep our students from having a grammar – a framework within which they operate. It’s clear for language learners that there would be no communication, agreement about the accepted forms to convey meanings. There is no way in which learners of English are going to guess the existence of a way expressing continuousness in time relationships as in present progressive. At some stage they will either have to discover this inductively in the material or have it quickly brought to their attention. But we need a plenty of practice working with it, to use contemporary terminology, in functional ways.
We know that Blokh’s theoretical definition stands for us as the main tool when we deal with English Grammar, the immediate expression of grammatical time, or “tense” (Lat. tempus), is one of the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical because the meaning of process in the verbal lexeme, finds its complete realisation only if presented in certain time conditions. That is why, the expression or non-expression of grammatical time, together with the expression or non-expression of grammatical mood in person-form presentation, constitutes the basis of the verbal category of infinitive i.e. the basis of the division of all the forms of the verb into finite and non-finite.
The dialectical-materialist notion of time exposes it as the universal form of the continual consecutive change of phenomena. Time, as well as space are the basic forms of the existence of matter, they both are inalienable properties of reality and as such are absolutely independent of human perception. On the other hand, like other objective factors of the universe, time is reflected by man through his perceptions and intellect, and finds its expression in his language.
It is but natural that time as the universal form of consecutive change of things should be appraised by the individual in reference to the moment of his immediate perception of the outward reality. This moment of immediate perception, or “present moment”, which is continually shifting in time, and the linguistic content of which is the “moment of speech”, serves as the demarcation line between the past and the future. All the lexical expressions of time, according as they refer or do not refer the denoted points or periods of time, directly or obliquely, to this moment, are divided into “present-oriented”, or “absolute” expressions of time, and “non-present-oriented”, “non-absolute” expressions of time.
In the course of the history of linguistics many different grammarians’ views have been put forward, that is why we cannot realize be –ing to achieve perspective linking since 1066, we must realize that the definite point of its history becomes true, possible and fruitful.
In English the Continuous now, at this moment, right now, currently, for the time being, while, when ,always – construction requires external progressive or an action in a progress, or aspect, to be (am,are, is) – do+ing There is no simple present continuous construction, as there is in the Kazakh language. The grammatical description of this present continuous form represents a certain situation, or happening events now, around us now, happening in general, sometimes in near future showing all these things real.
While formulated for continuous these time expressions here, the same argument applies to continuous for discussion. This means that we derive a well known fact about the these constructions in English and Kazakh are illustrated in:
He is always learning foreign languages – Ол үнемі шетел тілдерін үйреніп жүреді. Дегенмен бұл сөйлемнің астарында бір жағынан дұрыс түсінік жатса, бір жағынан дұрыс емес те түсінік жатыр деуге болады, ол сөйлеушінің тыңдаушыға жеткізуіне байланысты. Бұл жерде сөйлеуші бірде тұлғаны мақтан тұтуды тілге тиек еткісі келсе, бірде оның тілдерді үйреніп жүргені қайсы, бір тілді де жақсы игере алмаған, содан болар түк білмей жүргені жарытып бір тілде де деген ойын білдіреді.
The 75 th anniversary of Al-Farabi Kazakh University is celebrating on October in 2009 - 2009 жылы Қазан айында Әл Фараби атындағы Қазақ Ұлттық университеті өзінің 75 жылдық мерей тойын тойлайды. Бұл жерде келешекке жоспарланып қойылған, болашақта орындалатын, сөйлеуші сөйлеп тұрған кезде Нақ осы шақта айтуға болатын іс. Өйткені алдын ала игі істер, дайындық жұмыстар жасалу үстінде (жасалып жатыр) , яғни процессуалдық қасиеттің орындалу шағына, шегіне жету барысындағы өткел, үдіріс жүріп жатыр.
He is writing a book about some authentic materials for specific information on journalism right now. Дәл қазір ол журналистикадан төл ақпарат беру үшін түпнұсқалық материалдар туралы кітап жазып жатыр. Сөйлеуші сөйлеп жатқан шақта істің даму барысында екенін көрсету мақсатында айтылып тұр, кітап әлі жазылып біткен жоқ.
It is important to note that what plays a crucial role in deriving these differences between English and Kazakh is the central assumption of Indo-European and Turkic family of languages, unlike in English tenses, we can realize internal perspective without realizing progressive aspect. Turning this upside down, the facts discussed in this section motivate the central idea of different languages while other theories regard what I have called action in the process or aspect as ingredients of one grammatical operation (the progressive), assumes that these ingredients are grammatically separate operations. Here we see a specific case in Kazakh, where one (internal action in the process ) occurs without the other (progressive aspect).
As account of continuous linking I assume in all my work type shifting principles of a type-continuing and progress on grammar. The semantics needs to build a meaning for a phrase based on the meanings of the parts. To do that it has, as a start, available the meanings of the parts, the basic operations of meaning-composition, functional application and function composition, and the type that the meaning of a should be off. Often this is enough to build a meaning for a, but often it is not. In the latter case we have a semantic mismatch. Semantic mismatches do not necessarily make derivations crash: the grammar has a mechanism for resolving semantic mismatches at no cost, the type shifting theory, a set of type shifting principles. The type shifting theory is operative (under grammatical restrictions) where the grammar comes across a semantic mismatch that it cannot resolve by other means.
In English, predicates with auxiliary modals in the present and present progressives are felicitous, the latter two, because they have perspective realized.
What I will argue now is that, given the semantics of the continuity operator, and the theory of eventualities underlying 1066, the second option –realizing be- ing, is not a possibility. The reason is stativity. Suppose we realize be- ing. Look at the following structure:
| Perspective P be | AspectP -ing | VP |
| Internal | progressive | LiA |
The reason is that Progressive is an operation which map sets of events on to sets of events. This means that the output of progressive is a set of events. But the output of progressive is the input of CONTINUOUS. If the continuous aspect since phrase is generated at the , and the input of continuous must be a set of states. And this is a conflict. The semantics of continuous denotes a relation between point states. By the semantics of progressive is infelicitous.
Resolving the semantic mismatch of Present Continuous with type shifting operation of going on results in an interpretation in which the operator CONTINUOUS is temporally linked to the operator INTERNAL.
The researching papers in this article volume investigate the semantics of continuous aspect from both a theoretical and a cross-linguistic point of view of happening events in a wide range of language information from a number of different language families. The papers of investigation work are all informed by the belief that a thorough exposure to the expression of aspect cross-linguistically is crucial for progress in understanding how the semantic of aspect works and what the semantic basis of aspectual distinctions is.
References
- M. Blokh. Theoretical Grammar of English. Moscow, 1983
- F. Palmer. Limguistic Study of the English Verb. Lnd., 1965
- H. Poutsma. A Grammar of the English Language. Croningen, 1996
- R. Quirk, S. Greenbaun and others. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Lnd., 1985
- H. Stokoe. The Understanding of Syntax. Lnd., 1987
- H. Sweet. A New English Grammar. Logical and Historical. Oxford.
- H. Whitehall. Structural Essentials of English. N.Y., 1956
- A. Hill. Introduction to Linguistic Structures: from Sound to Sentence in English. N. Y., 1958
- T. McArthur, B. Atkins.8