UNIVERSITY OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF MOLDOVA

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIO-HUMANIST SCIENCES

CHAIR OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES

Comparative Study of Grammatical,

Lexical and Lexical-Grammatical Categories.

(Practical aid for the course of Contrastive Grammar)

CHIŞINĂU

2012

2

CZU

Dumitru Melenciuc. Comparative Study of Grammatical, Lexical and

Lexical-Grammatical Categories – University of Moldova Academy of

Sciences, Chişinău 2012.

(Practical aid for the course of “Contrastive Grammar”)

Lucrarea este destinată studenţilor ca supliment la cursul teoretic de

gramatică contrastivă şi poate fi folosită în predarea categoriilor

gramaticale din limba engleză vorbitorilor de limbă română.

© Dumitru Melenciuc, 2012

© Universitatea Academiei de Ştiinţe a Moldovei, 2012

Descrierea CIP a Camerei Naţionale a Cărţii

Suport de curs ”Studiu comparativ al categoriilor gramaticale,

lexicale şi lexical-gramaticale” pentru cursul “Gramatica

contrastivă”; – Chişinău 2012 - 152 p.

3

CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................. 4 1. Confrontational Linguistics ...................................................................... 4 2. Comparative Analysis on the Emic and Etic Levels................................. 6

2.1. Lexical, Lexical-Grammatical and Grammatical Categories ............ 8 2.2. Morphological-Grammatical Categories ........................................... 8

3. The Lexical-Grammatical Categories and Tertium Comparationis .......... 9 4. Metalanguage and Linguistic Confrontation of Verbal Categories ........ 11 5. Polysemy, Synonymy, Homonymy, Redundancy and Transposition of

Verbal Categorial and Grammatical Forms ............................................ 16 6. The English Verbal Categories ............................................................... 23 7. The Category of Mood ........................................................................... 24 8. The Category of Aspect .......................................................................... 30 9. Aspectual Categorization in Cognate Languages ................................... 39 10. Category of Anteriority or Taxis .......................................................... 48

10.1. The Category of Taxis and the Semantic Evolution of the Term

“Perfect” ......................................................................................... 48 10.2. The English Present Indefinite and its equivalents in Romanian

and French ..................................................................................... 61 10.3. The English Future Indefinite and its Equivalents in French and

Romanian ...................................................................................... 62 10.4. The English Present Perfect and its Equivalents in French and

Romanian ...................................................................................... 63 10.5. The Categorial Meaning of Past Perfect in the Confronted

Languages...................................................................................... 65 10.6. Hypercorrectness or Hypergrammaticality ................................... 70 10.7. The Category of Anteriority as seen by A.I.Smirnitsky and

E.Benveniste .................................................................................. 71 10.8. A Contrastive Analysis of Non-finite Forms of Taxis .................. 73 10.9. The Category of Taxis in Oblique Moods ..................................... 78

11. The Semiotic and Metasemiotic Use of the Category of Voice............ 80 12. The Category of Comparsion in English and Romanian ...................... 91 13. The Category of Grammatical Deixis in English and Romanian ......... 98 14. The Conceptual Category of Deixis ................................................... 104 15. The Category of Representation ......................................................... 112 16. Word Order and Its Metasemiosis ...................................................... 128 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 143 Bibliography ............................................................................................. 148

4

Introduction

The present work is intended as a theoretical course for

undergraduate students in their scientific research and to supplement the

theoretical course of Contrastive Grammar, which forms part of the

curriculum of the University of Moldova Academy of Sciences. The

present textbook can be successfully used in scientific research and

teaching English grammar applyng the comparative method.

Morphological grammatical verbal categories of aspect, taxis, tense,

voice, mood, representation, deixis and comparison are confronted with

their equivalents in Romanian. Occasional examples are taken from other

languages. Syntax is represented here with the Word Order and Its

Metasemiosis.

Most of the materials are taken from the author’s publications: O.

Akhmanova and D.Melenciuc “The Principles of Linguistic

Confrontation”, Moscow, 1977, D.Melenciuc “Confrontational

Linguistics”, Chişinău, USM, 2000; D.Melenciuc “Comparativistics”,

Chişinău, CEP USM, 2003, D. Melenciuc “Practical Modern English

Grammar”, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2003. A number of articles written and

published by D. Melenciuc have also been used in the present work.

1. Confrontational Linguistics

The metalanguage used in the field is described differently. There are

quite a number of terms used in linguistics depending on what kind of

comparison the linguist wants to undertake. Some linguists speak of

contrastive analysis as part of a wider field denoted by the term linguistic

confrontation. The word contrast comes from the Latin contrastare and

implies difference, opposition. Before we turn to differences we should

compare systematically and synchronically objects which may be quite

similar, or even the same in some respects. Sameness and similarity have

always been the cornerstone of linguistic confrontation.

The comparative-historical (diachronic) study of languages for

many years was considered to be the only scientific method in linguistics.

Gradually it gave way to other methods and approaches like linguistic

synchrony and in the study of natural human languages as a special kind of

semiotic system. Nevertheless, the idea of comparing different languages

remained as a guiding principle. The synchronic comparison implies a

5

quest for new sets of features and peculiarities. For comparative philology

these were always thought of as something that was genetically common,

something that gradually diverged under the pressure of a variety of

structural and extra-linguistic factors. Analytical comparison was, and is

still, looking for something to serve for the comparison of languages of

totally different families, for some kind of abstract features and

peculiarities. To serve as tertium comparationis they must be regarded as

similar or even identical in spite of the fact that the languages, which are

assumed to share these properties, have no genetic ties at present, and have

never had in the past. The confrontational comparison (or typology) has

the advantage over comparative philology of being able to suggest a

method, which would be applicable to all languages, irrespective of their

history or possible genetic relationship.

We start with the analysis of the importance of confronting certain

grammatical categories on both the emic and etic levels. Confrontation

should not be restricted to just forms, words or texts. The categorial

approach is very important but one should not neglect the concrete

historical changes and those functional peculiarities of the natural human

languages, which are being realized at a particular period. This means that

the categorial approach should not be allowed to degenerate into abstract

typological theoretization as applied to a particular branch of linguistics.

The system of categories, which is established to serve as the starting point

must always be complemented by scrupulous analysis of their etic

functioning as categorial forms. These are mutually opposed and make

categorization possible. Comparison, in the widest sense of the word, is

ruled out unless those carrying it out are convinced that there exists a

certain fundamental similarity between the two or more objects under

investigation. If there were no underlying assumptions that all languages

have something in common, the problem of confrontation simply would not

exist. The importance of translations and bilingual dictionaries, most

important and well-grounded forms of linguistic confrontation and the

existing problems, are discussed here as well.

Analyzing grammatical categories in English and Romanian on the

emic and etic levels, we have come to the conclusion that linguistic

confrontation cannot be performed purely on one of the morphological

categories. Universal or conceptual categories should be used in

comparative studies. Thus, in the case of the category of taxis, we have

observed, that in English and Romanian contextual, lexical and

grammatical means, or usually a combination of both lexical and

6

grammatical means, are used to express anteriority. The latter dominate in

both languages, while in Russian, the lexical element is on the first plane,

and the grammatical means are scarcely represented. A transitional process

has been detected in the confronted languages, like in all the European

languages. A description of grammatical forms of categorial forms in the

confronted languages is supplemented by an analysis of other means of

expression. The synchronic and diachronic approaches should be used in

order to observe that gender, aspect, mood, voice, anteriority, etc. are

historical categories: they appeared, developed up to a system and now

have already given away (gender) or have begun to give away (perfect

forms) their positions as grammatical categories, or are in a state of

metasemiotic transposition (aspect).

Though contrastive analysis in the field of grammatical morphology

has been considered as part of confrontational linguistics for a long time,

there is no clear cut distinction between the confrontation of related and

unrelated languages, using the results of comparative philology of cognate

languages in their confrontation with unrelated languages. The

confrontation of languages can be carried out by comparing: a) unrelated

languages; b) closely related languages; c) distantly related languages, and

d) also by simultaneous confrontation of related and unrelated languages.

2. Comparative Analysis on the Emic and Etic Levels

Confrontation of Forms. Objective reality does not depend on

language or speakers. We reflect it in our consciousness. Reality is

biunique: 1) the reality of the world and 2) the reality of the native

language, the joint impression of the things around us and of our mother

tongue. It is quite natural for us to apprehend reality in a way, which is

somehow affected by the categories and categorization of our language.

Categorization in grammar is much more complex than in lexicology: 1)

it is compulsory or obligatory, 2) it is much more abstract. The difference

between lexicology and grammar then is as follows: the speaker is free to

choose words, to take them or leave them. Grammatical forms are imposed

on the speakers. These are laws, which the speaker is bound to obey. For

confrontation of forms in different languages to get under way, the first step

is to try and understand the specific grammatical categorizations of the

languages under consideration. Thus, the purely grammatical side of the

English aspect has been investigated and it has been clear that confusion of

7

grammar and usage should be avoided. All English verbs including the

putandi and sentiendi ones can quite properly be used in the continuous

aspect. On the other hand the lexical element in expressing aspectual

meaning prevails in Romanian [39, 71-72].

Hyper-grammaticality (hypercorrectness). Abuse of grammar may

be of two kinds:

1) The speaker turns to some very complex and artificial structures,

because he thinks that they are more literary and will enable him to appear

as a highly educated man. This is a kind of hyper-grammaticality or

hypercorrectness, which we meet especially frequently in documents and in

some varieties of journalese, etc. 2) The formation of complex artificial

grammatical forms and structures may depend on metasemiotic factors, on

a desire to achieve a specific stylistic effect. The phenomenon of hyper-

grammaticality first attracted linguists’ attention in connection with the

extremely interesting paper written by Marcel Cohen [39, 72]. This

outstanding linguist had spent very much time and effort on the

normalization of Modern French Grammar. Among the recommendations

he was particularly interested in, the normalization of the forms of the

subjunctive mood stands out. M.Cohen had not only succeeded in

formulating those recommendations, but in also realizing his principles of

selection of forms in his famous book “Histoire d’un langue: le français.” A

good example of hyper-grammatical teaching of grammar is the case of

future perfect forms, which are used very seldom in British English in

colloquial speech and practically not used at all in the American English in

everyday speech. The same phenomenon is observed in Romanian and

other languages. Translators and speakers in general should always pay

attention to the changes in the given language and always check all possible

“rules” in practice. Categories are only the first stage in language learning.

The results of scientific abstraction must be verified by the actual

functioning of the system, the researcher always bearing in mind that

language is in a state of constant change. The study of grammar, the

attempts to normalize grammatical usage, the study of the new tendencies

and systematic confrontation of these with those falling into disuse,

requires a much more serious scientific generalization on the subject than

has been done so far. This is also important because research of this kind

will help in doing away with groundless abstractions of grammar. It follows

then, that the two basic principles are to understand the basic underlying

system, and on this basis to go on with a profound analysis of English

authentic texts and their equivalents in the native language. The only way

8

really to learn grammar, to find out the real state of affairs concerning this

or that morphological category, is to observe how the different basic

theoretical grammatical premises are realized in different languages and

different registers (styles).

2.1. Lexical, Lexical-Grammatical and Grammatical

Categories

Categories are reverberations in the human consciousness of

objective reality, a step to the cognition of the world. The categories of

particular sciences are reverberations of certain specific aspects of objective

reality, which belong to the branch of science in question. They are the

broadest and the most general concepts within the scope, arrived at by

rational scientific methods. It is extremely important to understand that

categories are secondary, that they are derived from the facts of language.

A theoretical course should not be separated from the normative one.

Sometimes theoretical courses are delivered to students in no way

connected with what they are doing at their lessons when they are studying

the language. As a result categories come first as primary entities. When we

talk about categories, we always have to take into consideration the fact

that the reality of human communication is primary, the most important

element. We can speak of a lexical category only if we find identity of stem

and the utter impossibility of a simultaneous realization of all categorial

forms of the given opposition. Otherwise stated, in actual enunciations, or

utterances, only one of the two or more categorial forms can be realized.

We should also mention the fact that morphological studies should be

initiated with the marked member of any opposition [39, 73].

2.2. Morphological-Grammatical Categories

The main rules or methods to apply in discovering and describing

such categories: 1. A morphological grammatical category is constituted by

the opposition of no less than two categorial forms. Thus, the category of

taxis in English is constituted by the opposition of perfect and non-perfect

forms, and the category of aspect is constituted by the opposition of

continuous and non-continuous forms, etc. 2. The opposition of no less than

two categorial forms is the only possible realization of a morphological-

9

grammatical category, the only form of its existence. A grammatical

category exists in its categorial forms. 3. The morphological-grammatical

categories are historical: their number and characteristics change in the

course of time. Thus, if the Saxon genitive ceased to exist as an inflectional

form, this would destroy not only the categorial form of the possessive

case, but also the grammatical category of case in Modern English as a

whole. This would not be an unexpected outcome of a devolution: the

category of case in English has been steadily loosing ground for about a

thousand years. In contrast with the noun, the verb in English tends to

become categorially overdetermined, owing to the steady increase in the

number and variety of its categories. In the course of time it developed the

category of aspect (the opposition of continuous/ non-continuous forms),

the category of taxis (the opposition of perfect / non-perfect forms), etc. 4.

A morphological grammatical category is confined to the categorial forms

by which it is constituted, i.e. it cannot cover or include all the inflectional

forms of a word. When certain properties are manifested by all the

inflectional forms of a word, they constitute a lexical-grammatical

category. This is the case of gender of nouns in Russian, as against gender

of adjectives, which is a grammatical category, constituted by the

opposition of the categorial forms of masculine, feminine, and neuter

genders. 5. Every inflectional form expresses at least one categorial form,

but it can also comprise several and thus cater, on the expression plane, for

several morphological-grammatical categories. Morphological grammatical

forms can be studied on two levels: 1) the semantic level, where, for

example, the present tense forms express actions which include the moment

of speaking, and 2) the metasemiotic level, where present tense forms are

used to denote an action which clearly does not include the moment of

speaking [39, 73-74].

3. The Lexical-Grammatical Categories and

Tertium Comparationis

The concept of lexical-grammatical categories is closely connected

with the parts-of-speech classification, because as parts of speech, words

are organized or divided into classes (parts of speech), each of which

combines in it certain lexical and grammatical characteristics. Thus, if we

take the verb, then it is a verb, because it functions syntactically in a certain

way, it has a system of morphological inflections, but it also has got a

10

certain general categorial lexical meaning. A verb is not only something

that has got a set of grammatical categories, but it is also something that

expresses or denotes a certain object of extra-linguistic reality, as a

phenomenon, as an action or state in general. The parts of speech are

determined to a greater or less degree. Thus the verb in English is very well

determined by a large number of grammatical categories The noun in its

turn is not so well determined, because the category of case in it depends on

the existence of the possessive case [39, 75-78].

It was taken for granted that confrontation of two or more languages

is always based on something that is not actually given in the researcher’s

immediate experience. In case of genetically related languages we simply

begin with the common stock of grammatical categories, which can be

regarded as the common heritage of all the languages under consideration.

This is the natural outcome of comparative historical studies (comparative

philology) - which has assembled a very large number of facts and has

worked out a system of elaborate and reliable methods. As time went on,

comparative philology, and more widely comparative-historical study of

languages, which was distinct for many decades as the unique and absolute

scientific method in linguistics, had gradually to give way to other methods

and approaches. A powerful factor was the growing interest in linguistic

synchrony and the study of natural human languages as a special kind of

semiotic system. The idea of comparing different languages remained as a

guiding principle, but since the comparison was now to be synchronic it

implied a quest for altogether new sets of features and peculiarities. For

comparative philology these were always thought of as something that was

genetically common, something that gradually diverged under the pressure

of a variety of structural and extra-linguistic factors. Analytical comparison

(typology) was, and is still looking for something to serve for the

comparison of languages of totally different families for some kind of

abstract features and peculiarities. To serve as tertium comparationis they

must be regarded as similar, or even identical, in spite of the fact that the

languages, which are assumed to share these properties, have no genetic

ties at present and have never had them in the past. The confrontational

comparison has the advantage over comparative philology of being able to

suggest a method which would be applicable to all languages, irrespective

of their history or of there being any genetic relation between them. But

analytical comparison, when the languages under consideration are

genetically related, can enable the researcher to understand them very

deeply. The analytical comparison in its original form takes up different

11

component facts, synchronically, without thinking of genetic community of

its total absence. If we compare the category of taxis in English, Romanian

and an unrelated language, the common basis for comparison is the

category of taxis (anteriority). Gradually analytical comparison was

performed not only on the etic level as observed in arbitrarily selected texts,

but by using the categorial approach. The categorial approach should not be

allowed to degenerate into abstract typological theoretization as applied to

a particular branch of linguistics. The system of categories, which is

established to serve as the starting point must always be complemented by

a scrupulous analysis of their “etic” functioning as categorial forms. These

are mutually opposed and make categorization possible [39, 75-78].

A very important factor in analytical comparison is the choice of an

etalon language. Comparing the category of anteriority in English and

Romanian we prefer English as an etalon language, because this category

has been widely scientifically described and it can serve as an excellent

starting point for a contrastive analysis of the mentioned categories in both

languages. When we take a global view of linguistic confrontation we see

what a variety of different aspects of language are encompassed in it. It has

already been stated that analytical comparison, and more widely, linguistic

confrontation is often assumed to disregard the factor of genetic community

or lack of it. This general principle should now be reconsidered at any rate

contrastive studies should be divided into two parts: on the one hand we

have cognate languages (closely and distantly related languages) and, on

the other hand, languages which belong to completely different systems

[39, 78].

4. Metalanguage and Linguistic Confrontation of

Verbal Categories

Before comparing grammatical categories, we should give an

introduction to the metalanguage used by different schools and scholars in

English. The comparison in this case is double: first we confront different

terminological systems of the existing linguistic schools with an etalon

system in English (the same could be done in the other confronted

languages taken separately). This makes it easier for students to better

understand the material on the subject given by different schools and

scholars. Then we should confront the terminological systems of the

analyzed languages. One of the main stumbling blocks in rational

12

grammatical categorization is the lack of a firmly established relationship

between the actual phenomena and their names. The metalanguage of

morphological grammatical categories cannot be taken for granted and

metalinguistic work cannot be regarded as merely taking an inventory of

terms. It is a question of discovering whether there is any real difference in

the various approaches and theories, or whether it is purely metalinguistic

difference, mere conventions on the metalinguistic level. Often the

researcher fails to keep clearly apart the object of analysis and the

metalanguage - the words and expressions used when people talk about the

object language. We very often find a large number of different

metalinguistic expressions and are faced with a peculiar situation: we must

compare those different systems and try to understand why the different

metalinguistic expressions were introduced. Very often there is a

discrepancy not only in the metalinguistic expressions used to denote

certain more specific or particular categories, but also in the naming or

description of the most general concepts themselves. If we compare

A.I.Smirnitsky’s metalanguage, which was further developed by

O.Akhmanova in her Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, with the well known

metalinguistic system proposed by Martin Joos, we find that what

Smirnitsky call “morphological grammatical category”, Joos refers to as

“dimensions of categorization” reserving the name “category” for what

Smirnitsky calls “categorial form” [39, 80-81]. Interesting results from the

point of view of metalanguage can also be obtained by looking at the

existing inventories of metalinguistic expressions used to denote the same

actual or objective facts. When we take the categories of tense, aspect and

anteriority, we find out that the same idea, or the same content, is expressed

by different metalinguistic means. A case in point is the term continuous

aspect named by some authors as durative, progressive, imperfective,

imperfect, dynamic, etc. (11 other terms have been registered). The terms

continuous, durative, progressive aspect are so close to each other in

meaning that they may be regarded simply as triplets. Here are some more

groups of doublets, triplets, n-plets within the category of taxis or

anteriority (more terms exist here as well): past perfect: anterior past,

antepreterite, antepreterit, before past tense, pluperfect, prepast tense;

present perfect: anterior present, before present tense, perfect, pre-present

tense; future perfect: ante-future tense, anterior future, before

future(tense), pre-future tense. Every one of the accumulation of terms is

used to denote exactly the same thing. Very often it is not merely a question

of choosing between this or that particular term, but the question of

13

approach or attitude to categorization. Let us take the category of tense,

which is constituted by the opposition of three categorial forms: present,

past and future. These terms are sometimes described by much longer and

much more ponderous terms. Thus, the term present (past and future)

indefinite is sometimes substituted by: simple present (past and future,

ordinary present (past and future), static present (past, future), present

(past and future) of the common aspect, present (past and future)

progressive or non-perfect, etc. Each of the grammatical forms, which are

in English used to denote or express the respective categorial forms of

tense, may also be viewed as “negative” or “zero” expressions of categorial

forms which constitute different grammatical categories. Thus, if the

categorial forms of present, past and future tense, expressed by the

particular set of grammatical forms, are contrasted with the grammatical

forms, functioning in English as grammatical expression for aspect and

anteriority. There can be no objection, in principle, to stating every time

that what we are dealing with in the case of grammatical form like I work, I

worked, I shall work are simple or ordinary forms. They express the non-

continuous or non-progressive aspect and are, besides, non-perfect (in the

sense that they express simultaneity, and not anteriority) [39, 81-82].

No categorization is attainable and no consistent metalanguage can

be worked out, unless a very clear distinction is made between grammatical

forms and categorial forms as distinct form categories. One and the same

grammatical form may serve as an expression plane for different categorial

forms, the opposition of which constitutes the respective categories.

Analyzing the great mass of different metalinguistic expressions, such as:

generic aspect, inclusive aspect, indefinite aspect, non-durative aspect,

non-progressive aspect or anterior present, anterior past, anterior future,

or before present tense, before past tense, before future tense, etc., we must

find an answer to the following question. Is this accumulation of terms used

to denote the same object, or are all kinds of names and words used to

indicate the fact that one and the same grammatical form may carry more

than one or possibly even several categorial forms? Thus, the form of the

word works is present tense, non-continuous aspect, indicative mood, third

person, non-perfect; or worked, which again is a grammatical form which

like all forms of the verb expresses the past or preterit tense, the non-

perfect or non-anteriority, the indicative mood and so on. The over complex

metalinguistic systems lead to an accumulation of terms and not to a clear

and non-contradictory description of all the categorial forms, carried by the

given grammatical form. These terms are particularly reprehensible when

14

they seek to denote certain grammatical meanings, such as the notional

category of perfective, indefinite, generic, general, etc. aspect. At first sight

there is no harm in replacing the term continuous/non continuous aspect in

English by perfective vs. imperfective. But perfective is not so easy to

distinguish from the lexeme perfect. It follows that if the term perfective is

used to indicate a categorial form of aspect, while perfect is retained to

denote the categorial form of anteriority, then obviously the system is much

less convincing than the opposition of continuous/non-continuous, which

so clearly explains what is actually opposed. There is a difference between

the aspectual system of Russian and other Slavic languages, on the one

hand, and the aspectual system of English, on the other. The problem of

plurality of names cannot be simply dismissed as something that is purely

conventional. It is important to decide whether we deal with a purely

metalinguistic fact, or whether the difference resides in deeper systemic

relationships. Thus, if we compare the terms continuous and durative

aspect, we could regard this as a purely metalinguistic question, because

both terms are synonymous. We could assume that if the word aspect is

retained in both cases, then what we describe as the categorial form of the

continuous aspect is called the continuous tense. Here we shall have to

explain that calling it a continuous tense would involve an altogether

different acceptation of the term tense. It would no longer be a question of

what is meant by the term continuous tense, it would be a matter of

specifying what is understood by tense. Let's take the opposition of perfect

aspect vs. progressive aspect as used by some linguists, based on the

categorial meaning of finished vs. unfinished action. As soon as we come to

examples like He had been reading his book for two hours before I came

back. We cannot have two aspectual forms expressed simultaneously by the

same form (had been reading - to express a finished and an unfinished

action simultaneously). Perfect here expresses grammatical anteriority

supported and intensified by the lexical anteriority marker before.

Anteriority is the main meaning of all the perfect forms. A finished action

can be expressed both by some perfect and non-perfect forms: I have

written a letter and I wrote a letter to him. In both these cases we have the

same result. Confronting terminological systems of languages we come

across unusual discrepancies. We discover that the Romanian gerunziul

does not correspond to the English gerund. It regularly corresponds to the

English present participle. The present participle in Romanian got out of

usage and its function was taken over by gerunziul. After analyzing

different categorial systems and interpretations in English and Romanian

15

we choose the most widely used ones for confrontation. When confronting

the category of mood we usually choose a system of 6 categorial forms in

English to compare with an identical number of moods in Romanian:

Indicative, Imperative, Subjunctive I, Subjunctive II and Suppositional and

in Romanian: Indicativul, Imperativul, Conditionalual, Optativul

(Subjunctivul II), conjunctivul, Prezumptivul (or Suppositional). A closer

inspection of these modal systems display considerable discrepancies.

Thus, in Romanian Conditionalul and Optativul (Subjuncitve II) are

expressed by completely homonymous forms and in the majority of

grammar books and manuals they are given as one categorial form:

condiţionalul or condiţional-optative. În "Gramatica limbii române" the

conditional and optative are analysed but still as part of one categorial

form, the terms are used differently from those in English: condţionalul in

this system corresponds to the English Subjunctive II and optativul to the

English Conditional. Most surprising is the fact that condiţionalul and

optativul may be expressed in Romanian by several grammatical forms,

which are polyfunctional and formally belong to different moods. Thus for

example, the sentence "If I had had time I would have come to help you

yesterday" - Dacă aveam timp, veneam să te ajut ieri; (imperfectul modal

in both cases); Dacă aş fi avut timp aş fi venit să te ajut ieri; (optative,

conditional); Să fi avut timp aş fi venit (or veneam) să te ajut ieri

(conjunctivul in the secondary clause). We think the category of mood in

modern Romanian needs to be reinterpreted, because the present

classifications are somewhat confusing. Thus, for example, if we take

conjunctivul - the criterion in singling it out as a separate mood serves the

verbal form with the particle "să". A plurality of meanings, registered by

us, demonstrate that this grammatical form is polyfunctional. Here are

some meanings it can express: 1) Subjunctive I (also named Old

Subjunctive) - Long live democracy! Să traiască democraţia! I insist that

he come. Eu insist ca el să vină. It is necessary that he be (come) here in

time. E necesar ca el să vină aici la timp. 2) Subjunctive II -If I were you.

Să fiu în locul dumitale... If I had had time yesterday... Să fi avut timp ieri...

3) Regularly substituting the infinitive in Romanian: They promised to take

him home. Ei au promis să-l ducă acasă. 4) Used in different combinations

like: Let's sit and talk. Sa şedem şi să vorbim. He will come in time. El are

să vină la timp (future tense indicative mood); To believe me capable of

something like that! Să mă creadă capabil de aşa ceva! 5) After modal

verbs: Even a child could understand. Şi un copil putea să înţeleagă. 6)

Future tense - What shall I do? Ce să fac? 7) To express supposition,

16

including the meanings of suppositional mood: (supposition, necessity,

order, command, insistence ). Might he have been here? Să fi fost el aici?

Could I have lost it on my way home? Să-l fi pierdut în drum spre casă? I

insist (order) that he should be present. Eu insist (ordon) ca el să fie

prezent. It is necessary that he should be here. E necesar ca el să fie aici

[39, 82-85].

5. Polysemy, Synonymy, Homonymy, Redundancy

and Transposition of Verbal Categorial

and Grammatical Forms

Grammatical and categorical forms can be polysemantic,

synonymous, homonymous and even antonymous. The categories of mood

in modern Romanian and English could be reinterpreted, because their

present classifications are somewhat confusing. In the case of Romanian

prezumtivul we have almost a complete transposition of future continuous

and future perfect (both forms are extremely rarely used to express future

actions in the indicative) into a relatively new mood "prezumtivul". Thus

for example: 1) Vei fi din oraş! You should come from the city! Probably

you come from the city! 2) Vei fi venit cu trenul. You must have come by

train. I suppose you have come by train. 3) Ar fi fiind asta dorinţa

prinţesei? Could this be the wish (desire) of the princess? Partially

transposed are the forms of simple future, conjunctive continuous and non-

continuous, conditional, optative continuous and non-continuous forms [6,

85-91]. In case of the Romanian conjunctive the criterion in singling it out,

as a separate mood, serves the verbal form with the particle "să". A

multitude of contextual sub-meanings demonstrate that this grammatical

form is polyfunctional and can be used in the meanings of the English

indicative, subjunctive 1, subjunctive II, suppositional, infinitive in both

perfect and non-perfect forms. Subjunctive I (Old Subjunctive) in the first

and second meanings usually corresponds to forms of conjunctivul in

Romanian: Long live democracy! Să traiască democraţia! I insist that he

come. Eu insist ca el să vină. It is necessary that he be (come) here in time.

E necesar ca el să fie (vină) aici la timp. Subjunctive I in the second

meaning has a stylistic synonym - Suppositional mood: I insist that

everybody should come in time! Insist ca toţi să vină la timp! It is necessary

that he should be (come) here in time. E necesar ca el să fie (vină) aici la

timp. In both cases the use of the corresponding categorical forms is

17

lexically conditioned by modal words accompanying the verbs. Thus, we

can speak here of lexical-grammatical categorial meanings of mood.

Subjunctive II has three synonymous equivalents in Romanian: If I had had

time yesterday I should have come to help you yesterday. Să fi avut (=dacă

aş fi avut/dacă aveam) timp ieri aş fi venit (veneam) să te ajut ieri. Thus,

there are three forms in Romanian corresponding to the English

Subjunctive II or Optative Mood: optativul, conjunctivul and imperfectul

modal, which in this case are perfect synonyms. In the main clause the

Conditional mood corresponds in the confronted language to Condiţionalul

and imperfectul modal [39, 92-100]. Here we should also mention the fact

that in some grammar books the Romanian Condiţionalul and Optative are

considered to form one categorical form of mood, probably because their

forms coincide. In reality here we have two different homonymous

categorical forms with their specific meanings.

Conjunctivul regularly substitutes the infinitive in the Romanian

colloquial language: They promised to take him home. Ei au promis să-l

ducă acasă. He must have come in time. El trebuie sâ fi venit la timp. Even

a child could understand, Şi un copil putea să înţeleagă. To believe me

capable of something like that! Să mă creadă capabil de aşa ceva! An

interesting phenomenon has been observed in this case. During the last 18

years most people improved their native literary language and now we can

observe the infinitive being used more often, to a certain extent, replacing

conjunctivul not only in the literary publications, official speeches, but also

in everyday activity conversations. Conjunctivul is used to express the

future tense in colloquial speech: What shall I do? Ce să fac? He will come

in time. El are să vină la timp. In the second example we have a future

form used in colloquial speech, synonymous to “El va veni la timp”,

corresponding to the literary style. Conjunctivul is also used to express

lexical and grammatical supposition, necessity, order, command, insistence:

Might he have been here? Să fi fost el aici? He might have been there. El ar

fi putut să fi fost acolo. Have I lost it on my way home? Să-l fi pierdut în

drum spre casă? I insist (order) that he should be present. Eu insist (ordon)

ca el să fie prezent. It is necessary that he should be here. E necesar ca el

să fie aici. Conjunctivul can also be used to express the imperative and

present indefinite indicative forms: Leave the town immediately! Să pleci

(pleacă) din oraş imediat! Don’t you worry, mother! Să nu te nelinişteşti,

mamă! Do not doubt! Să nu te îndoieşti! Let's sit and talk. Să şedem şi să

vorbim. There is no doubt that conjunctivul should not be considered to be

18

a grammatical form expressing one categorial mood form. It is just a

grammatical form used to express quite a number of categorial forms.

Most surprising is the fact we have mentioned above, that

condiţionalul and optativul can be expressed in Romanian by several

synonymous grammatical forms, which are polyfunctional and formally

belong to different moods: If I had had time I (should) would have come to

help you yesterday - Dacă aveam timp, veneam să te ajut ieri; (imperfectul

modal in both cases); Dacă aş fi avut timp aş fi venit să te ajut ieri;

(optative, conditional); Să fi avut timp aş fi venit (or veneam) să te ajut ieri

(conjunctivul in the secondary clause). “Had had time” here expresses an

anterior unreal action in the future, past and to a present moment, and in

most cases is homonymous to a similar form in the indicative mood, used

to express anteriority in the past and future in the past (in clauses of time

and condition) [6, 92-100]. Past conditional (perfect form) has several

homonymous forms: suppositional mood (in the first person), future perfect

in the past indicative mood, the modals “should” and “would” plus perfect

infinitive. Thus, for example: He would have come, but he had no time; I

should have read the book but I could not find it; I should have come

earlier; He promised that he would have come before the beginning of the

meeting.

Analyzing the perfect forms of the oblique mood forms we find out

that in some cases they do not really express an anterior action. Thus, if we

take the example: He said he would have come earlier yesterday if he had

known; El a spus că ar fi venit (venea) mai devreme ieri, dacă ar fi ştiut (să

fi ştiut, dacă ştia). In order to check this we transform the example into the

indicative mood changing the category of affirmation/negation; He did not

come yesterday because he did not know. Here we have an action in the

past not connected with the present moment. As soon as the action is

related to the present moment it acquires an anteriority meaning: If she had

worked hard at her lessons this month she would have no problems at the

exam. Dacă ea ar fi lucrat (lucra, să fi lucrat) la lecţii pe parcursul lunii

acestea n-ar avea probleme la examen. The perfect form in the secondary

clause expresses an anterior action to the present moment and corresponds

to a present perfect form in the indicative mood: She has not worked hard

at her lessons this month and now she has problems at the exams. In case

of actions corresponding to future perfect, past perfect the oblique moods

forms express an anteriority meaning. The past perfect form in the

indicative mood is already polysemantic as it is used to express an anterior

action to another action or moment on the axis of time, and it also can

19

express an anterior action in the future from a moment in the past in clauses

of time and condition. In the oblique mood forms the past perfect form can

express anteriority to moments in the past, present and future, including the

future in the past. It becomes homonymous in the case when it expresses

and action in the past not connected with the present moment and not

anterior to any moment or action in a given context.

The forms of prezumtiv in Romanian represent an interesting case

like that of conjunctivul. At a closer inspection we discover that by the

forms of present prezumtiv Continuous forms are practically used, forms

which were actively used in the indicative mood in earlier Romanian. Some

examples taken from the History of Moldovan Grammar, published by

prof. V.Marin (Chişinău, 1970), quoting sources of XVII-XIX centuries

[23] could prove the fact that in reality we have various categorial forms of

mood in the continuous aspect. Here are some examples in the indicative

continuous forms: Era ca oile rătăcindu Au fost avându prieteşug mare cu

Pătru Vodă [23,36,123]. Ştefan Vodă… Tocmai când părerea de rău îl

ajunsese... erau trecând printr-o pădure mare şi deasă.; Au fost dormind la

bisearica lui svetin Benedict [23, 83]. Şi era mergându şi apropiindu-mă

către Damascu, întru ameadză... [23,90] …martorului tău însumi era

stăndu…[39,91]. Analyzing these examples we have no hesitation in stating

the fact that the constructions of the auxiliary verb a fi + gerunziul express

the grammatical continuous aspect meaning like in English, Spanish,

Portuguese and Italian. The durative action here produces a stronger

metasemiotic effect on the reader or listener than the imperfect. In Modern

Romanian extended or periphrastic forms are used only in the oblique

moods in colloquial speech: – Unde-i Petru? – Va (o) fi lucrând în livadă. -

Să fie el lucrând în livadă? De ar fi el lucrând în livadă! [39, 112].

Metasemiotic transposition is found in both English and Romanian. Thus,

the category of aspect can be metasemiotically used not in its usual way,

but in a way that will provide additional overtones: expressive, evaluative,

emotional, modal, etc. For example: "He is leaving tomorrow". "Are you

coming on Sunday?" In these two forms the aspectual and tense categorial

meanings are used to express a stylistic connotation, the future action being

expressed purely lexically (tomorrow, on Sunday). In Romance languages

aspectual meanings are most often expressed by the perfective and

imperfective opposition. But for metasemiotic purposes, for categorial

intensification, most often they use durative forms. The continuous forms

and various constructions in Romanian, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are

subservient to the lexical and lexical-grammatical aspectual means and are

20

usually used in emotional speech for expressivity and emphasis in an action

developing in time, intensified by the interaction with lexical and prosodic

means. Thus, in the Spanish expressive discourse the continuous forms are

often preferred: Estoy hablando. Juan está comiendo. María está

escribiendo una carta. Los pasajeros estarán llegando a su destino. Ayer

estuve repasando la gramática. Las gotas de agua estaban cayendo

pausadamente. Hemos estado nadando tres horas. Mañana estaré trabajando

todo el día en la biblioteca [54]. Identical constructions exist in Italian:

Marcovaldo stava portando a spasso la famiglia. Pietro sta

leggendo un libro [20]. The continuous forms are usually accompanied

by lexical supporters or intensifiers like “todo el dia the whole day through,

toată ziua” and interacting with the lexical durative meanings of the verbs.

In Romanian these examples are usually rendered by means of imperfectul,

constructions with gerunziu or contextual and lexical durative means. The

Portuguese construction estar + gerundio is also the equivalent of the

English continuous form: Eu estou estudando na Universidade. Ele

estava lendo quando ela me chamou. Amanha estaremos preparando

toda a documentacao [68]. In Spanish, Italian and Portuguese there exist

several constructions with gerundio expressing aspectual duration. Thus, the

Portuguese construction ficar + gerundio expresses a progressive action

and is translated into English by means of continuous aspect forms: Fico

olhando para о retrato. The construction andar a + infinitive: A Teresa

anda falando da mudanca de casa [68]. What is important to mention is

the fact that in Portugal the construction estar + gerundio can be

substituted by the construction estar a +infinitive preserving the durative

meaning: О Pedro esta a ler о novo livro. The same happens with the

construction ficar + gerundio, where gerundio is substituted by the

infinitive: Fico а estudar 3 horas. The construction continuar (seguir,

prosseguir) + gerundio express a continuous action as well: Ele continua

lendo o jornal. The construction continuar a + infinitive practically

expresses the same type of continuous action: Ele continua a ler о

jornal [68]. Exactly the same we have in English: He continues reading

the journal can be easily changed into He continues to read. The

construction with the non-continuous infinitive has a weaker aspectual

grammatical meaning, the lexical durative meaning of “continue” taking

over the categorial function.

The imperfect forms may be also used stylistically in case

suprasyntactic metasemiotic means are used. The continuous/non-

continuous binary opposition in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian (and

21

partially in Romanian) are in a process of transposition from a pure

grammatical aspectual category into a stylistic one. In English this

grammatical opposition is well represented in all the functional styles of the

language and is regularly used for stylistic purposes in emotionally

coloured expressive and emphatic speech.

The categorial forms of present tense continuous or non-continuous

aspect could also serve as an example of metasemiotic transposition. In

some text books we usually find an explanation that the present tense can

be used to express past and future actions. What we really have is a

metasemiotic use of present tense forms to describe a past or future action,

for certain emotional-expressive or evaluative purposes, to express vivacity

and dynamism of an action, as if deployed in the speaker's mind or in front

of his eyes. In this case the categorial forms of past and future are

expressed purely lexically or contextually. Thus, for example: Yesterday I

was reading in the lounge. Suddenly Ann comes in, sits on the sofa and

starts to cry. Next week I am leaving (leave) for Paris. The verbs

expressing mental perception and feeling can be metasemiotically used in

the continuous aspect; the same is true in the case of the usage of

progressive forms with adverbs like always, often, seldom, generally,

constantly, permanently, etc. Another case of metasemiotic transposition

can serve the use of conditional mood forms to express: additionally to its

main meaning of an unreal action the fulfillment of which depends on an

unreal condition, this categorial is regularly used to express an action,

which is not contrary to reality and expresses politeness, interest, etc. For

example: I should eat an apple if I had any. Aş mânca un măr, dacă aş

avea. (unreal condition); Look! You have apples! I should like to eat one!

Priveşte! Aveţi mere! Eu aş mânca unul! (indirect polite request); Could I

help You? Could you help me? Aş putea să vă ajut? (polite offer of help)

Aţi putea să mă ajutaţi? (polite request).

One more interesting phenomenon is the gradual transition of some

grammatical categories into lexical-grammatical or purely lexical ones. The

category of gender in English and the category of anteriority (taxis) in

Russian can serve as an example of a complete transition. Taxis in English,

Romanian and other European languages are in the process of a similar

transition. Perfect forms in modern English and Romanian are variously

interpreted, as expressing anteriority, a complete action, a result, as a tense

form, time relation. But lately more and more linguists consider anteriority

to be the main categorlal meaning of finite and non-finite perfect forms

(E.Benveniste, A.Smirnitsky, R.Allen, H.Palmer, etc.). Thus, according to

22

Smirnitsky, "perfectivity" is the realization of a certain process before a

certain moment or action in the movement of time, while the meaning of

the past is merely the realization of the process before the moment of

speaking [6, 145-161]. This difference is most clearly observed when we

compare the perfect future with the usual past indefinite, as in the

examples: He will have finished reading the book by 10 o'clock. El va fi

terminat (va termina) de citit cartea pe la ora zece and He finished to read

the book. El a terminat de citit cartea. The meaning of past is clearly

expressed in both cases, but in the former the past is referred to a certain

moment, which is conceived with respect to future, while with past

indefinite it is simply the relationship between the action and the moment

of speaking. Thus, anteriority or perfectivity is the meaning of an action,

which precedes another action or moment on the time axis. The category of

anteriority historically appeared in the result of transposition, when it was

necessary to intensify the existing lexical and contextual means by

grammatical ones. Now we have a reverse process but on a different level.

At the moment the means of expressing future anteriority in both languages

slightly differ. English has preserved the Latin system of expressing future

actions as seen from a moment in the past. In Romanian it is very rarely

used. Now let's take some examples: 1.Future from the present moment: I

shall have read the text by six o'clock (by the time you come home. Eu voi fi

citit textul către ora şase (pâna când te vei întoarce acasă). In both

languages future anteriority is expressed here both grammatically and

lexically. The usual tendency in a language is to simplify redundant forms.

Thus, the examples, given above, are naturally simplified in both

languages, and anteriority can be expressed only lexically or contextually: I

shall (will) finish reading the text by six o'clock (by the time you come

home). Eu voi termina de citit textul către ora şase (până când te vei

întoarce acasă). Present perfect is used to express future anteriority in

clauses of time and condition (substituting future perfect), while perfectul

compus in Romanian can be used to express future anteriority only in case

of stylistic (metasemiotic) transposition. Past perfect is used in clauses of

time and condition to express future anteriority from a moment in the past.

In past perfect the category of taxis is not as clearly manifested as in future

perfect. But here, too, although past indefinite (or simple past) and past

perfect are both past tense forms, the difference between them is very

clearly expressed. The past tense of the perfect form, although refers to the

past, differs clearly enough from past indefinite in having a second and

different meaning of past anteriority. In the American spoken English there

23

is a tendency of rapprochment of present perfect in the second meaning and

past indefinite and the former is often substituted by the latter: Did you ever

go to Paris? Did he arrive yet? He never read this book. In the British

Standard English present perfect continues to differ regularly from past

indefinite in all the meanings. We would like to draw your attention to the

fact that it is not enough to state the existence of the category of anteriority

or any other categorial system in English and Romanian. Language is

permanently changing and all abstract linguistic systems should be checked

in practice (texts, speech), otherwise we could find ourselves "abusing

grammar". Confrontation of metalanguistic systems and grammatical forms

disclosed phenomena of polysemy, homonymy and synonymy. Categorial

transposition (stylistic and modal, etc.) is found in both languages. There is

a tendency of regulation and simplification of categorial and redundant

grammatical forms. Thus, grammatical anteriority can be regarded as a

pedanticism, for in situations of ordinary everyday speech it is very easy to

do without it, and express the same categorial meaning lexically or

contextually. There is a clear-cut tendency of transition of some

grammatical categories to lexico-grammatical or lexical categorial means

of expression.

6. The English Verbal Categories

The verb is a part of speech expresses actions or states. The

verb forms can fall under two main divisions: finite and non-finite.

The finite forms of the verb express a number of categorial forms:

tense, anteriority taxis, aspect, mood, number, person, voice, etc.

These categories are expressed both by analytically (I have written, I

shall write) and synthetically (I write, I wrote). The non-finite forms

(infinitive, gerund, present participle and past participle) as part of

the category of representation express the categorial forms of

anteriority, aspect and voice. The conjugation of the English verb is

based on the following forms: the infinitive (or the present tense

stem), the past indefinite form, past participle and present participle. The verbs can be divided into notional, semi-auxiliary and auxiliary.

A notional verb possesses an independent meaning and is used as a verbal

predicate, expresses an action or state of the doer of the action denoted by

the subject: I have written a letter. Ann is reading a book.

24

A semi-auxiliary verb has no independent function in a given

sentence and is used as part of the verbal or nominal predicate. Its lexical

element is expressed by the second element of the predicate (verb, noun,

adjective), the grammatical categorial meaning of tense, mood, person,

number is expressed by the semi-auxiliary in a finite form. It may be used

as a link verb in compound nominal predicates (He was a very good

teacher); as part of a compound verbal predicate expressing modality

(supposition, assurance, ability, obligation, necessity, etc.) and aspectual

meanings (the beginning, the end, duration, repetition of an action). I can

type very well. You should come in time. You must have lost the key on the

way home. He began to work early in the morning. He continued to think

for a while. An auxiliary verb has only a purely grammatical meaning and

is used to form analytical structures. The following auxiliaries are singled

out: Shall, will (should, would) to form future (and future-in-the past)

forms. I shall come later. He will arrive later. He said he would do the

work on Sunday. To have as an auxiliary is used in forms both finite and

non-finite: How nice of you to have come! Having read the book he

returned it to me. He had lived in a village before moving to London. To be

is used in continuous and passive voice forms: He is writing a dictation.

The dictation is being written by him. The dictation has been written by

him. The letter will be written by Ann. Should, would. As an auxiliary

should is used to form the suppositional (I insist that he should come in

time) and conditional in the first person (I should go to the country if the

weather were fine). Would is traditionally used in the second and third

persons of conditional mood, but it is not unusual to be found in the first

person as well (He would have come if he had finished his work earlier. I

would have come if I had not been so busy. You would have met Bill

yesterday if you had come to see us.). To do is used in the negative and

interrogative forms of present and past indefinite, imperative and also in the

emphatic forms with do (He does not work at the office. He did not know

where she was. Don’t come too late! Do come in time!) I shall have done

my work by next Monday, I’ll go away on holiday on Tuesday [39, 101-

102].

7. The Category of Mood

The category of mood is a grammatical morphological category,

which expresses the relationship between what is being said and reality.

25

While confronting the category of mood in English and Romanian we come

across certain differences in its interpretation. A.I.Smirnitsky56

explains this

phenomenon by the fact that different linguists do not mean the same when

they speak of mood or modality. When they classify the forms of this

category they often pay attention either to the form or to content. They do

not always take into consideration such phenomena as polysemy,

homonymy, synonymy; grammatical, lexical-grammatical, lexical, prosodic

means of expressing the corresponding categorial form of mood. That is

why in various publications we come across a multitude of terms to name

the category of mood: mood, assertion, actual assertion, relative assertion,

aspect of mood, factual - theoretical-hypothetical mood, fact mood

(indicative), the mood of fact, declarative mood, thought-mood,

imaginative mood, contrary-to-fact mood, inflectional mood, etc. The

number of categorial forms in different grammar books is from 2 to 16. As

far as the grammatical category of mood is concerned the most acceptable

system is the one put forward by A.Smirnitsky and his school and accepted

by the majority of linguists: indicative, imperative, subjunctive I,

subjunctive II, conditional and suppositional. More complicated systems

usually include grammatical, lexical and lexical-grammatical modality. As

a good example of the case could serve Barbara Strang’s system: mood of

determination (will), mood of resolution (shall), permissive (may),

concessive (might), potential (can), compulsive (must), conditional

(would), determinative-conditional (could). Sometimes in the mood system

such form as the infinitive, the participle, the gerund, etc. are included.

More “compact” systems of two or three categorial forms (indicative,

imperative, subjunctive) usually combine under one term several categorial

and grammatical meanings. Thus the term subjunctive in some grammar

books embrace the forms of subjunctive I (Long live the queen!),

subjunctive II (If I were you; If I had had time yesterday I would have

come), suppositional (I insist that he should be present at the conference),

which express completely different modal meanings. In the majority of

Romanian grammar books we find a system of five categorial forms of

mood: indicative, potential, imperative, conjunctive, condiţional-optative.

In some manuals the infinitive, the gerunziul, the participle and supinul are

added. Difficulties appear when we analyze the forms of potential,

conjunctive and condiţional-optative. Here grammatical polysemy grows

into homonymy. Thus, the forms of present potential (voi fi cântând, să fi

cântând, ar fi cântând, aş fi cântând, etc.) practically can express modal

meanings of subjunctive II, conditional, indicative, etc. Examples: 1) Se

26

spune, că el ar fi având multe lucruri interesante (They say that he is

having /may have/ a lot of interesting things); 2) Dacă el ar fi având

această carte, l-aş ruga să mi-o dea (If he were having this book I should

ask him to give it to me); 3) Unde-i Petru? - Va (O) fi lucrând în grădină. –

Să fie el lucrând? De ar fi el lucrând! (Where is Peter? He might be

working in the garden. - Could he be working? If he were working!

Only the forms of present conjunctive turned out to express about 17

meanings: the infinitive, indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive

II, etc. Let’s take some examples and compare them with their translations

in English: The form with “se + the verb form” is actively replacing the

infinitive in Romanian (especially in the spoken language): Furtuna se

năpustise cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să sfărâme insula în ţăndări,

să o mistuie în flăcări, să inunde copacii, să o măture de pe faţa

pământului (The storm culminated in one matchless effort that seemed

likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the treetops, blow

it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at on and the same moment).

(M.Twain) The “conjunctive -infinitive” can be used without the particle

“să” like the English infinitive without the particle “to”. “Să” + verb form

can be used to express a number of categorial form meanings: 1) Indicative

and imperative meanings: Să nu ai nici o grijă, mamă! (Don’t you worry,

mother!) Să nu te îndoieşti! (Don’t doubt it!) O să-l întrebăm. (We shall ask

him.) Să-l întrebăm. (Let’s ask him.) 2) Subjunctive I: Să trăiască pacea în

toată lumea! (Long live peace all over the world!); El a ordonat ca el să

plece. (He ordered that he go.) Subjunctive II: Noi am fi fost bucuroşi să ne

fi întrebat. (We should have been glad if you had asked us.) Să ne fi spus

am fi venit. (If you had told us we would have come.)

When we compare the English conditional and subjunctive II with

the Romanian forms of condiţional-optative or better to say, with

conditional and optative we find a complete categorial coincidence. The

two grammatical forms of the above mentioned categorial forms in

Romanian are homonymous, that’s why in grammar books they are usually

treated as one categorial form, in spite of the fact that they really express

different meanings. Let’s give some examples: 1) If you had been here you

would had helped us. Dacă ai fi fost aici ne-ai fi ajutat. 2) If you were here

you would help us. Dacă ai fi aici ne-ai ajuta. 3. If I had started last week I

sould have got there in time. Dacă aş fi plecat săptămâna trecută aş fi

ajuns acolo la timp.

Comparing the systems of moods in English and Romanian we come

to the conclusion that there is much in common between the two. The same

27

conceptual categorial forms of mood in English are expressed in Romanian

by corresponding forms. Parallel forms sometimes are used to express the

same modal meaning, like in the case of conditional and subjunctive II,

which correspond to the Romanian condiţional and optative, and may also

correspond to imperfectul modal, conjunctive and potential. Thus, the

following English example can be rendered by means of different forms,

which possess in the given context the same categorial meaning: I should

have gone to the meeting if you had told me. Eu m-aş fi dus la adunare

dacă mi-ai fi spus. Eu mă duceam la adunare dacă mi-aţi fi spus. Eu m-aş

fi dus la adunare dacă î-mi spuneaţi. Eu mă duceam la adunare dacă î-mi

spuneaţi. Eu mă duceam la adunare să-mi fi spus. Changing the category of

affirmation-negation we express the above given by means of indicative

mood but some metasemiotic content is lost: I did not go to the meeting

because you did (had not told) not tell me, Eu nu m-am dus la adunare

pentru că nu mi-ai spus. The modal imperfect in Romanian is naturally

used to express aspectual and modal meanings because of the rare use of

the periphrastic aspectual forms in the language. The conditional mood

forms both in English and Romanian are used to express politeness (the

utterance in this case is emotionally coloured): Would you like to help me?

N-aţi vrea să mă ajutaţi? I should like to ask you something. Aş vrea să vă

întreb (rog) ceva. The above- mentioned modal meanings are very rarely

expressed purely grammatically. Lexical and lexical-grammatical means of

expressing modality are further discussed. A number of modal forms

considered to be purely grammatical, in fact are lexical or lexical-

grammatical. Thus in such examples like: I wish I were a student. I insist

that he (should) be present. I demand that he (should) come in time. I could

do the work if I could come earlier - the grammatical meaning of oblique

mood is depending on modal words like wish, insist, demand, could in the

above given example expresses parallel modal meanings: 1) lexical, and 2)

grammatical (conditional and subjunctive). Modal verbs and modal words

in general can express modal meanings purely lexically (see the examples

given above) or in combination with grammatical forms (lexical-

grammatically). Thus in the example “I wish I were a student” the modally

colored word “wish” helps to intensify the general grammatical modal

meaning by using the form in the secondary clause in the subjunctive II

mood. Subjunctive II can express unreal condition, wish, supposition,

desire, unreal preference or comparison, etc. and is usually used after such

lexical units: wish, suppose, if, as if, as though, though, that, so that, lest,

for fear, before, ere, however, whatever, till, until, save, saving, in case,

28

unless, even if, even though, whichever, whoever, it is time, it is high time,

supposing, whether, etc. For example: If I were you I should stay here; Oh,

that the storm were over! He treats me as if (as though) I were a little child.

Here he lives happier than if he lived in the country. Even though he had

come in time he would not have managed to talk to him. Even if he were

here you would not be allowed to see him. It is (high) time you read this

book. Supposing you had had enough time yesterday would you have

managed to finish the job? Most of the above mentioned modal words

influence the modality of verbs used in conditional as well as subjunctive II

in complex sentences (I should help you if I had time; I should have helped

you if I had had time).

Subjunctive I and Suppositional are usually used after modal words

and the modality meaning corresponds to the given modal word.

Subjunctive I (also named Old Subjunctive) is falling in disuse. To a

certain extent it is still used in American English. In British English

Subjunctive I is used in the formal written language in various types of

official documents (law, press, parliamentary activity, science and

technology, etc,), in poetry and literary prose, in stable expressions (be it

so, so be it, if need be, be that as it may, be it said, etc. ), in protests,

swearing, cursing, etc. Subjunctive I has 2 meanings. In the first meaning it

expresses an optative meaning (a wish, a desire) which is not contrary to

reality (May he live a hundred years! Let success attend you! Long live the

queen!) May, let express modality here and in combination with the main

verb they express an optative meaning. Prosodic elements are also

important in intensifying the modal meaning, in the last example it is

prevailing. The second general meaning of Subjunctive I is synonymous

with Suppositional mood and is expressing a variety of submeanings in

dependence of de modal word accompanying the main verb (let, may, wish,

to request, to be /im/possible, to be agreed, to order, to suppose, to

command, to be necessary, to fear, to be feared, to suggest, to insist, to

propose, to arrange, to demand, to pass a resolution, to give orders,

request, suggestion, to grow terrified, to be afraid, adverbial clauses of

purpose introduced by “lest”, though, although, whatever, whoever,

however, etc.). For example: Should you care for a full explanation of the

action, you may call any day. Though he (should) make every effort, he

cannot succeed. However hard it (should) rain, we shall have to go.

Whatever he (should) say, I will not change my mind. We shall start early

lest we (should) be late. They grew terrified lest some evil should have

befallen on him. A resolution was passed that everybody (should) take part

29

in the work. Orders were given that we (should) start work. We arranged

that we (should) meet on Sunday. He proposed that they (should) start. I

demand that he (should) come at once. We insisted that he (should be

present. It is requested that all (should) be ready by tomorrow. The modal

verbs can express modality purely lexically. In grammar books in the group

of modal or defective verbs are usually included: must, can, could, may,

might, to be, to have, should, would, shall, will, dare, need, used to, ought

to, (they have also the function of auxiliary verbs and in speech or used in

texts they acquire a grammatical meaning as well. In reality the number of

modal verbs is much larger. Thus, verbs like: to insist, to demand, to order,

to request, to suppose, to command, to necessitate, etc. express lexical

modality. Alongside their lexical modality most of them could be used to

express an additional grammatical modality. The lexical modality is

important in using the main verb in a given grammatical mood form (see

conditional, subjunctive I, suppositional, subjunctive II and imperative).

The prosodic element is also very important in expressing or intensifying a

modal meaning. Examples of categorial meanings, expressed by

grammatical, lexical-grammatical, lexical and phonological means is

practically found in the majority of grammatical verbal categories. Thus,

futurity in expressive speech may be expressed lexically, the grammatical

form is used stylistically: He comes tomorrow (later, next week). I am

leaving on Sunday. The category of aspect in English is considered to be a

purely grammatical one, the marked member of the opposition being

expressed by continuous forms. A closer inspection shows that the

grammatical marked form, in many cases, is intensified by lexical aspectual

means, or only the lexical means are used. Thus in case of putandi and

sentiendi verbs or when we use words like always, often, seldom,

occasionally, continuously, permanently, usually, etc. the continuous forms

are not used, because the meaning of these verbs, adverbs expresses an

extended action lexically and there is no need to use a continuous form in a

neutral situation. Only in case of intensification of the categorial meaning,

for the sake of expressivity a continuous form could be used in such cases.

The prosodic element is changing here too to intensify the aspectual-

metasemiotic meaning. Thus, the following verbs can be used in the

continuous form only in case of intensification, expressive use: see, feel,

taste, observe, agree, disagree, bear, know, mean, notice, recall, recognize,

believe, disbelieve, differ, doubt, find, foresee, recollect, remember,

suppose, think, trust, distrust, understand, smell, detest, forgive, hate, like,

dislike, love, mind, please, displease, prefer, want, wish, desire, hear, look,

30

appear, consider, expect, hope, loathe, refuse, regret, be, belong to,

contain, consist of, cost, depend on, deserve, have, hold, matter, own,

resemble, etc.

Here are some examples where both lexical and grammatical

aspectual means are used for expressivity or intensification of aspectual

meaning. You are seeing this place for the last time. I am hearing it better

now. The dog was smelling the lamp post. She was feeling the sun

extremely. She must be a stranger whom I was observing. He is always

doing things like this. She was all the time smelling at him. They were

occasionally visiting them.

Analyzing all the verbal categories we have observed a phenomenon

of transition from grammatical to lexical-grammatical and lexical means of

expressing this or that categorial meaning. A good example could serve the

category of taxis (anteriority), which undergoes a process of lexicalization

in many languages: in Russian the perfect anteriority has practically

disappeared and the lexical anteriority has taken its place. The same is

happening in English and Romanian, where some perfect forms are not

used any more or are used very rarely (future perfect, non-finite perfect

forms). The sentence I shall have finished my work by six o’clock / before

you come back is usually substituted by I shall finish my work by six

o’clock/before you come back. Thus grammatical anteriority is becoming

redundant and native speakers are regularly omitting it. By six o’clock,

before you come back – express anteriority lexically or contextually and

this is quite enough to omit the redundant future perfect form. [39, 103-

109].

8. The Category of Aspect

The category of aspect in various languages is expressed differently:

grammatically, lexico-grammatically, lexically and prosodically. Aspect is

the way an action is viewed. In English, aspect is an extremely reliable and

grammatically impeccable way of expressing the opposition in question. In

Romanian the category of aspect is expressed mainly lexically and in

Russian lexico-grammatically, the purely lexical and phonological elements

are used as alternative means or as aspectual intensifiers. The Russian

perfective underlines the fact that the action is finished and the imperfective

expresses an action that is not finished and developing in time, the term

itself (imperfective) stresses the fact that the action is not finished. In

31

English the aspectual opposition has very much in common with the

Russian one. But there is no one to one correspondence.59

The same event

can be described by using either continuous or non-continuous forms. It

much depends on the speaker’s intention, whether he wants to describe the

action in development, extended or just to express an action as very short or

habitual, without paying attention to the aspectual marked categorial

meaning. Thus, for example, the sentences Yesterday at five o’clock I met

my friends/Yesterday at five o’clock I was meeting my friends. In the first

sentence the speaker just mentions the fact of meeting his friends, in the

second sentence this fact is intensified by underlying the fact that the action

developed during a certain period of time. The verbs possessing a durative

lexical meaning (interminative) can express continuous aspect both

lexically and lexico-grammatically, the latter being emphatic or intensified

aspectually. Thus, He sat at the table / He was sitting at the table; He

looked out of the window. A man stood at the door / I looked out of the

window. A man was standing at the door are confronted with imperfect

forms both in Russian and Romanian: Он сидел за столом; El şedea la

masă; Человек стоял у двери; Un bărbat stătea la uşă (Am văzut un

bărbat stând la uşă). In the case of He sat at the table and A man stood at

the door the lexical aspectual meaning of “sat” and “stood” is durative, and

it is intensified by superimposing a grammatical aspectual meaning on the

lexical one in was sitting and was standing. The Romanian and Russian

equivalents belong to the imperfective aspect and express an unfinished and

extended action, the grammatical duration here is supplemented by the

lexical one. Even terminative or point-action verbs can be used in the

continuous aspect if the action is repeated or the speaker wants to show the

action in development, or to stress the fact that the action lasted during a

certain period of time. For example: The boy jumped over the fence / The

boy was jumping round the tree. I began to read, but the teacher

interrupted me / I was beginning to read when he came in. In Romanian we

have practically the same situation: Băiatul a sărit peste gard / Băiatul

sărea în jurul copacului; Eu am început să citesc, dar profesorul m-a

întrerupt / Eu începeam să citesc, când el a intrat. There are various points

of view concerning the category of aspect in English. One of them is that

aspect in English is formed by means of the opposition of perfect and

continuous forms, which is similar to the perfective and imperfective aspect

in the Slavic languages. In this case the sentence I had been working at my

article for three hours before he came back would express both forms:

perfect and continuous (had been working). According to the rules of

32

categorization a grammatical form of the verb can not express both forms

of the categorial opposition simultaneously. This confusion may be

connected with the fact that the term “perfect” or “perfective” is practically

ambivalent and may be used to express either a finished action or

anteriority. For example: I wrote a letter yesterday and I had written a

letter yesterday by five o’clock. In both sentences the action is perfect(ive)

in the sense that they are finished, but had written expresses a different

perfect meaning, that of anteriority. In Romanian there are no clear-cut

grammatical flexions (with the exception of imperfectul) to indicate the

given categorial meaning. In fact, there existed, and still partially exists, a

system of forms similar to the English continuous ones (and can be found

in some other Romance languages), which consist of the auxiliary verb a fi

(to be) and gerunziul (coinciding in meaning with the English present

participle). Now these forms are rarely used in the indicative mood and are

not very often confronted with the English continuous aspectual forms.

Here are some examples: 1) Indicative mood (found in old texts): will be

writing - va fi scriind, will have been writing - va fi fost scriind, is writing-

este scriind, was writing - era scriind, has been writing - a fost scriind, etc.

The oblique moods: (are still being used and in most grammar books are

given as one mood under the name of prezumptivul or potenţialul):

conditional: he would be writing - El ar fi scriind; subjunctive II

(optativul): If he were writing – dacă el ar fi scriind; conditional and

subjunctive II anterior forms: El ar fi fost scriind - (if) he had been writing,

he would have been writing; conjunctivul (corresponding to the English

subjunctive1, subjunctive II; used in constructions where the infinitive

used: with suppositional, modal verbs, etc.): să fi scriind, să fi fost scriind -

to be writing, to have been writing; had been writing, etc. Potential mood:

va fi scriind - might be writing, etc. The aspectual meaning of the above

given forms is combined with a metasemiotic one. Here are some examples

taken from A History of Romanian Grammar, published by V.Marin

(Chişinău, 1970), quoting sources from XVII-XIX centuries: Şi cînd va fi

avînd vre-o treabă... (When he will be having something to do...), Tocmai

cînd părerea de rău îl ajunsese... erau trecând printr-o pădure mare şi

deasă (Just when he felt sorry for it, they were passing through a large

thick forest); Era ca oile rătăcindu (Was wandering like sheep); Şi că era

mergîndu şi apropiindu-mă către Damascu, întru ameadză... (And I was

walking and approaching Damascus at noon...); Şi din zi în zi mulţi s-au

fost adăugînd (And every day many have been adding...); A fost plătind şi

el cînd a fost de faţă; (He had been paying when the had been present). In

33

Modern Romanian such indicative forms are used very rarely. Thus, here is

an example heard on the radio: El s-a accidentat şi acum este suferind (,,,he

is suffering now). In the oblique moods these grammatical forms are still

used, especially in the colloquial speech. All the constructions of participle

I in English usually have identical equivalents in Romanian. These

constructions in English and Romanian are used both aspectually and

metasemiotically. This could be seen in the following examples: I saw

Andrew (him) crossing the street - Eu l-am văzut pe Andrei trecând strada;

He heard someone coming along the path - El a auzit pe cineva venind

dealungul cărării; He said looking around - El a spus uitându-se înjur, He

came running - El venea fugind; Walking in the park he met Helen –

Plimbându-se prin parc, el a întâlnit-o pe Elena; He walked singing - El

mergea cântând. The constructions, regularly used and confronted in both

languages, are: Accusative with participle I in English and Accusative with

gerunziul in Romanian. Thus, for example: Young Francis was seeing the

darkies working in the cotton fields - Tânărul Francis îi vedea pe negri

muncind pe plantaţiile de bumbac (J.Galsworthy); Dupin was moving

quickly to the door, when we again heard him coming up - Dupin se mişca

repede spre uşa, când peste o clipă îl auzirăm pe necunoscut urcând din

nou (E.Po). The next construction is Nominative with Participle I and

Nominative with gerunziul: He was seen running to the river - El a fost

văzut fugind spre râu. Nominative absolute: The dinner being ready, he

dished and served it up – Prânzul fiind gata, el a servit masa. The house

door being open, she went in before Tom, requesting him to follow her

(M.Twain) - Uşa casei fiind deschisă, ea a intrat înaintea lui Tom,

cerându-i s-o urmeze. Absolute Participle construction and Absolute

gerunziul construction: A lake with children swimming in it, appeared and

disappeared - Un lac, cu copii scăldându-se în el, apăru şi dispăru.

Double predicate: The little maid came running down - Fetiţa venea fugind

în jos. He walked singing - El mergea cântând. He looked smiling - El se

uita zâmbind. Such sentences could be easily be transformed: He walked

singing = He walked; He was singing - El mergea cântând = El mergea şi

cânta; El cânta (El era cântând). Thus, in the case of the English Participle

I and the Romanian gerunziul we have practically a difference of terms and

there is a complete coincidence in their grammatical meanings. An

aspectual form, which is common to Romance languages, is the imperfect.

Imperfectul in Romanian is regularly confronted with the English

continuous aspect: They were waiting for the judge and Mariette was

thinking of all the money Don Cesare had spent (Ei aşteptau judecătorul,

34

Mariet se gândea la toţi banii, pe care Don Cezare îi cheltuise). More than

that, imperfectul possesses a wider meaning than the continuous form. It

has already been mentioned, that the latter has become so specifically

continuous, and is very often used to express a metasemiotic connotation.

Simple past in English is often used to express not only point actions, but

also extended ones. In such cases imperfectly is also used as an equivalent

of past indefinite in English: He represented for her the reality of things (El

reprezenta pentru ea ralitatea vietii); Plainer people were in the ascendant

(Oamenii mai simpli erau în ascensiune). Thus, it is important to notice that

some words in English lexically express an extended action (durative or

interminative verbs) and in neutral situations they substitute the

grammatical continuous aspect. We have already mentioned that in some

grammar books one may find the statement that putandi and sentiendi verbs

are not and should not be used in the continuous aspect. A closer inspection

of this phenomenon shows that practically all the verbs in English,

including the putandi and sentiendi ones can be used in the continuous

aspect. Verbs like “believe, see”, etc. express aspect lexically and they are

rarely used in the grammatical continuous form, usually when there is a

necessity to intensify the aspectual meaning, to make it more emphatic,

more expressive: But I am seeing you, you are there behind the tree! Am I

really hearing what you are saying? Here follows a list of verbs, which

possess lexical aspectuality and are rarely used in the continuous form in

neutral situations: see, feel, taste, observe, agree, disagree, believe,

disbelieve, differ, doubt, find, foresee, forget, imagine, hear, know, mean,

notice, recall, recognize, recollect, remember, suppose, think, trust,

distrust, understand, smell, detest, forgive, hate, like, dislike, love, mind,

please, displease, prefer, want, wish, desire, hear, sound, look, appear,

consider, expect, hope, loathe, refuse, regret, be, belong to, contain, consist

of, cost, depend on, deserve, have, hold, matter, own, resemble, etc. Let’s

give some examples taken from English authentic literature: God was

witness to all their calamities. He was seeing them robbed. He was seeing

them famish hour by hour. He was seeing them die. I am seeing a brown

colour. You are seeing this place for the last time. I am hearing it better

now. Am I really hearing a voice at last! The dog was smelling the lamp

post. She was smelling the fish to find out whether it was fit to eat. She was

tasting the sauce to find out whether it was salt or sugar she had put into it.

She was feeling the sun extremely. She was nothing like me, so she must be

a stranger whom I was observing, though in a most bewildering way, etc.

The same could be said about the habitual and repeated actions, usually

35

accompanied by words possessing a certain durative lexical and aspectual

meaning: always, often, constantly, permanently, occasionally, seldom,

usually, etc. It has been observed that English people regularly use the

grammatical continuous aspect in their speech, to make it more expressive:

He is always doing things like this. They were always worrying. She was all

the time smelling at him. He was always promising to come. They were

occasionally visiting them.

Thus, the choice of the continuous aspect depends only on the action

being viewed as a process. This is the universal grammatical meaning of

the continuous aspect and this is the only criterion that matters when this or

that aspectual form is being chosen. In case of emphasis, when there is a

necessity to increase the categorial aspectual meaning English people can

ignore the above mentioned rule: Father, you don't see me. -Oh, I see you. -

No, you don’t. -But I am seeing you! You are behind that bush! (seeing is

used emphatically here). Let’s take another example. He is always doing

things like that (emphatic usage). It is important to mention the fact that in

the confronted languages, and first of all in English, there is a process of

metasemiotic transposition of continuous (progressive, durative, imperfect)

aspect into a metasemiotic category. These forms are often used not only to

express aspect, but also for stylistic purposes. The emphatic use of seeing

and always is accompanied by emphatic prosodic means: wide range, high

fall, slow tempo, etc. In Romanian (and in Russian in the present tense) the

lexical means of expressing aspectual meanings, as we mentioned above,

prevail over the grammatical ones, i.e. the lexical aspectual category is

much more prominent than the grammatical one. Thus, the English

sentences The farmer works in his field, The farmer is working in his field

now are confronted in Romanian and Russian with identical grammatical

forms of the verbs (simple present) in both cases: Fermierul lucrează pe

câmp. Fermierul lucrează pe câmp acum; “Фермер работает на поле,

Фермер работает на поле сейчас. Now in English intensifies the

grammatical aspectual meaning, while in Romanian and Russian acum,

сейчас are the only aspectual (lexical) means and they can be intensified

only contextually and prosodically. We have already mentioned above the

observation concerning the translation of the English continuous passive

forms into Romanian and Russian. Regular confrontation of examples

allows us to conclude that English continuous forms are regularly translated

by means of verbs with the particle “se” in Romanian and flexion “-ся” in

Russian. In both languages it is usually used to express lexical-grammatical

reflexivity. But in this case they are used purely grammatically to express a

36

different meaning, that of a durative action in the passive voice: The house

is being built now, The house was being built when we arrived there, The

house will be built this time next year – Casa se construieşte acum (Casa

este construită acum), Casa se construia (era construită) cînd am sosit

acolo, Casa se va construi (va fi construită) pe timpul acesta anul viitor -

Дом строится сейчас. Дом строился, когда мы приезжали туда, Дом

будет строится в это время в следующем году. The reflexive particle

and flexion here get completely homonymous meanings of passive voice of

imperfective (durative) actions. In English there is no continuous aspect in

the passive voice in the future, because both categorial forms are used with

the verb “to be” and it is not acceptable in the literary English to say: The

house will be being built. Both in Romanian and Russian continuity is

expressed: se va construi, будет строится. Va fi construită usually

represents a perfective action. The same opposition of finished (perfective)

and imperfective in the passive voice past indefinite is found in both

Romanian and Russian: Casa se construia – Casa era construită – Casa a

fost construită (Casa era construită may have the meaning of imperfectul

pasiv and pluscvamperfectul activ). The Russian: Дом строился - Дом

был построен represent the above- mentioned aspectual opposition. The

category of negation usually influences the realization of a categorial form.

Thus, the continuous aspect used in the negative forms may be considered

as a failure to realize the marked aspectual meaning. Let’s take some

examples: I am working in the garden/I am not working in the garden; I am

reading a book/I am not reading a book. The positive forms indicate that

the actions (I am working; I am reading) are being carried out at the

moment. The negative forms, on the other hand, stress the fact that the

given actions are not being carried out. In fact the continuous aspect is

realized in both cases. In the negative forms we stress the fact, that we are

not working in the garden or reading a book, but we are doing something

else. For example: I am not working in the garden, I am walking in the

garden, I am not reading a book, I am writing a letter. In both cases there

is an aspectual meaning of actions developing in time at the given moment.

Analyzing the categories of aspect in the confronted languages we can

conclude that the English language possesses a clear-cut grammatical

aspectual system, prevailing over the lexical and prosodic aspectual means

used as a rule to intensify the general aspectual meaning. In Romanian the

grammatical aspect is subservient, the lexical and prosodic aspectual

categorial means being prominent. In the contrasted languages one could

observe the tendency of metasemiotic (stylistic) transposition. If we

37

compare a number of related languages with an unrelated one we find that

coincidences and differences vary in each case. Thus, in Romanian and

Arabic (and in Russian in the present tense) the lexical means of expressing

aspectual meanings, as we mentioned above, prevail over the grammatical

ones, i.e. the lexical aspectual category is much more prominent than the

grammatical one. Thus, the English sentences The farmer works in his

field, The farmer is working in his field now are confronted in Arabic,

Romanian and Russian with identical grammatical form of the verbs in

both cases: Yehmil el mudaraha fi hak lihi, El mudara yehmil fi hak lihi

elan; Fermierul lucrează pe câmp. Fermierul lucrează pe câmp acum.;

Фермер работает на поле, Фермер работает на поле сейчас. Now in

English intensifies the grammatical aspectual meaning, while in Arabic,

Romanian and Russian the lexical means elan, acum, сейчас are the only

aspectual means and they may be intensified only contextually and

prosodically. In Arabic the imperfect is wider in meaning than in

Romanian. The non-finite forms are denoting an imperfective action taken

at any time: Ayu kameisin la yaslahu lehrianny. The present-future tense

expresses an action that may simultaneously represent the present and the

future planes: Ini nazer ilamata faalahu - I am watching what you are

going to do (what you are doing). The present and the future planes are

distinguished contextually or phonetically. Thus the above given example

may have two meanings depending on the context: two simultaneous

actions in the present and a correlation of a continuous action in the present

and future. The imperfect denotes an incomplete or durative action in the

past, developing in time simultaneously with other actions in the past: Inni

naziron illamata faalabu. Seala an hum wa einie yeshtamauun (He asked

them where they were going to congregate). The interminative verbs,

compared with those terminative, express an unfinished or imperfect action

and they are used in Arabic with other verbs like, for instance, the verbs of

existence and formation: kana (to be), sara (to get, to grow), asmaha,

amsa, atha, zala... (to become, to get)...: asbaha yafalu (he started doing);

amsa maridon (he became sick). The verb kan in the imperfect form with

the particle ma (durative) express a meaning of durative or continuous

action: Ma minti haye (In the meantime as he is still living); Madama

yakumu or ma dama kaye man (In the meantime as he was still standing).

The combination of the imperfect of the main verb with the preceding verb

kana creates the meaning of past continuous: Kana yukullu (He was often

speaking); Kana fi allahujuzu tahdemany (The old woman was serving

this). The imperfect expresses the future tense if the sentence a lexical

38

future marker or the particle sa: Lasafiru ghadan; Sa anfahu ileihi haza.

Futurity is more pronounced in the imperfect mood. The verb kana helps to

express a continuous action (imperfect) in the past: Lamma jeihtu ileihi

kana yaktubu alrisaluta (When I came to him, he was writing a letter). In

this case the continuous action is simultaneous with the action in the

secondary clause. Without the verb kana the same sentence may express a

simple sequence of actions: Lama jeihtu e lechi katabu alrisulata (When I

came to him/after I had come to him he wrote a letter.).

Analyzing the categories of aspect in the confronted languages we

can conclude that the English language possesses a clear-cut grammatical

aspectual system, prevailing over the lexical aspectual means used as a rule

to intensify the general aspectual meaning. Besides the continuous – non-

continuous aspectual opposition in English we can also single out a

grammatical aspectual opposition of finished – unfinished (perfective-

imperfective). The former is predominant and the latter is subsidiary and is

not usually singled out in grammar books. In Romanian and Arabic the

grammatical aspect is subservient, the lexical aspectual category being

prominent. In all the contrasted languages one could observe the tendency

of metasemiotic (stylistic) transposition of aspectual forms.

Thus, in

English the grammatical means prevail, supported by the lexical and

phonological ones, In Russian the category of aspect is expressed mainly

lexico-grammatically, the purely lexical and phonological elements are

used as alternative means or as aspectual intensifiers. Let us take the

categories of aspect in English and Russian expressed correspondingly by

the oppositions of Continuous - non-Continuous and Perfective-

Imperfective. The Russian perfective underlines the fact that the action is

finished and the Imperfective expresses an action that is not finished and

developing in time, the term itself (imperfective) stresses the fact that the

action is not finished. Though the English aspectual opposition is

practically identical with the Russian one, there is no one to one

correspondence. Thus, for example, the sentences He sat at the table and

He was sitting at the table are confronted with only one equivalent in

Russian Он сидел за столом. In the case of He sat at the table the action

itself is prominent, while in He was sitting at the table - the process, the

fact that the action is extended, developing in time is most important. Their

Russian equivalent belongs to the Imperfective aspect and expresses an

unfinished and extended action. Discrepancies of this case are observed in

the verbs, possessing an interminative meaning. The verb forms in the

sentences He sat at the table and He was sitting at the table in English

39

belong to imperfective forms. There is a certain difference between the two

forms. They are both, durative or progressive in meaning, but sat expresses

lexical duration, while in the was sitting the given lexical duration is

intensified by the grammatical one. But from the point of view of

grammatical aspect the two verb forms in He sat at the table and He was

sitting at the table represent an aspectual opposition of continuous – non-

continuous aspect. There have been attempts in English to create an

aspectual system like in the Slavonic languages. An opposition like Perfect

- Continuous aspect was put forward by some linguists. Terms like

“imperfective, imperfect” could be found in grammar books. Now when we

turn to Arabic we can see practically the same problems: of systemic

approach and terminology. Thus, it is considered that the imperfect (also

called non-finite) forms are opposed to the finite forms and denote an action

as not completed. From the point of view of taxis these forms do not differ

here. The aspectual meaning of the imperfect is considered as if divorced

from the temporal meaning, the action can take place at any time, the given

action or state is not referred to any specific moment, because it is extended

[39, 110-122].

9. Aspectual Categorization in Cognate Languages

Analyzing various aspectual examples we can conclude that in

different languages there exist various aspectual forms: continuous, non-

continuous, perfect(ive) and imperfect(ive). In English the continuous

forms dominate over other aspectual means (lexical, lexical-grammatical).

There is a metalinguistic confusion in case of the terms perfect/perfective,

which are treated from different points of view by linguists. The original

meaning of the term perfect was “finished action” and was in opposition to

imperfect (unfinished). Gradually it acquired the meaning of anteriority.

This metalinguistic ambiguity contributed to the appearance in the English

text-books of several aspectual categorial oppositions: continuous/non-

continuous, perfect/continuous, perfect/imperfect(ive). In the third case

“imperfective” embraces both the continuous and non-continuous

grammatical and lexical durative forms. In English the grammatical

category of continuous/non-continuous aspect prevails. All the verbal forms

can be subdivided into two large groups of perfective and imperfect(ive)

forms, which imply both lexical and grammatical meanings. The perfect

/continuous opposition is not acceptable because perfect forms can express

40

a durative action: I have lived here for many years (and I am not intending

to move to any place). This example is in aspectual opposition of

perfect(ive)/imperfective to I have lived here for many years (and now I

move to a new place). At the same time both examples are part of the

unmarked member of the continuous/non-continuous aspectual opposition.

The lexical durative meaning of the verb “to live” contributes to the

intensification of the general aspectual meaning, especially if it is used in

the continuous form, where its expressivity is strongly enhanced: I have

been living here for many years. A finished action can be expressed both by

perfect and non-perfect forms: I have written a letter and I wrote a letter to

him. Both actions are finished or perfective. Imperfective actions can also

be expressed by both continuous and indefinite non-perfect forms:

Yesterday I worked in the garden. Yesterday I was working in the garden

when Peter came to visit us. Worked and was working express durative

actions, but the latter form also means an action developing at a given

moment parallel to another action (when Peter came to visit us).

The perfective-imperfective opposition prevails in many European

languages. It may be expressed lexico-grammatically like in the Slavonic

languages, while in some other languages the imperfect forms express a

durative unfinished meaning grammatically, combined in durative verbs

with the corresponding lexical aspectual meaning. Imperfective aspect has

a wider meaning than the continuous aspect, which expresses an action in

development parallel to another action or moment. In the English language

the imperfective actions can be rendered both by non-continuous and

continuous forms. In the former ones the lexical duration of the given word

permits to express an unfinished or progressive action. Lexical durative

elements may be found in both members of the opposition. The same event

can be described by using either continuous or non-continuous forms. It

much depends on the speaker’s intention, whether he wants to describe the

action in development, extended or just to express an action as very short or

habitual, without paying attention to the aspectually marked categorial

meaning. Let’s take the examples: Yesterday at five o’clock I met my

friends. Yesterday at five o’clock I was meeting my friends. In the first

sentence the speaker just mentions the fact of meeting his friends, the

duration of the action is not so important here. In the second variant the

action is viewed as developing in time and is more expressive. A number of

lexemes, expressing durative actions lexically, are not used in the

continuous forms in habitual situations: see, feel, taste, observe, agree,

disagree, believe, hear, know, mean, notice, think, etc. In emphatic

41

expressive speech all the putandi and sentiendi verbs can be used in the

continuous form: God was witnessing to all their calamities. He was seeing

them robbed. He was seeing them die. I am seeing a brown colour. I am

hearing it better now. The dog was smelling the lamp post. Another

example: He looked out of the window. A man stood at the door/ I looked

out of the window. A man was standing at the door. Lexical duration

interacts with the grammatical continuous meaning. The general aspectual

meaning increases and the utterance becomes more expressive.

Inchoative, terminative and point-action verbs can also be used in the

continuous form if the actions are repeated or seen by the speaker as

developing in time: The boy jumped over the fence/The boy was jumping

round the tree. I began to read, but the teacher interrupted me / I was

beginning to read when he came in. In case of durative adverbs like always,

constantly, permanently, occasionally, seldom, usually, etc. in emphatic

emotional speech the continuous forms combined with emphatic prosody

are used: He is always doing things like this. They were always worrying.

He was always helping me. Prosodic means are used for metasemiotic

transposition: He is \always doing things like this”. Here the lexical and

grammatical durative means are enhanced by a high fall, lento tempo, wide

range, increased loudness and paralinguistic means [39, 110-115].

Continuous forms were actively used in the indicative mood in earlier

Romanian. Here are some examples taken from the History of Moldovan

Grammar, published by prof. V.Marin (Chişinău, 1970), quoting sources of

XVII-XIX centuries [24]: Era ca oile rătăcindu, Au fost avându prieteşug

mare cu Pătru Vodă [24, 36, 123]. Ştefan Vodă… au fost şezând odată în

divan cu toiagul în gură. Cât au fost învăţând mai de multă vreame… [24,

37]. Fostau prins doi nemţi turcii şi i-au fost ţiind aproape de cortul

vizirului legaţi [24, 39]. Dece o seamă de boieri s-au fost apucându să facă

zapis [24, 53]. Tocmai când părerea de rău îl ajunsese... erau trecând printr-

o pădure mare şi deasă; Au fost dormind la bisearica lui svetin Benedict

[24, 83]. Şi era mergându şi apropiindu-mă către Damascu, întru ameadză...

[24, 90] …martorului tău însumi era stăndu… [24,91] … Am audzit pre

mulţi mărturisind să hie fost covârşind pre Vasilie Vodă [24, 132]. Şi din zi

în zi mulţi s-au fost adăugând… şi-au mai fost viind şi un general al lui…

[24,139]. A fost plătind şi el când a fost de faţă. Şi arcul l-au fost trăgând cu

vârtej [24, 155].

Analyzing these examples we have no hesitation in stating the fact

that the constructions of the auxiliary verb a fi + gerunziul express the

grammatical continuous aspect like in English, Spanish, Portuguese and

42

Italian. The durative action here produces a stronger effect on the reader or

listener than the imperfect. In Modern Romanian extended forms are used

only in the oblique moods in colloquial speech: – Unde-i Petru? - O fi

lucrând în livadă. -Să fie el lucrând în livadă? De ar fi el lucrând în

livadă! [39, 112].

Constructions with participle I in English usually have identical

equivalents in Romanian and other Romance languages and express

continuous actions. 1.Accusative with Participle I: Young Francis was

seeing the darkies working in the cotton fields - Tânărul Francis îi vedea

pe negri muncind pe plantaţiile de bumbac (J.Galsworthy); 2.Nominative

with Participle I and Nominative with gerunziul: He was seen running to

the river - El a fost văzut fugind spre râu. 3.Nominative absolute: The

house door being open, she went in before Tom, requesting him to follow

her (M.Twain) - Uşa casei fiind deschisă, ea a intrat înaintea lui Tom,

cerându-i s-o urmeze. 4.Absolute Participle construction: A lake with

children swimming in it, appeared and disappeared - Un lac, cu copii

scăldându-se în el, apăru şi dispăru. Walking in the park he met Helen.

5.Double predicate: He walked singing - El mergea cântând. In this case

we have two actions as if blended together in a shorter unit: (El mergea. El

cânta). All these constructions express a clear cut grammatical continuous

aspect combined with the lexical durative meaning of the verbs [39, 112-

113].

The continuous forms in Romanian, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese

are subservient to the lexical and lexical-grammatical aspectual means and

are usually used in emotional speech for expressivity and emphasis in an

action developing in time, intensified by the interaction with lexical means

and prosody. Thus, in the Spanish expressive discourse the continuous forms

are often preferred: Estoy hablando . Juan está comiendo. María está

escribiendo una carta. Los pasajeros estarán llegando a su destino. Ayer

estuve repasando la gramática. Las gotas de agua estaban cayendo

pausadamente. Hemos estado nadando tres horas. Mañana estaré

trabajando todo el día en la biblioteca [54]. Identical constructions

exist in Italian: Marcovaldo stava portando a spasso la famiglia.

Pietro sta leggendo un libro [20]. The continuous forms are usually

accompanied by lexical supporters like “todo el dia the whole day

through, toată ziua” and interacting with the lexical durative meanings of

the verbs. In Romanian these examples are usually rendered by means of

imperfectul, constructions with gerunziu or contextual and lexical durative

means. The Portuguese construction estar + gerundio is also the

43

equivalent of the English continuous form: Eu estou estudando na

Universidade. Ele estava lendo quando ela me chamou. Amanha

estaremos preparando toda a documentacao [68]. In Spanish, Italian and

Portuguese there exist several constructions with gerundio expressing aspectual

duration. Thus, the Portuguese construction ficar + gerundio expresses a

progressive action and is translated into English by means of

continuous aspect forms: Fico olhando para о retrato. The construction

andar a + infinitive: A Teresa anda falando da mudanca de casa [20].

What is important to mention is the fact that in Portugal the construction

estar + gerundio can be substituted by the construction estar a +infinitive

preserving the durative meaning: О Pedro esta a ler о novo livro. The

same happens with the construction ficar + gerundio, where gerundio

is substituted by the infinitive: Fico а estudar 3 horas. The

construction continuar (seguir, prosseguir) + gerundio express a

continuous action as well: Ele continua lendo o jornal. The

construction continuar a + infinitive practically expresses the same type

of continuous action: Ele continua a ler о jornal [68]. Exactly the

same we have in English: He continues reading the journal can be

easily changed into He continues to read. The construction with the

non-continuous infinitive has a weaker aspectual grammatical meaning,

the lexical durative meaning of “continue” taking over the categorial

function.

In Spanish like in Portuguese, besides estar, there exist durative

constructions with verbs like: ir, andar, venir, seguir, continuar, quedar(se),

permanecer with gerundio having a pronounced durative aspectual meaning: Los

conferenciantes iban discutiendo algunos problemas de los vuelos cósmicos. Las

muchachas continuan charlando. In all these examples the grammatical

continuous aspectual meaning is interacting with the lexical duration of the

verbs, intensifying the categorial meaning and making it more expressive.

The most often used is the construction with ir + gerundio, which expresses a

consecutive action in development: El bote iba hacienda agua... La humedad

у sol iban abriendo las maderas у derritiendo la brea. Ya voy

comprendiendo que mi vecino tenía razón, etc. [6]. The combination of seguir

+gerundio express continuous actions in present past and future:

Seguimos trabajando en la Universidad. Seguiremos tomando parte en los

debates [3]. In most examples the grammatical continuous meaning interact

with the lexical duration of the verbs and adverbs, intensifying the final

aspectual expressivity.

44

In Spanish, Italian and Portuguese there are some other verbs to form

durative combinations. Thus, the Spanish combinations of ir, andar, venir,

seguir, continuar, quedar(se), permanecer with gerundio have a pronounced

durative aspectual meaning: Los conferenciantes iban discutiendo (The

speakers were discussing) algunos problemas de los vuelos cósmicos. Las

muchachas continuan charlando (went on chattering). Un hombre extraño se

quedo registrándome (A stranger went on inspecting me) con la vista de

arriba abajo. Ellos, los chicos, habian ido creciendo у saliendo (the

children were growing and starting in life) a la vida. In all these examples

the grammatical continuous aspectual meaning can interact with the lexical

duration of the verbs, intensifying the categorial meaning and making it

more expressive [54, 53]. The most often used is the construction with ir +

gerundio, which expresses a consecutive action in development: El bote iba

hacienda agua... La humedad у sol iban abriendo las maderas у

derritiendo la brea. Ya voy comprendiendo que mi vecino tenía razón, etc.

[53]. Seguir+gerundio expresses continuous actions in present past and

future: Seguimos trabajando en la Universidad. We are still working at

the university. Seguiremos tomando parte en los debates. We shall be

taking part in the debates [54]. In most examples the grammatical

continuous meaning interact with the lexical duration of the verbs and

adverbs, intensifying the final aspectual expressivity. Many words lexically

express an extended action and in neutral situations they substitute the

grammatical continuous aspect.

In Portuguese we find identical durative constructions:

Ficar+gerundio expresses a progressive action and is translated into

English by means of continuous forms: Fico olhando para о retrato, I have

been looking at the picture for a long time [68]. Andar a + infinitivo: A

Teresa anda falando da mudanca de casa [68]. In Portugal the construction

estar + gerundio can be substituted by estar a +infinitive preserving a

certain aspectual durative meaning: О Pedro esta a ler о novo livro. The

same happens with the construction ficar + gerundio, where gerundio is

substituted by the infinitive: Fico а estudar 3 horas. Continuar (seguir,

prosseguir) + gerundio express a continuous action: Ele continua lendo o

jornal. The combination continuar a + infinitive practically expresses the

same type of continuous action: Ele continua a leer о jornal [68]. Exactly

the same we have in English: He continues reading the journal can be

easily changed into He continues to read, where the lexical aspectual

durative meaning will prevail. Similar forms are found in Italian as well:

Egli andava dicendo delle bugie. He was telling a lie [20].

45

Finite and non-finite continuous forms in Romanian, Spanish, Italian

and Portuguese are mostly used in emotional speech, for expressivity and

emphasis in actions developing in time, intensified by lexical and prosodic

means. In these languages they are usually considered as constructions with

some verbs. Analyzing Spanish conversational emotionally coloured

examples, taken from “The Lingaphone Institute. Curso Español” [74] we

find a multitude of finite continuous forms metasemiotially used: Ahora

estoy en la estación de Atocha. Estoy esperando (I am waiting). No me

gusta esperar. Mi hijo Ramón esta sacando los billetes en la taquilla (is

buying tickets at the booking-office). Hoy hace mal tiempo: hace frío y esta

lloviendo (is raining). In these examples a negative connotation is

expressed by the speaker, who is displeased to be waiting there for a long

time. All the durative forms clearly express actions in development parallel

to a moment or another action. -¿Qué estáis hacienda, Marisol? (What are

you doing?). - Un momento, abuelita. Estoy mirando estas revistas. (I am

looking at these magazines). Como es cameraman siempre esta viajando

(He is always driving). The adverb siempre lexically intensifies the

gramatical continuous meaning. The specific prosodic and paralinguistic

means should be analyzed in order to find out their contribution to the

metasemiotic intensification of aspectual duration. Vamos, abuelita. Todos

están esperando. (Everybody is waiting) ¿Qué estas haciendo? (What are

you doing?). ¿Os habéis bañado ya? -Si, hemos estado nadando tres horas

(We have been swimming for three hours). Acabo de romperé una muela y

ahora estoy sangrando (I am bleeding). Vuestro desinterés por mis desventuras

es increíble. -Mamá, estas exagerando. Abuelita, ¿perqué estas llorando?

(Why are you crying?) Ya debemos estar llegando. (We should be arriving

already). Vamos pronto, tío Felipe, Estoy deseando (I am wishing) ver un poco

de Barcelona. ¿Porque' estoy aprendiendo (Why am I learning) los verbos

reflexivos espanoles? Every example, depending on the extralinguistic context,

possesses a specific suprasyntactic prosodic structure. Some statements a

characterized by overstatement reinforced by means of tones and tempo, the

effect of non-formality and a pleasant emotional colouring or displeasure,

inquietude are created by the corresponding paralinguistic means: voice

quality, smile, laugh, merriment, cry, groaning, sighing, etc. The immediate

linguistic context is also very important: Acabo de romperé una muela y

ahora estoy sangrando. Vuestro desinterés por mis desventuras es increíble. -

Mamá, estas exagerando. Abuelita, ¿perqué estas llorando? Real or

deliberately exaggerated emotions like in the example above are expessed

by suprasyntactic and paralinguistic means the speaker uses emphatic

46

tones, increased loudness, slowed down tempo, crying, plaintive voice, in

order to get sympathy and warmth from her relatives. In Spanish like in

English the finite continuous forms are used in the present past and future

perfect and non-perfect forms:

Present: Juan esta comiendo (John is eating). Maria esta escribiendo

una carta (is writing). Los pasajeros estarán llegando (are arriving) a su

destino. Estoy escribiendo (I am writing) los ejercicios'. El tal escrito esta

siendo muy comentado (is being the most spoken on) en toda España.

Present perfect inclusive: Hoy esta nevando todo el día. Today it has

been snowing the whole day. Estoy mecanografiando (I am typewriting) un

artículo para el periodista nuevo.

Past continuous: El consejo de la familia estaba siendo tumultuoso (was

being tumultuous). Las gotas de agua estaban cayendo (were falling)

pausadamente. Cuando vino, yo estaba escribiendo una carta a mi

hermano. When he came I was writing a letter to my brother. ¿Cuantas

horas seguidas estuvimos durmiendo (were sleeping)? Ayer estuve

repasando la gramática de las últimas lecciones. Yesterday I was revising

the grammar of the last lessons.

Future continuous: Mañana estaré trabajando todo el día en la

biblioteca. Tomorrow I shall be working in the library the whole day

through [54].

Having analyzed examples with finite and non-finite durative forms

in some Romance languages we can state the fact that they are excellent

equivalents of what we consider in English as the marked member of the

prevailing grammatical category of continuous aspect. Comparing the

forms in the confronted we can come to the conclusion that they have a

common origin. In Middle English there were cases of continuous aspect

forms, consisting of the verb be(n) + participle I. In Chaucer's works only six

examples have been found. Here is one of them: singynge he was, or floytige,

al the day 'he was singing, or playing the flute, all day long'. In Old English

there were phrases consisting of the verb beon and participle I. There were

more than one possible original ending of the participle I, in -inge and -ende,

and they are close to the present participle forms in Romance languages. There

is a possibility that the Middle English continuous forms resulted from a

merger of the Old English -ende - phrases and Old English -inge phrases [39,

250].

One more point to be mentioned is that in some grammar books we

find the rule that putandi and sentiendi verbs should not be used in the

continuous aspect. In fact all the verbs in English, including the putandi and

47

sentiendi ones can be used in the continuous aspect. Verbs like “believe,

see”, etc. express the durative aspect lexically and they are used in the

grammatical continuous form only in case of emphatic use of the given

categorical meaning, which is more expressive: But I am seeing you, you

are there behind the tree! Am I really hearing what you are saying? God

was witness to all their calamities. He was seeing them robbed. He was

seeing them famish hour by hour. He was seeing them die. I am seeing a

brown colour. You are seeing this place for the last time. The same could

be said about the habitual and repeated actions, usually accompanied by

words possessing a certain durative lexical and aspectual meaning: always,

often, constantly, permanently, occasionally, seldom, usually, etc: He is

always doing things like this. They were always worrying. She was all the

time smelling at him. He was always promising to come. They were

occasionally visiting them [39, 110-115]. Inchoative, terminative and point-

action verbs can also be used in the continuous form if the actions are

repeated or seen by the speaker as developing in time: The boy jumped over

the fence/The boy was jumping round the tree. I began to read, but the

teacher interrupted me / I was beginning to read when he came in. In case

of durative adverbs like always, constantly, permanently, occasionally,

seldom, usually, etc. in emphatic emotional speech the continuous forms

combined with emphatic prosody are used: He is always doing things like

this. They were always worrying. He was always helping me. Prosodic

means are used in case of metasemiotic transposition: He is \always doing

things like this. Here the lexical and grammatical durative means are

enhanced by a high fall, lento tempo, wide range, increased loudness and

paralinguistic means [39, 110-115]. It has been observed that English

people regularly use the grammatical continuous aspect in their speech to

create expressive, emotional evaluative overtones. The same phenomenon

has been observed in case of durative of continuous forms in Italian,

Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian.

Lexical and grammatical duration in French and German is

expressed by imperfect forms, constructions with present participle,

gérondif and lexical means: He represented (imperfect meaning) for her the

reality of things. Ils représentaient pour elle la réalité de la vie. El

reprezenta pentru ea realitatea vieţii. His conscious was echoing Fleur’s

comment on Anna Bergfeld’s letter. Sa conscience répétait l’écho des

commentaires de Fleur à la lettre de Annie Bergfeld. Conştiinţa îi repeta

ecoul comentariilor lui Fleur la scrisoarea Anei Bergfeld. Galsworthy J.

The French imparfait is rendered regularly into English by continuous

48

forms and by past indefinite with lexical duration, though the former are

more expressive than the latter. Er kam lachend die Treppe herunter. He

came laughing down the staircase. El venea râzând înjos pe scară. Sie trat

lächelnd ins Zimmer. He entered the room laughing. Ich höre ihn kommen.

I hear him coming. II aud venind. Ich hörte ihn kommen. I heard him

coming. L-am auzit venind. Wir sahen den spielenden Kindern zu. We

looked at the children who were playing. Ne uitam la copiii care se jucau.

Das Kind kam weinend nach Haus. The child came home crying. Copilul a

venit plângând acasă. Er erreichte schwimmend das andere Ufer. He

reached the other bank swimming. A ajuns inotând la celălalt mal [52]. In

German, like in French, the absence of the continuous forms is

compensated by Imperfect and constructions with Partizip Präsens (Partizip

I), which normally express a durative aspectual meaning. The imperfect

forms may be also used stylistically in case suprasyntactic metasemiotic

means are used. Thus, the continuous/non-continuous binary opposition in

English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian (and partially in Romanian) are in a

process of transition from a pure grammatical aspectual category into a

stylistic one. In English this grammatical opposition is well represented in

all the functional styles of the language and is regularly used for stylistic

purposes in emotionally coloured expressive and emphatic speech.

10. Category of Anteriority or Taxis

10.1.The Category of Taxis and the Semantic Evolution

of the Term “Perfect”

Taxis as a historical linguistic category developed various means of

expressing anteriority in the Indo-European languages. In English,

beginning with the Old Period, the grammatical categorical forms started to

develop to support the already existing lexical and contextual means. At

present the English category of taxis is one of the basic grammatical

morphological categories which comprise the whole system of the finite

and non-finite verb forms. Thus, the opposition of anteriority - simultaneity

can be expressed in English in a purely grammatically. At the same time, it

can be also expressed lexically, by contextual markers, like adverbial

modifiers, etc. We should carefully keep apart the conceptual category of

anteriority and the grammatical one as constituted by the oppositions of the

relevant categorial forms. Thus, the function of anteriority is universal in

the sense that in all languages we are supposed to be able to express the

49

anteriority of an action to another action or moment on the axis of time.

The fact that the category of taxis is interconnected with other grammatical

categories (aspect, voice, mood, etc.) and expressed by certain grammatical

forms results in different interpretations and various metalinguistic term

systems (as aspect, tense, etc.). In the previous publications we have

analyzed mainly the finite perfect and partially the non-finite ones. In the

present article we make an attempt to speak on taxis and the evolution of

the term “perfect”. The simplification of the system of perfect forms is

compensated by lexical and contextual means getting a more important

function in expressing anteriority within the universal category of taxis.

Different meanings can be expressed by one and the same form in different

contexts or by changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic

relationship studies linguistic categories which are state of permanent

change. Change is the main category of natural human languages, for they

are historical categories, they develop or die out. By so doing, they follow

the fate of the speaking community, which has created them as the principal

means of communication [39, 122-143].

Anteriority or taxis is grammatically expressed by perfect forms,

which are variously interpreted as expressing anteriority, a complete action,

result, tense categorical meaning, time correlation. But more and more

linguists (E.Benveniste, A.Smirnitsky, R.Allen, H.Palmer, O.Akhmanova)

consider anteriority to be the main categorial meaning of finite and non-

finite perfect grammatical forms [39, 122-143]. Anteriority in the purest

way is expressed by lexical means and by finite forms of the verb. The

anteriority expressed by the marked grammatical forms has much in

common in many European languages, as their systems go back to the same

source. The grammatical taxis forms appeared in the old times, developed

into a system, and then at present they are in a process of weakening their

position and ceding it to lexical and contextual means, which up till now

played a secondary part in the conceptual category of anteriority. That does

not mean that the category of anteriority is not present in languages where

most grammatical forms of anteriority have practically disappeared or they

do not exist at all. In such cases, the grammatical forms lose their weight

and are substituted by much simpler forms of the verbs, anteriority being

expressed by non-grammatical means. Any linguistic category should never

be studied in isolation only as facts of a single language. A diachronic

investigation should be undertaken, in order to find out everything

concerning the evolution of the perfect forms, the tendency in their

historical development. If we confront related languages, we expect fewer

50

differences and more coinci-dences in the result of confrontation of various

categorial forms [39, 122-143]. Having analyzed the category of anteriority

in English and Romanian, we can state that it can be expressed

grammatically and lexically, contextually, and it may be prosodically

intensified. In the majority of cases taxis is expressed by at least two of the

existing categorial means (lexical and grammatical means occur more

frequently). Lexical means are now in the process of gaining more ground

than the grammatical ones. In case of the category of taxis (simultaneity-

anteriority, correlation, anteriority, perfectivity, time relationship, perfect

aspect, etc.) we observe a process of transition from pure grammatical

categories in both languages to lexical and grammatical ones, and, finally,

to pure lexical means. In the English and Romanian languages, lexical,

contextual and grammatical means, or the combination of grammatical and

lexical means are used to express anteriority. At present the category of

taxis is studied in different functional styles. It has been observed that the

non-finite perfect forms are practically not used in journalese, either in

British or American newspapers. As far as finite perfect forms are

concerned, preference is given to present perfect, because this is the form

that is best suited to establishing a correlation between past and present, on

the one hand, and the connection between the performer and the undergoer

of the speech event, on the other.

There is a metalinguistic confusion in case of the terms perfect and

perfective, which are treated differently by various linguists and this leads

to confusion in the process of categorization. The original meaning of the

Latin term perfect was a finished action and formed an aspectual

opposition with imperfect forms (unfinished actions). This aspectual

category still exists in most European languages and is expressed

grammatically, lexico-grammatically and lexically. In the English language

it is expressed lexically and lexico-grammatically. Gradually the

metalinguistic unit perfect acquired an additional homonymous meaning of

anteriority. That is why now it would be more convenient to use the term

perfective in the meaning of finished action and the term perfect to express

the meaning of anteriority. A perfect form English, depending on the

context, may express either a finished or an unfinished action and, thus, it

may be realized in both members of the aspectual opposition of

perfective/imperfective (or finished/unfinished).

The approach to categorization may be untenable in the sense that

the researcher fails to keep clearly apart the object of analysis (the facts of

the language in question) and the metalanguage - the words and

51

expressions used when people talk about the object language. But even if

this is not the case, we very often find a large number of different

metalinguistic expressions and we have a peculiar situation: we must

compare those different systems and try to understand why the different

metalinguistic units were introduced. Very often there is a discrepancy not

only in the terms used to denote certain more specific or particular

categories, but also in the naming or description of the most general

concepts themselves [39, 104-114]. The inclusive perfect forms usually

express an imperfective (unfinished) anterior action, which includes the

present moment and continues in the future: I have lived here for many

years and I am not intending to move to any other place. This example

would be in aspectual opposition of perfective/imperfective to I have lived

here for many years and now I move to a new place (finished anterior

action). At the same time both examples could be part of the marked

member of the opposition of Continuous/non-continuous aspect (found in

English and some Romance languages). Here we should take into

consideration the lexical durative aspectual lexical meaning of the verb 'to

live", which will contribute to the intensification of the general aspectual

durative meaning combined with the continuous form, where its

expressivity is considerably enhanced: I have been living here for many

years. In the examples like "He had been reading his book for two hours

before I came back" we observe that the prevailing aspectual meaning is

that of a continuous action (unfinished action) in development during a

certain period of time before another action in the past (past anteriority).

The secondary aspectual lexical/contextual meaning may be a

finished or unfinished action depending on the given context. The term

“perfect" here is not used in the meaning of "finished" (perfective or

perfect), here it expresses grammatical anteriority supported and intensified

by the lexical anteriority marker "before". A finished action can be

expressed both by perfect and non-perfect forms: "I have written a letter",

“I had written the letter before he returned to the office”, “I will have

written the letter before they return to the office” and "Yesterday I wrote a

letter to my friend". In all these cases we have the same result. On the

other hand, as we have seen from the examples given above, all the perfect

forms in English, like in other languages, can easily be divided into several

groups, expressing the grammatical, lexical and lexical-grammatical

oppositions of continuous/non-continuous, perfective/imperfective or

finished/unfinished, expressing various lexical aspectual meanings

(durative, inceptive, terminative, point action, etc.). That means that there

52

are many possibilities to express various aspectual meanings even in the

English language.

One of the most important elements of all the perfect grammatical

forms of the verbs in English is past participle or participle II (Romanian -

participiul trecut), expressing anteriority in the purest way. It may be used

separately and can synthetically express anteriority and voice, serve to form

a number of perfect and passive voice analytical forms. Thus, we can form

oppositions of participle I and participle II forms like in the following

examples: reading – read, citind – citit; writing — written, scriind - scris;

seeing – seen, văzând ‚ văzut; creating - created, creând – creat - we

observe three distinct categorical oppositions, that of simultaneity vs.

anteriority (category of taxis), active vs. passive (category of voice) and

continuous vs. non-continuous (category of aspect). Not all the participles

possess all the three categorial forms. Thus, the intransitive verbs do not

possess the passive meaning: going – gone, plecând – plecat. Thus, the

category of transitivity-intransitivity should also be taken into consideration

in the analysis of participles. Some intransitive verbs gradually acquire

submeanings, which are transitive in character: Running a factory is not

easy. The factory is run well. Не was laughed at – El a fost luat în râs. Past

participles can be used independently. They are usually found in analytical

combinations of perfect and passive voice forms. The intransitive verbs are

used in perfect forms, but are not found in passive analytical structures,

with the exception of the verbs go and come found in some word

combinations: he is come, he is gone.

The verbs can also be classified according to their lexical meanings:

terminative, inceptive, iterative, durative, etc. The expression of both

anteriority and passive voice is usually found in terminative verbs, while in

the durative ones only the passive meaning is clearly seen. Thus,

A.Smirnitsky thinks that “loved” as a past participle loses its

“perfectivity”, which is clearly seen in participles like “broken”. But

sometimes this division is not clear-cut. Thus, in case of repeated actions of

terminative verbs “perfectivity” may weaken or get lost and a durative

meaning is taking over. The categorial function of a given past participle

depends on the contextual meaning and on its semantic feature. There is a

multitude of combinations of the verb “to be” with the past participle.

There are cases of homonymy in this case. Combinations of the verb “to be

+ past participle” like in “The letter is written by Peter. Soon he will finish

writing it”, or “The door is closed by Peter” (as a process) should be

distinguished from “The door is closed” as a state, where “is closed” is not

53

a passive construction, but just defines the state of the door, that it is not

open, there is no meaning of perfectivity in the latter case [70, 268-278]. It

is known that the perfect non-finite forms of the verb express anteriority in

a much more pure way in comparison with the finite forms. The past

participle expresses anteriority in the purest way. Let’s take some examples

of participle II used in the function of an attribute: The house built a

hundred years ago is still in a very good state. Casa construită o sută de

ani în urmă s-a păstrat în condiţii foarte bune. Unfortunately it is not

possible to present in this book all the information obtained. Din păcate nu

este posibil de a prezentaîn cartea aceasta toată informaţia obţinută. In

both languages a complete coincidence has been attested of past participles

in attributive functions. But in many cases this coincidence is not always

possible because of some structural and semantic differences, and also

because of certain linguistic and sociolinguistic traditions in the confronted

languages, combinability of words, homonymy, etc. A.Smirnitsky takes as

an example the past participle “gone”. “Is gone” may be identical to the

combination “have gone” in a transferred meaning “he died” like in the

sentence Poor Mr. Brown is (has) gone. He has left us. He has joined the

great majority. Sărmanul dl.Brown a murit (a plecat). El a murit (ne-a

părăsit). El a plecat (e dus) în lumea străbunilor. “Is gone” can also be

used in the direct sense of the word to express anterioriity in colloquial

speech as in “Where is Mr. Brown? He is gone (=has gone). He will be

back in an hour. Unde e dl Brown? El e plecat (=a plecat). Se va întoarce

peste o oră. In case of transitive verbs the past participle has a passive

meaning closely connected with “perfectivity” (finished action) (The letter

written yesterday was sent in time.). But when used in analytical non-

perfect fiorms the past participle gets devoid of anteriority meaning and

preserves only the passive categorial function (The letter was written and

sent in time) [70, 278-288]. The past participle is regularly confronted the

Romanian with participiul trecut: The methodology tested in the Indo-

European field set the pattern. Metoda experimentată în domeniul indo-

european a devenit exemplară. All these observations bring out the

essential difference between the method of communication discovered

among bees and our human language. Toate observaţiile acestea scot la

iveală diferenţa esenţială dintre metoda de comunicare descoperită la

albini şi limba umană. (E.Benveniste) The English participle II can

sometimes correspond to the Romanian mai mult ca perfectul: On the

staircase Charny met only some officers, friends of his, informed

beforehand. Pe scări, Charny întâlni numai câţiva ofiţeri, prieteni de ai săi,

54

care fusese anunţaţi (= anunţaţi) din timp. The anteriority meaning in

English is expressed only lexically, while in Romanian both lexical and

grammatical anteriority means are used for the sake of expressivity. Let’s

consider some of the syntactic functions fulfilled by past participle: a)

attributive - The data obtained are being carefully analyzed and studied.

Datele obţinute sunt analizate şi studiate atent; In both languages the

participles have the function of attributes; b) adverbial modifier of time -

Asked (being asked) to comment about the U.N. resolution tabled by the

Afro-Asian countries, the Prime Minister replied... Întrebat (find întrebat,

când a fost întrebat) să comenteze rezoluţia ONU propusă de ţările Afro-

Asiatice, Primul Ministru a răspuns...; (J.Galsworthy) In this case the

English participle „asked” has the function of adverbial modifier of time

and could be substituted by the passive voice form of the present participle

„being asked”. The form „tabled” has the function an attribute; c) adverbial

modifier of condition - If given the opportunity, this industry will rapidly

develop. Această industrie se va dezvolta rapid, dacă vor vi create

posibilităţi favorabile (=Posibilităţi fiind date, această industrie se va

dezvolta rapid ); (J.Galsworthy) The past participle in the function of an

adverbial modifier corresponds in Romanian to future indefinite passive

voice and this shows the fact that the forms are different in the main

variant, though it is possible to render it into Romanian using gerunziul

pasiv, the grammatical categorial voice meaning is the same – passive

voice; d) adverbial modifier of concession- But the Right-wing Labour

leaders, though forced to give way on some questions, will stick to their

policies. Liderii laburişti de dreapta, deşi forţaţi să cedeze în unele

probleme, vor susţine politica lor; (J.Galsworthy); e) complex object with

past participle - We hope to see this issue raised in all trades councils, in

every union. Noi sperăm să vedem această problemă ridicată în fiecare

sindicat.

The construction of complex object with past participle in English

corresponds to a construction of complex object with subjunctive in the

meaning of future and in the second complex object with past participle

[39, 152-164]. Thus, we can state that past participle express anteriority

when the action is precedeing the moment of speech. There are quite a

number of cases where the forms under research express both anteriority

and passive voice (in case of transitive verbs) meanings, or only the latter

one. As to the term “perfect” – it is still considered by different linguists as

part of various categorical oppositions: of anteriority, aspect, tense, result.

In Romanian “perfect” in the grammatical form of perfectul simplu is now

55

expressing an action finished in the past, and thus, it has preserved the old

meaning going back to Latin. The term “perfect” in the European

linguistics is used in several meanings: of finished action (perfective),

expressing result, time correlation, but more and more linguists state the

fact that the main meaning expressed by perfect forms is that of anteriority.

Anteriority in the purest way is expressed by lexical means and by

predicative verbal forms. As it was expected the anteriority marked

grammatical forms have much in common in English, French and

Romanian, as their systems go back to the same source. That does not mean

that the category of anteriority is not present in languages where the

grammatical forms of anteriority have practically disappeared. Thus, in

Russian the grammatical elements of anteriority are scarcely used. The

lexical and lexical-grammatical means are used to express the marked

categorial taxis meaning. The grammatical forms analyzed by us express

two or more grammatical categorial meanings, interconnected with those of

taxis. Tense and aspect are especially closely connected with them and in

this case they are confronted as a system. Cases of sameness and

differences are analyzed and furnished with examples taken from

translations. An interesting difference is observed between present perfect

in English and perfectul compus and “passé composé” in Romanian and

French (formally coincide: to have + past participle). In connection with the

absence of a simple past form in Romanian and French, perfectul compus

and “passé composé” here are taking an additional function and thus,

express, depending on the context, the marked categorial form in one case

(the action is connected with the present moment) and the unmarked one

(the action is separated from the present moment) in another. Thus, the

English past indefinite can correspond to the Romanian perfectul compus

and French and “passé composé” in the spoken language, perfectul simplu

and “passé simple” in fiction, “imparfait” and imperfectul, when the lexical

meanings of the verbs lexically express an extended action, and thus it

becomes aspectually marked.

As we have mentioned above, when we confront two distantly

related languages (English and Romanian) synchronically we shall use,

where possible, the results of comparative-historical analysis. What is the

difference between comparative-historical philology and confrontational

linguistics (analytical comparison)? For comparative-historical philology

the starting point is the form, the morphological structure of the

grammatical phenomena in question. In the case of analytical confrontation

the starting point is the grammatical content (when we confront

56

grammatical categories of different languages), the semantics, the

underlying concepts of the grammatical categories under investigation. The

concepts are expressed by means of a system of grammatical forms through

the intermediary of categorial forms. It is well known that in the natural

human languages content and form are actually inseparable. We cannot

abstract ourselves from form in analytical comparison and from content in

comparative philology. What is the actual connection between

confrontational linguistics and comparative philology? In what way are we

supposed to avail ourselves of the results of comparative-historical

investigation when confronting cognate and even unrelated languages? In

order that this problem may be presented as clearly as possible, we shall

turn to the category of anteriority in English and Romanian (sometimes

accompanied by French translation of the given examples). Confronting the

category of taxis in English and Romanian we came to the conclusion that

there is a common tendency in both languages: the perfect forms in both

languages tend to be replaced by simple non-perfect forms and the

categorial meaning of anteriority is expressed lexically or contextually.

This process is more advanced in Romanian, where some analytical perfect

forms are now very rarely used. Our view is that the researcher should not

shut his eyes and ignore the historical associations. There is no doubt that

diachrony must be taken into consideration: confronting languages, which

have no genetic connections whatsoever is something which, generally

speaking, belongs to typology, while confrontation of cognate languages

should never be willfully and artificially be reduced to the stricter forms of

abstract typological confrontation and contrast. As we mentioned above the

confronted languages belong to the same (Indo-European) family of

languages. They are genetically related, but different in the sense that

Romanian is part of the Romance languages, while English belongs to the

Germanic languages.

In contrasting languages we usually begin with the etic level, then we

go on to the emic level (categories) and then return to the texts to make sure

that this or that category actually exists in speech at a given period of time.

In this case we will begin by examining the category of anteriority in

English and Romanian (in some cases French is included in the

confrontation) on the systemic level and then try to adduce some examples

of their realization on the etic level. On the systemic level English and

Romanian have a fully developed system of grammatical forms expressing

the categorial meaning of anteriority. The category of anteriority embraces

the entire system of verb including both finite and non-finite forms. There

57

is now a general tendency for the perfect forms to be replaced by non-

perfect ones, especially in the spoken language. Thus, in English, we can

also observe a rapprochement of present perfect and past indefinite,

especially in the American English, where the process is more advanced.

E.Benveniste,64

too, is fully aware of the instability of the system. (See

below an extended explanation on the theme). In this connection we can

observe, that the perfect - non-perfect opposition (especially present perfect

- past indefinite in English, passé composé - passé simple in French and

perfectul compus - perfectul simplu in Romanian) is developing in a

direction where there is a transition of a grammatical category in a stylistic

one, i.e. a new category is raising its head, the category of stylistics. In

Romanian perfectul simplu is very rarely used in the spoken language,

where it is completely replaced by perfectul compus. Perfectul simplu is

used in fiction literature and is never used in scientific literature. Thus, this

grammatical opposition is gradually coming to express something different,

a metasemiotic or stylistic opposition. Another important point should be

mentioned here, the simplification of a system does not imply loss of

ability of expressing different meanings. In an involved morphological

system various meanings are expressed by the opposition of different

forms, while in a system with a small number of forms, various meanings

can be expressed by one and the same form in different contexts or by

changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic relationship must be

regarded as something that is in a state of flux. Change is the main category

of natural human languages, for they are historical categories, they develop

or die out. By so doing, they follow the fate of the speaking community,

which has created them as the principal means of communication. In order

to verify the tendency in Modern English to substitute perfect forms in the

spoken language by simple ones, a number of examples were taken and

given to students to be translated from Romanian into English. The

majority of examples had lexical or contextual markers of anteriority.

Those students, who were not familiar with the fact that future perfect is

rarely used in Modern English, regularly used grammatical perfect forms in

nearly all the given examples. In a second test the students were asked to

translate a number of sentences with future perfect into Romanian. Here we

had two groups. In the first group the teacher stressed the fact that similar

forms exist in Romanian as well (viitorul anterior). A number of students

did not hesitate to use grammatical future anteriority in Romanian (in spite

of the fact that it is very rarely used). In the second group nothing was said

about viitorul anterior. Here the students in the majority of cases used

58

simple grammatical forms, substituting grammatical anteriority with the

lexical one. As far as past perfect is concerned, it is still often used in both

languages under consideration. But there is an interesting observation to be

made in this connection. In English, past perfect is an analytical form,

while in Romanian past anteriority is expressed by synthetic forms. In

Romanian there are some analytical forms used in colloquial speech to

express past anterioity, but they are used very rarely. For example: Mai

mult ca perfectul analitic/perifrastic (aveam scris, era plecat), perfectul

compus perifrastic (am fost plecat, am fost zis). It goes without saying that

if the confrontation of cognate languages had been reduced to statements of

complete formal identity, there would be no need in working out a separate

methodology, for contrastive linguistics, comparative-historical linguistics

would be adequate. Even confrontation of cognate languages becomes

necessary because in a very large number of cases they diverge widely for

no synchronically obvious reason. When we confront unrelated languages,

we regard the complete non-coincidence of forms as quite natural and

regular. More than that, the complete coincidence even on the expression

plane would be regarded as a curious case, as a peculiar phenomenon. But

when we are dealing with cognate languages we cannot help asking: why is

perfectul simplu not used regularly, is it so functionally limited as to be

replaced in speech and non-fiction texts by a stylistically more natural form

- perfectul compus? It is not always easy to explain this difference only by

stylistic factors. It follows naturally that when we compare English original

texts with their translations into French and Romanian we always find great

similarity. Thus, for example: He entered the shop below; Il entra dans le

magazine qui se trouvait au rez-de-chaussée; Intră în prăvălia de la parter.

Soames followed another method; Soames adopta une autre méthode;

Soames adoptă o altă metodă. (J.Galsworthy) Tom hailed the romantic

outcast. Tom appela le vagabond romantique. Tom îl strigă pe vagabondul

romantic. (M.Twain) The examples adduced here show the positive result

of this confrontation: past indefinite – passé simple – perfectul simplu are

practically identical, both from the point of view of synchronic functional

confrontation and the historical community of morphological systems.

When confronting English, French and Romanian, we begin by

concentrating on the original identity and approach confrontation with

preconceived ideas of potential correspondences already formed in

advance. We have an altogether different picture when we confront

completely different languages like English and Arabic or Chinese. In this

case all the background knowledge we possess is a certain abstract

59

supposition. All we have as a background knowledge is that Arabic and

Chinese typologically are able to express actions coinciding with the

moment of speech, preceding it, or following it. We cannot have any

previous assumptions what forms these oppositions may have, because

there is no comparative-historical basis whatsoever for us to go by. But

when we are dealing with cognate languages we cannot help asking: why

not perfectul simplu, but perfectul compus? Probably we should apply to

Romanian what some specialists is the reason of a comparatively low

frequency of passé simple in French, the ousting of it by the form of passé

composé. Perfectul simplu is also functionally limited and is replaced in

speech by perfectul compus. There is every reason to believe that to try and

explain this difference only by stylistic factors would not be easy. This will

be possible only if the non-coincidences were confined to colloquial style:

When did they go over? Când au emigrat? Quand ont-ils émigré?; You

were absolutely right; Ai avut perfectă dreptate; Tu a eu raison. For this

register passé composé and perfectul compus are better suited, because

these forms here do not express an anterior action to the present moment

and the actions are not connected with the present moment of speech and,

thus, here they express actions completely identical with those expressed by

past indefinite. In Romanian and French there do not exist forms similar to

the English past indefinite, that is why passé composé and perfectul compus

become polyfunctional. The context would help us find out whether the

action expressed is anterior or not anterior to the present moment. Past

indefinite may correspond to the form of imperfectul in Romanian. The

past continuous has become so specifically continuous, it is very often

found to have a net semiotic connotation and past indefinite is increasingly

used in cse of lexical durative units to denote not merely point actions, but

also those which require serious attention to the way it progressed - hence

the tendency to equate past indefinite with imparfait and imperfectul: He

represented for her the reality of things; El reprezenta pentru ea realitatea

vieţii; Il représentait pour elle la réalité de la vie. It reminded me too

much; Dar ea mi-l reamintea; Mais elles me le rappelait. Every time the

lexical meaning of the verb is not punctual past indefinite and imperfect are

quite comparable and can readily take each other’s place. It is essential that

this question should always be considered from the point of view of dual

meaning of the English past indefinite. The fact that the imperfect has a

wider meaning in Romanian than the English continuous aspect forms may

be explained by the fact that the latter appeared much later and its meaning

is based not on aspectual opposition proper, but on a specific continuous

60

aspect as a form which in most cases is emphatically loaded. Of particular

interest are those cases when past indefinite is confronted with past

anteriority forms in the confronted languages. Only a study of the

collocational situations can account for this: All through the house it was a

wakeful night; Casa întreagă petrecuse o noapte de veghe; Toute la maison

avait passé un nuit blanche. He was an actor on the English stage; Fusese

actor pe scena engleză; Il avait été un comédien sur la scène anglaise. If

we base our conclusions on the context, then what has been said here in the

past indefinite form is in the relationship of anteriority with the preceding

and the subsequent situations. The category of anteriority and the content of

precedence in the case of two events, following one another, are in a very

complex relationship. The fact is that real anteriority may both, find

expression, or remain unexpressed, in the way the appropriate forms are

used. Everything depends on the purport of the utterance. It is interesting to

note that anteriority is closely connected, in the above given examples, with

different predications of being. There are different ways of saying or

expressing it but the less natural ones would be metasemiotically colored.

One and the same actual situation may be categorially interpreted in

completely different ways. The choice of this or that interpretation will

depend on the idiomatic character of this or that language as well as the

intention of the speaker. The real anteriority meaning may be

grammatically expressed or it may be not. Other anteriority means (lexical,

contextual or both) take over the function. Besides it also depends on the

intention of the speaker. Thus, if we take the example: 1.There were no

mushrooms; Les champignons n’avaient pas poussé; Ciuperci nu se

făcuseră. It is very important to take into consideration the fact that the

category of anteriority is in close connection with various sociolinguistic

situations. Thus, we can say in Russian: Грибов не было or Грибов не

выросло. Let us consider the sentence There were no mushrooms, which

was translated into French and Romanian as: Ciuperci nu se făcuseră; and

Les champignons n’avaient pas poussé. If we approach this translation

from the point of extra-linguistic reality, then all the variants are identical.

More than that, it would be much more natural to translate There were no

mushrooms into Russian as Не было грибов. or Грибов не выросло. Or;

for example: Грибы есть в лесу? - Нет. - А в воскресенье были грибы? -

Не было грибов. There are various ways of expressing this idea, but, of

course, less natural of them gets a metasemiotic coloring. What has been

said above is confirmed by examples, where the English past indefinite is

confronted with present in Romanian and French: Linguistics was worked

61

out within the framework of comparative grammar; Lingvistica se

elaborează în cadrul gramaticii comparative; La linguistique s’élabore

dans le cadres de la grammaire comparée. (E.Benveniste) Why is it that

the English version does not say Linguistics is worked out within the

framework of comparative grammar? In this case probably the English

translator is not using present tense because simply he would not consider

this as an idiomatically acceptable way of saying it or because he considers

the action as being true in al the times; present, future and past. It is also

probable that in Romanian and French in such a case historical present may

be used without expressing any connotation. In English historical present

would invariably carry different semiotic overtones. Thus, for example, It is

not always to be recognized in the different stages, sometimes tentative, in

which Saussure’s thought was engaged, Il n’est pas toujours facile de la

reconnaître dans les démarches diverses, parfois tâtonnantes, ou s’engage

la réflexion de Saussure, Nu este întotdeauna uşor de a recunoaşte la

diferite etape, uneori tentative, unde se angajează gândirea lui Saussure.

(E.Benveniste) In contrast with French and Romanian, in English present

tense would be unacceptable, probably because it is fraught with emotional

coloring and vivacity, which in the present context would be out of place.

In Russian, in such cases, present tense is also used: A new phase

developed at the beginning of nineteen century with the discovery of

Sanskrit, One phase nouvelle s’ouvre au début du XIXe siècle avec la

découverte du sanscrit, O fază nouă se începe la începutul secolului XIX

odată cu descoperirea limbii sanscrit, Новая фаза открывается в XIX

веке в связи с открытием санскрита. (E.Benveniste) [39, 122-152].

10.2. The English Present Indefinite and its equivalents

in Romanian and French

The English present indefinite should correspond to the French

present and Romanian prezentul. This is really confirmed by numerous

examples: Tell me all about your sister and Jon. Parlez-moi de votre soeur

et Jon. Povesteşte-mi despre sora dumitale şi despre Jon. Tell him that I’m

awfully glad, and that I wish him luck, Dis-lui que je n’en réjouis et que je

lui souhaite beaucoup de chance. Spune-i că mă bucur foarte mult şi că-i

doresc noroc. I never bet, said Soames, and I don’t smoke. Je ne parie

jamais, dit Soames, et je ne fume pas. Eu nu fac pariuri, zise Soames, şi nu

fumez. (J.Galsworthy) Cases when present indefinite are confronted with

62

passé composé and perfectul compus have been described above. The

differences are usually explained by the fact whether the action is inclusive

or exclusive [39, 131].

10.3. The English Future Indefinite and its Equivalents

in French and Romanian

First of all we should mention the fact that the Romanian simple

future possesses two synonymous grammatical forms: a) the auxiliary “a

voi, a vrea” (Cf. Latin voleo/volere) plus the infinitive; b) “a avea plus the

form of conjunctivul” (used here in the function of infinitive). The first

form is considered to be more formal, the second belongs to the colloquial

style. Let us start with cases of coincidence: Four rooms will be ready

when you come back. You’ll have a bathroom to yourself, of course. Quand

vous rentrerez, votre chambre sera prête. Vous aurez bien sur, votre sale

de bain. Când te întorci, camera dumitale va fi gata. Vei avea, fireşte, baia

dumitale. I will sell it at my bazaar, Soames. It will do for some good man

who can read English. Je le vendrai au marché de notre société, Soames.

Ca sera utile à un homme qui sait lire en anglaise. Am s-o vând la bazarul

societăţii noastre de binefacere, Soames. O să fie (are să fie) de folos

vreunui om cumsecade, care ştie să citească englezeşte. (J.Galsworthy)

There are examples where the English future indefinite is confronted

in French and Romanian with present tense: We shall give below the total

number of usable Persian examples. Nous donnons ci-dessous la totalité

des exemples perses utilisables. Noi dăm mai jos totalitatea exemplelor

utilizabile în limba persană. We shall attempt to restore the facts to their

true light. Nous tentons de remettre les faits dans leur véritable lumière.

Noi încercăm (vom încerca) să reconstituim faptele în lumina lor

adevărată. (E.Benveniste) Suppose we use future tense in in French and

Romanian sentences. Present tense probably in this context has a wider

meaning, than in English. While translating E.Benveniste’s book from

French into English the translator chose future indefinite, probably, he had

reasons to choose this grammatical tense, taking into consideration the

characteristic features of the scientific information in both languages. The

use of present tense in English in the above given examples would make

them stylistically colored. In French and Romanian the use of present tense

here corresponds to the style of such registers [39, 132].

63

10.4. The English Present Perfect and its Equivalents

in French and Romanian

As far as present perfect is concerned it is included in the category of

taxis but in this case we do not find a clear-cut opposition as in the case of

future perfect and past perfect. Comparing past indefinite and present

perfect we see that in both cases the actions are in the past. The main

difference between them is that past indefinite is an action separated by the

speaker from the present moment: (I visited London in January; Am vizitat

Londra în ianuarie; I saw him ten seconds ago; L-am văzut zece secunde în

urmă), and present perfect expresses an anterior action connected with the

present moment: 1) directly connected: (I have lived in London for 10

years; Am locuit în Londra de zece ani/Locuiesc în Londra de zece ani; I

have been waiting you for an hour; Te aştept de o oră) and 2) indirectly by

means of a period of time connected with the present moment: (I have

visited London this year; Am vizitat Londra anul acesta; I have seen him

this week; L-am văzut anul acesta). If there is no time marker and no

context we usually use present perfect (I have read all the books written by

this author; Am citit toate cărţile scrise de acest autor). What I mean is that

I began to read them somewhere in the past and continued to read them

during my life up till now. In case I want to tell you exactly when I finished

reading them I could say: I read all these books written by this author last

year. Present perfect may also be used to express future anteriority in

clauses of time and condition (As soon as I have read the book I shall

return it to you. And if I have read it by five o’clock, I’ll give it to you

today). At first sight it seems that there is complete coincidence between

present perfect in English and perfectul compus in Romanian. But the

actual functioning is quite different. Perfectul compus has one more

function, that of expressing actions not connected with the present moment

and in this case it is regularly confronted with past indefinite in English: 1)

Anteriority directly connected with the present moment equivalent to

present perfect exclusive actions (I have read the book up till now/ I have

been reading the book up till now; Am citit cartea pînă acum). In case of

present perfect inclusive, it is regularly rendered into Romanian by means

of present (I have lived in this town for 20 years; I have been living in this

town for 20 years; Locuiesc în acest orăşel de 20 de ani); 2) Anteriority

indirectly connected with the present moment by means of a period of time

(I have seen him this year; L-am văzut anul acesta; I have vizited London

three times this century; Am vizitat Londra de trei ori în secolul acesta); 3)

64

An action not connected with the present moment (Am citit o carte ieri; I

read a book yesterday); 4) Future anteriority used stylistically in colloquial

speech (Cum numai am citit cartea ţi-o intorc; As soon as I have read the

book I shall return it to you; Cum am ajuns acasă mă apuc de lucru; As

soon as I have got home I shall start working). It should be mentioned here

that in English present perfect is used to express future anteriority only in

clauses of time and condition expressing an anterior action in the future,

while in Romanian perfectul compus is used stilistically and is limited to

the colloquial language. If we compare the examples adduced below it

would appear that present perfect, passé compose and perfectul compus

could be regarded as identical (when they express an anterior action

connected with the present moment), and taking into consideration the

complete formal correspondence we arrive at a tripartite identity. Thus, for

example: It was rather funny - there’s never been a Forsyte, you know,

anywhere near Parliament, C’était une conversation assez drôle car tu sais

qu’aucun Forsyte ne s’est même pas approché du parlement, A fost o

convorbire destul de caraghioasă, doar ştii că nici un Forsyte nu s-a

apropiat măcar de parlament. (J.Galsworthy) At first sight it seems that

there is complete coincidence between present perfect in English, on the

one side, and passé composé in French and perfectul compus in Romanian,

on the other hand. In the actual functioning there is a great difference.

Thus, if we say in English So, Jon’s married your sister? and in Romanian

Jon s-a căsătorit cu sora dumitale? Then we shall find that in English we

can refer to the fact of Jon marrying somebody’s sister by using both

present perfect and past indefinite: both Jon has married your sister and

Jon married your sister or Jon married your sister, didn’t he? are

grammatically faultless and would fully correspond to the English grammar

rules. The difference between “has married” (expressing an anterior action

connected with the present moment) and “married” (an action not

connected with the present moment) will consist in connotations connected

with the idea of expression and non-expression of the grammatical meaning

of anteriority. Now if we were to translate exactly Jon married your sister

into French and Romanian Jon maria votre soeur and Jon se căsători cu

sora dumitale, then we would be faced with a stylistic difference [39, 133-

142].

65

10.5. The Categorial Meaning of Past Perfect in the Confronted

Languages

Past perfect is used to express anteriority to an action or moment in

the past. Coincidence: past perfect – plus-que-parfait – pluscvamperfectul:

He had bought the meadows on the far side of the river. Il avait acheté les

pâturages de l’autre bord de la rivière. Cumpărase păşunile de pe celălalt

mal al Tamisei. (J.Galsworthy) It should be mentioned the fact that

pluscvamperfectul in Romanian has practically lost its analytical forms

gradually substituted by a synthetic form (going back to an analytical form

of past participle plus the verb „a fi”). Let us adduce some example of

analytical perfect forms still found in literature. Examples: Şi cum ajunge la

fântână, scoate mai întâi furca, de unde o avea strânsă, ăi apoi se pune jos

să se odihnească. And when he reached the well, first of all he took the fork

out of the place he had put it, and then he sat down to rest. Un om, suindu-

se pe o şură, unde avea aruncat nişte fân, trăgea din răsputeri de funie. A

man climbing on a shed, who he had piled some hay, was pulling the rope

up with might and main. The perfect forms in the sentences given above are

formed by means of the auxiliary “a avea” plus past participle. In what

follows we shall give examples of analytical past perfect forms with the

auxiliary a fi plus participleII: Nu l-am auzit revenind şi dimineaţa am

constatat că tot plecat era. I did not hear him return and in the morning I

found that he had been away. Pe când eram ajuns aici cu scrisul fusei

întrerupt de fetiţa mea. My daughter interrupted me when I had reached

this point of my writing. Era o căsuţă singuratică, pe care era crescut nişte

muşchi pletos. It was a lonely house, on which some shaggy moss had

grown. In Romanian we could find forms identical to the French passé

surcomposé usually translated by means of past perfect: Şi mai ales că i-au

fost închis din urmă. And especially that they had locked them inside. Noi

am fost zis că sînt mulţi… We had said that there were many. N-a dus lipsă

de nimic cât timp ai fost plecat. He had everything he needed during the

time you had been away.

Non-coincidence: we find past perfect confronted with French passé

simple, passé composé and even imparfait; and Romanian perfectul simplu,

perfectul compus and imperfectul (used instead of plus-que-parfait and

pluscvamperfectul). For example: 1) Past perfect – passé compose –

perfectul compus: I replied unwittingly, and not at first observing the

extraordinary manner in which the speaker had chimed in with my

meditation; Comme j’étais plongé dans mes pansées, je n’ai pas même

66

remarqué des le commencement que les paroles de Dupin ont coïncidé avec

mes pansées; Îngândurat cum eram, la început nici nu mi-am dat seama că

vorbele lui Dupin au coincis întocmai cu gândurile mele. The grammatical

anteriority used in the French and Romanian sentences are expressed

contextually. There is a tendency in Romanian and American English for

present anteriority forms to be substituted by past anteriority units in

colloquial speech.

2) Past perfect – passé simple – perfectul simplu: On the evening of twenty

second birthday Michael had come home; Le soir de 22-éme anniversaire

de Fleur Michel vint à la maison; În seara celei de-a douăzeci şi două

aniversări a lui Fleur, Mihail veni acasă. (J.Galsworthy) In French and

Romanian a stylistically charged form is used, anteriority being expressed

contextually.

3) Past perfect – imparfait – imperfectul: For one hour at least we had

maintained a profound silence; Il avait déjà un heur que nous gardions le

plus complet silence; De o oră noi păstram amândoi cea mai deplină

tăcere. In this case the French and Romanian imperfect forms express

anteriority lexically and contextually and the main grammatical meaning is

that of durative aspect, which in its turn is lexically expressed in the

English variant.

4) Past perfect – passé antérieur – perfectul compus: When the king had

disappeared the princes and princesses grouped themselves around the

queen. Aussitôt que le roi eut disparu, tout ce qu’il y avait dans la sale de

princes et de princesses vint se grouper autour de la reine. Îndată ce regele

dispăru prinţii şi prinţesele din sală se grupară în jurul reginei.(A.Dumas)

Past perfect in English and passé antérieur in French are very close in

meaning, both expressing past anteriority. Perfectul compus in its turn

expresses here a simple past action, anteriority here being expressed

contextually.

The anteriority forms are becoming now peripheral and even

facultative. In situations of ordinary, everyday speech it is very easy to do

without them as in Romanian colloquial speech, where pluscuamperfectul

is regularly substituted by perfectul compus and sometimes by imperfect

(for a durative anterior action). The category of taxis does not need to be

expressed by elaborate morphological means. It would be faultlessly

correct to say: First I went to the University and then (later) I went to the

library. The confrontation of the English present perfect and the French

présent and prezentul in Romanian is comparatively simple because of the

very close affinity between present perfect and what is actually happening

67

at the moment of speaking. A direct confrontation of present perfect with

présent and prezentul must be justified in general, for the action which is

denoted by this form immediately affects the state of things which are

found at the moment of speaking. Thus, for example: It has been been

observed, indeed, that these are not equaly subject to change; On observe,

en effet, que ceux-ci ne sont pa également soumis au changement; Într-

adevăr, se observă, că acestea nu sunt supuse unor schimbări. Thus, any

inclusive anterior action to the present moment is usually expressed in

Romanian and French by means of present tense forms. The form of past

perfect is used to express unreal anteriority actions in the past, present and

future in clauses of unreal condition (subjunctive II), Past perfect form can

express the following meanings in English: 1) In the indicative mood: a)

past anteriority (an action anterior to another action or moment in the past):

When I came home he had (already) gone; Când am venit acasă el (deja)

plecase; b) future anteriority in the past: He promised to return the book as

soon as he had read it; El a promis să întoarcâ cartea cum numai va citi-o

(va fi citit-o); It is used to express an unreal optative meaning or condition,

or both in the past subjunctive II. In this case the form of past perfect is not

limited to anterior actions in the past, or anterior actions in the future from

a moment in the past (in clauses of time and condition). It is used to express

any anterior action to the moment of speech in the past, present or future.

Let’s adduce some examples: a) past perfect indicative mood: He said she

had come in time; El a zis că ea venise la timp; b) subjunctive II,

anteriority to a past action: He said he would have come earlier if he had

known; El a spus că ar fi venit (venea) mai devreme dacă ar fi avut (să fi

avut, dacă avea) timp; c) subjunctive II, a past action, non-anterior: If she

had come in time yesterday you would have seen her; Dacă ea ar fi venit

(să fi venit, dacă venea) la timp ieri ai fi văzut-o (o vedeai); d) subjunctive

II, future anteriority in the past: I knew he would say that he would have

come if he had known; Eu ştiam că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă

ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut); e) subjunctive II, anteriority to a moment or action in

the future: She thinks he will say that he would have come if he had known;

Ea crede că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut,

dacă ştia). There is a tendency in English (especially in the American

variant) sometimes to use a present perfect form instead of past perfect in

colloquial speech, anteriority in such cases is expressed lexically or

contextually. This tendency is much more advanced in the Romanian

language. In the spoken non-literary language people would regularly

substitute pluscvamperfectul with perfectul compus (in the meaning of past

68

indefinite), anteriority again is supported lexically and phonetically: Când

am venit ea deja a plecat instead of Când am venit ea deja plecase.

Comparing English and Romainian texts very often we find non-

coincidences like: 1) Past perfect - perfectul compus: I replied unwittingly,

and not at first observing the extraordinary manner in which the speaker

had chimed in with my meditation. Îngândurat cum eram, la inceput nici nu

mi-am dat seama ca vorbele lui au coincis întocmai cu gândurile mele.

This discrepancy may be also explained with the tendency in Romanian to

substitute pluscvamperfectul by perfectul compus.

2) Past perfect - perfectul simplu: On the evening of her twenty-second

(Fleur’s) birthday Michael had come home. In seara celei de-a douazeci si

doua aniversari a lui Fleur, Mihai veni acasa. Again, simple perfect is

used here. Simple perfect is used only in fiction in the written form, with

the exception of some dialects. Here it may have been used by the

translator to express an anterior action in combination with contextual

means) and this may be considered as a tendency of pluscvamperfectul in

Romanian to gradually get out of usage. As we have already mentioned the

anteriority plane can now be regarded as a supercilious pedanticism. The

anteriority form is becoming peripheral and even facultative, for in

situations of ordinary, everyday dialogue it is very easy to do without it.

Thus, the simultaneity-anteriority category (taxis) need not necessarily be

expressed by elaborate morphological means. It would be faultlessly

correct to say, for example, He first went to London, and then he came to

Paris or He was in London and came to Paris much later. We would like to

conclude by mentioning some important points of linguistic confrontation

to be taken into consideration. First of all, we have to stress the fact, that

one could not compare two or more languages, unless one had a very clear

idea of a certain underlying tertium comparationis. In our case it is English

and its category of taxis, which is well developed and has been

linguistically well investigated), some third member on the basis of which

the confrontation is effected. Our previous knowledge of the confronted

languages also helps us to secure a firm stand, a reliable basis for our

analysis and there is no doubt that synchronic confrontation of any two

systems cannot be really scientific unless account is carefully taken of their

previous development. The perfect forms in both languages tend to be

replaced by simple non-perfect forms and the categorial meaning of

anteriority is expressed lexically or contextually. This process is more

advanced in Romanian, where some analytical perfect forms are now very

rarely used. Our view is that the researcher should not shut his eyes and

69

ignore the historical associations. Another important point should be

mentioned here, the simplification of a system does not imply loss of

ability of expressing different meanings. In an involved morphological

system various meanings are expressed by the opposition of different

forms, while in a system with a small number of different forms, various

meanings can be expressed by one and the same form in different contexts

or by changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic relationship

must be regarded as something that is in a state of flux [39, 122-164].

Grammatical “false cognates”. While learning the native and foreign

languages we find out that many grammatical forms present difficulties as to

properly understanding their meanings. There are quite a number of cases when

we are confronted with grammatical forms which display characteristic features

of “false friends” or “false cognates”. The ing-forms or gerund and participle

one can find various interpretations in grammar books. Thus, analyzing the

material we can conclude that there are polysemantic grammatical perfect

forms, and some of them which do not express anteriority. The past perfect

form in the indicative can be used to express an anterior action to a moment

or action in the past: When I came home he had already left. In clauses of

time and condition it expresses a future anterior action: He said that he

would return the book as soon as he had read it/ The same form is used in

subjunctive II to express anterior actions in the past and future and non-

anterior meaning (devoid of anteriority) in the simple past actions:

1.Anteriority in the past: He said he would have come earlier if he had

known; El a spus că ar fi venit (venea) mai devreme dacă ar fi avut (să fi

avut, dacă avea) timp; 2.Subjunctive II, anteriority to the present moment

of speech: If she had come in time yesterday you would have seen her;

Dacă ea ar fi venit (să fi venit, dacă venea) la timp ieri ai fi văzut-o (o

vedeai); In this case in both languages there is no grammatical anteriority

expressed. 3 Subjunctive II, future anteriority in the past: I knew he would

say that he would have come if he had known; Eu ştiam că el va spune că

ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut). 4. Subjunctive II, anteriority

to a moment or action in the future: She thinks he will say that he would

have come if he had known; Ea crede că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea)

dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut, dacă ştia). This phenomenon is not clearly

expressed for the learner of the language. Another example of

polyfunctionality polysemy and homonymy is should. 1. Should+infinitive

in the secondary clause of the type (it) is recommended (suggested, etc.)

that..., in object clauses after verbs like to recommend, to suggest, to

demand, etc.; in subject clauses,etc. Should in this case is used in the

70

suppositional mood (which is synonymous to subjunctive I in the second

meaning): The best thing the commission can do is to recommend that the

Geneva conference should begin again with renewed energy. 2. The

conditional clause with should + infinitive: Should the U.N. fail (If the U.N.

should fail) to produce an early settlement, are we then to wash our hands

of the whole matter. 3.The modal should in various meanings. Obligation:

Не said that she should be there in time. Emotional emphatic function;

attitude towards the event, etc.: It is strange that he should be there at this

time. It is good that the Government should have recognized the

opportunity and the obligations. As to grammatical “false friends” there is

a lot to be explained to the learners of the native and foreign languages in

order to have a better understanding of the corresponding systems. In

grammatical contexts it is the syntactic structure context serving to

determine the meanings of a polysemantic word: the verb make in the

meaning of 'to force, to enduce', is found in the context of the structure to

make somebody do something or if make is followed by a noun and the

infinitive of a verb, adjective (to make smb. laugh, go, work; to make a

good wife, a good teacher, etc.). Examples like she will make a good

teacher are syntactically bound meanings.

10.6. Hypercorrectness or Hypergrammaticality

As a good example here we can take future perfect forms in English,

French and Romanian. When we investigate the material under

investigation we still come across examples of Future perfect in all the

confronted languages. Thus, for example: future perfect – future antérieur –

viitorul anterior: You’ll arrive next day after we shall have prepared the

way. Vous arriverez le lendemain, quand nous aurons déjà préparé les

voies. Voi veţi ajunge a doua zi, după ce noi vom fi pregătit calea. You will

have refused once again. Vous aurez encore une fois refusé. Veţi fi refuzat

încă o dată. In these examples we have complete coincidence. In order to

verify the tendency in Modern English to substitute perfect forms in the

spoken language by using simple forms a number of examples were taken

and given to students to be translated from Russian into Romanian. The

majority of examples had lexical or contextual markers of anteriority. Most

of the students translated the examples using simple non-perfect future

forms: К концу семестра мы выучим много новых слов и выражений;

Spre sfârşitul anului noi vom studia multe cuvinte şi expresii noi; Мы

71

закончим эту работу к концу недели; Noi vom termina lucrul acesta

spre sfârşit de săptămână; The Romanian equivalents were given to a

different group of students to translate them into English. Those students,

who were not familiar with the fact that future perfect is rarely used in

Modern English, regularly used grammatical perfect forms in nearly all the

given examples: We shall have learned many new words and expressions

by the end of the year; We shall have finished this work by the end of the

week; She will have forgotten everything by that time; We shall have

finished this text-book by the end of the year; He will have written this

article before he leaves. In a third group the students were asked to

translate the above given English examples with future perfect into

Romanian. Here we had two subgroups. In the first subgroup the teacher

stressed the fact that similar forms existed in Romanian as well (viitorul

anterior). A number of students did not hesitate to use grammatical future

anteriority in Romanian (in spite of the fact that it is very rarely used): Spre

sfârşitul anului noi vom fi studiat multe cuvinte şi expresii noi. Noi vom fi

terminat lucrul acesta spre sfârşit de săptămână. Ea va fi uitat totul până

atunci. Noi vom fi terminat acest manual spre sfârşit de an. El va fi scris

articolul acesta înainte de a pleca. In the second subgroup nothing was

said about viitorul anterior. Here the students in the majority of cases used

simple grammatical future forms, substituting grammatical anteriority with

the lexical one [39, 72].

10.7. The Category of Anteriority as seen by

A.I.Smirnitsky and E.Benveniste

Historical linguistics in general, comparative philology in particular,

has accumulated a great body of material, especially for the Romance

languages. But as a rule, manuals on the history of these languages are

mainly oriented towards the development of different fоrms the change of

which has taken place in Morphology and Morphonology. This does not

mean that the meanings of these forms and the peculiarities of their

function, as well as the change in their content, which accompany the

formal overhauling of the systems, did not attract any attention at all.

Attention has been attracted to them all. Until comparatively recently the

content and even the existence itself of the category of taxis could not be

regarded as sufficiently clarified. More than that, however paradoxical it

may seem, the discovery of this category and its development in detail were

72

independently undertaken, completed and put into effect by two great

linguists of our time. In what follows we would like to underline the

importance of two well known scientists that separately came to the

conclusion that the opposition of perfect/non I perfect forms constitutes the

category of anteriority: A.Smirnitsky for English and E.Benveniste for

French. According to Smirnitsky “perfectivity” is “anteriority”, it is the

meaning of an action which precedes another action or moment of speech

[39, 145].

E.Benveniste is fully aware of the instability of the system. He takes

into consideration the fact that, for example, the relationship between the

forms il fit and il a fait is always in a state of flux. Benveniste comes to the

conclusion that j’ai fait, may either function as an aorist or express

anteriority (being a perfect form) and as a grammatical form it carries two

different categorial forms (in different contexts) of the same category.

Benveniste in his book Problèmes de linguistique [39, 145] succeeds in

giving a convincing explanation of the reason why in French there

gradually evolved the so-called temps surcomposées. Thus, j’ai eu fait, for

example, becomes a new perfect, for j’ai fait, which in its turn becomes

functionally indistinguishable from an aorist. The system is thus

reconstituted, and the, opposition becomes symmetric again: To the present

‘je mange’ is opposed a perfect ‘j’ai mangé’, which furnishes discourse

with (1) a present perfective (e.g. ‘j’ai mange, je n’ai plus faim’); (2) a

present anterior (e.g. “quand j’ai mangé; je sors, me promener’). When ‘j’ai

mangé’ becomes the aorist, it recreates for itself a new perfect, ‘j’ai eu

mangé’. Which similarly gives (1) an aorist perfective (e.g. ‘j’ai eu mangé

mon repas en dix minutes’); (2) an aorist anterior (e.g. ‘quand ‘j’ai eu

mange, je suis sorti’). Moreover, the temporal parallelism is reestablished

between the two planes of utterance: the pair ‘il mangea’ (aorist): ‘il eut

mangé’ (perfect) of historical narration now corresponds to ‘ il a mangé’

(the new aorist): ‘il a eu mangé’ (the new perfect) in discourse. The

systematic comparison of the two morphological studies is necessary

because of the importance attached to relationship between synchronic

states, and diachronic drifts and tendencies. It has also helped to clarify

some methodological aspects of linguistic research. As far as the theory of

morphological relationships is concerned, the concept of anteriority versus

simultaneity or taxis has been vindicated independently by A.Smirnitsky

and E.Benveniste for both English and French. In this connection we can

conclude that the perfect/non-perfect opposition (especially present

perfect/past indefinite in English, passé composé/ passé simple in French

73

and perfectul compus/ perfectul simplu in Romanian) is developing in a

direction where there is a transition of a grammatical category in a stylistic

one, i.e. a new category is raising its head, the category of stylistics. Thus,

this grammatical opposition is gradually coming to express something

different, a met semiotic or stylistic opposition. Another important point

should be mentioned here, the simplification of a system does not imply

loss of ability of expressing different meanings. In an involved

morphological system different meanings are expressed by the opposition

of different forms while in a system with a small number of different forms,

different meanings can be expressed by one and the same form in different

contexts or by changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic

relationship must be regarded as something that is in a state of flux. Change

is the main category of natural human languages, for they are historical

categories, they develop or die out. By so doing, they follow the fate of the

speech community; which has created them as the principal means of

communication [39, 145-151].

10.8. A Contrastive Analysis of Non-finite Forms of Taxis

If we take the category of taxis in the predicative forms, we observe

that the categorial forms of anteriority are mixed with those of tense, voice

and aspect. In the nominal forms taxis is usually expressed in a “pure” way.

The non-predicative forms in English are: past participle, present participle,

the gerund and the infinitive.

Non-perfect infinitive (the unmarked form of taxis).

When we compare related languages we always expect to find more

coincidences than differences. Let’s take some examples from English and

Romanian and confront them and in some cases do the same with examples

taken from English and Arabic [39, 240-254]: Smaller boys than himself

flocked at his heels proud to be seen with him. (M.Twain) Les petits

garçons couraient après lui, fiers d’etre vu avec lui. Băieţii mici alergau

buluc în urma lui, mândri de a fi văzţ]i împreună cu el. We find many

examples of complete coincidence. But there is a great number of them

classified as non-coincidences. Very often the English and French infinitive

forms are translated into Romanian by conjunctivul, a polysemantic form

which has been gradually taking over the functions of the infinitive

especially in colloquial style: The storm culminated in one matchless effort

that seemed likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the

74

treetops, blow it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at one and the

same moment. (M.Twain) L’orage se jeta avec une telle fureur qu’il

semblait qu’elle voulait mettre l’ile en pièces, la brûler avec ses flames,

inonder les arbres, la réduire a néant et exterminer toute creature vivante.

Furtuna se năpusti cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să sfărâme insula în

ţăndări, s-o mistue în flăcări, să inunde copacii, s-o mistuie depe faţa

pământului şi să stârpească orice fiinîă vie. (M.Twain) Al asifa Ratabat Al

akes Haiso Bada masmuhan fi Al gazera, yatawazali, yaratab yakser,

yaheb, yadfah kulshaif fi Al hal. The non-perfect infinitive in Arabic (Al

Hader Basit -present infinitive) is corresponding to the English simple

infinitive. In Romanian the English infinitive is very often confronted with

conjunctivul. In the example above we find two infinitives that have been

translated into Arabic by means of past indefinite (Al Madi Basit): Al asifa,

Bada, Al hal and stresses on “t” and “n” in “Ratabat” and “masmuhan”.

Here is an example where the infinitive is translated into Arabic by means

of the present indefinite without a stress (Al hader Basit): To take from a

civilian to give to a civilian. An Yahuz min Al Madania.

Next we are going to give examples with perfect infinitive forms in

English, French, Arabic and Romanian: Yes, and fortunately enough to

have found the carriage,- answered the queen (A.Dumas). Oui, et trop

heureuse encore d’avoir trouvé ce fiacre. Da, şi prea fericit chiar de a fi

găsit (să fi găsit) trăsura - replica regina. (A.Dumas) Naham La sah Al haz

gedan an naged Al Araba. In Romanian the form of perfect infinitive is

found in formal speech, while in the colloquial speech “conjunctivul

perfect” is preferred. Now let’s take some examples of non-coincidence:

Oh, isn’t that so? cried Oliva, delighted to have been caught in the fact of

putting up resistance. Oh! N’est-ce pas? s’écria Oliva enchantée de avoir

été prise en flagrant délit de résistance. Ah, nu-i aşa? strigă Oliva,

încântată că fusese prinsă (de a fi fost prinsă) în flagrant delict de

rezistenţă. (A.Dumas). In the official translation we find complete

coincidence in English and French. In Romanian in all the examples past

perfect (pluscvamperfectul) was used ihn case of anteriority in the past.

Past perfect here can be easily substituted in formal language by perfect

infinitive in Romanian. There are examples where the French plus-que-

parfait is also confronted with perfect infinitive in English: A sun, that he

did not seem to have seen since he came over here. Un soleil, comme il lui

semblait, qu’il n’avait pas vu depuis le jour quand il avait traversé l’océan.

Un soare pe care, după câte i se părea, nu-l mai zărise de când trecuse

oceanul. But in both cases the anteriority meaning is the same. Perfect

75

infinitive in English and infintif passé can be confronted in Romanian with

perfectul compus, expressing anteriority to the present moment: I am sure

only to have heard what I have heard, to have seen what my eyes have

seen! Suis-je bien sur de avoir entendu ce que j’ai entendu, d’avoir vu ce

que mes yeux ont vu! Sânt sigur numai că am auzit (de a vi auzit) ceea ce

am auzit, că am văzut (de a fi văzut) ceea ce am văzut! This fact is easily

explained by the fact that in different languages in certain situations various

types of taxis means are used to express anteriority. The French passé

composé can also be confronted with the English perfect infinitive: Sorry to

have bothered you. C’est dommage que je vous ai ennuyé. Îmi pare rău că

v-am plictisit. In Arabic in the examples below we have “Al hader tam”

regularly used, accompanied by some lexical forms with a logical stress on

them to identify the given form (an+ stress; Bahda + wa + stress; Ahiran +

an + wa + stress). After having looked at the rat again they separated

horrified to have said so many things misterious and delicate. (M.Twain)

Privind la şobolan din nou ei s-au despărţit îngroziţi de a fi spus atât de

multe lucruri misterioase şi delicate. Bahda Al nazar alaiha saniatan’ ham

tafaraku Li yakulu Ashiah kasira wa wagiha. At last I’ll obtain the favour

from you not to leave behind the regret to have seen the poor queen perish

and to have not fought for her. (A.Dumas) Voi obţine însfârşit de la

Dumneavoastră favoarea de a nu lăsa în urma mea regretul de a fi văzut

cum piere biata regină şi de a nu mă fi luptat pentru ea. Ahiran ‘anna

saufa Atahis minka an Agader halfa Al malik Al fakir wa an Aharibaha.

Confronting the material we come to the conclusion that the perfect

infinitive forms are widely used in English and French, and relatively not

so often in Romanian, especially in the spoken language. Cases of perfectul

infinitiv in translations can be easily replaced by the “conjunctivul perfect”,

which are preferable in usual less bookish speech [39, 240-254].

There are cases where the English Perfect infinitive is translated into

Romanian by past perfect and present perfect. While analyzing the non-

finite forms we shall sometimes name participle I and gerund as -ing forms.

The difference between them is that the gerund is closer to the noun in its

functions, and the participle is closer to the adjective. In their perfect forms

they have some common functions (of adverbial modifier) and both forms

express anteriority. Thus, for example: Having registered all the letters, the

secretary sent them down to be posted. Having won the first match by only

one point, the players realized that they must train much harder to win the

championship. If the actions follow one after the other, a simple form (non-

perfect) is used, anteriority being expressed simply lexically or

76

contextually, there is no need to intensify it by grammatical anteriority: Not

finding my friend at home, I left a note for him. On entering the room he

introduced himself to all those present. After looking through the morning

mail the manager, called in his secretary and dictated a few letters. The

perfect -ing forms are usually used in the formal bookish language. Their

passive voice forms are used much more rarely even in the literary

language. The perfect infinitive in English is still regularly used both in the

literary and colloquial styles (in the former it is much more often used). For

example: Yes, and fortunately enough to have found the carriage. At last

I’ll obtain the favour from you not to leave behind the regret to have seen

the poor queen perish, and to not have fought for her. Confronting the

nominal perfect forms it was observed that they are relatively more often

used in English and French than in Romanian, where predicative forms are

preferred.

Participle I non-perfect form: a) Participle I – participe présent –

gerunziul: Tom lay… watching the two intently. Tom était couché… les

fixant des yeux tous le deux. Tom stătea culcat, scurtându-i lung pe

amândoi. The boys went off grieving that there were no outlaws any more,

and wondering... Les garçons se plaignant qu’il n’y avait plus des voleurs

dans le monde et s’efforçant… Băieţii pornită spre casă, căinându-se că pe

lume nu mai sunt vestiţi tâlhari, frământându-şi mintea...(M.Twain) The

Romanian gerunziul is naturally confronted with the English participle I; b)

Participle I – gérondif – gerunziul: So he got into the shoes snarling. Tom,

en marmottant, mit ses souliers. Tom, bodogănind, încălţă pantofii. I went

to sleep reading. Hier soir je me suis endormi en lisant. Asară am adormit

citind. (M.Twain); c) Participle I – imparfait – imperfectul (or gerunziul):

Tom lay thinking. Tom était couché et pensait. Tom sta culcat şi se gândea

(gândindu-se). (M.Twain) A durative action expressed by participle I in a

context in the past can easily be rendered into French and Romanian by

means of imperfect forms, which express a durative and unfinished action

in the past.

Gerund non-perfect form: a) Gerund – gérondif – gerunziul: In

getting out, he looked back. En sortant, le jeune homme tourna la tête.

Ieşind, tânărul întoarse capul. Upon leaving the hut I rapped as was my

custom, and getting no reply, sought for the key. Arrivant a la hute j’ai

frappé à la porte comme d’habitude et ne recevant aucune réponse, j’ai

cherché la clé. Ajungând la colibă, am bătut la uşă ca de obicei şi,

neprimind răspuns, am dibuit cheia. The English gerund and the French

gérondif in the function of adverbial modifier of time are regularly

77

confronted with gerunziul. b) Gerund – plus-que-parfait – mai mult ca

perfectul. After destroying some further portions of his lawn, he joined the

nearest Golf Club. Quand il avait détruit quelques autres portions de son

pâturage, il s’inscrivit dans le club de golf le plus proche. După ce

distrusese (distrugând) alte câteva porţiuni de pe pajiştea sa, se înscrise în

cel mai apropiat club de golf. (J.Galsworthy) French and Romanian prefer

past perfect forms when the English gerund is accompanied by lexical

anteriority means. c) Gerund – passé composé – perfectul compus (or

gerunziul): Upon reaching the wharf, I noticed a scythe and three spades,,,

Quand nous sommes arrives sur la quai, j’ai remarqué une faux et bêches.

Când am ajuns (ajungând) la chei, am observat... o coasă şi două hârleţe.

In all the confronted sentences here we have consecutive actions. Thus,

anteriority grammatical forms are not used here. The French passé composé

and the Romanian perfectul compus in the given context express an action

separated from the present moment, and, thus, they do not express

grammatical anteriority in this case and we have simultaneity in the

confronted examples. d) Gerund – infinitif – infinitivul: Instead of

considering each element by itself and seeking for the “cause”… Au lieu de

considérer chaque élément en soi et d’en chercher la «cause»… În loc de a

considera fiecare element în sine şi de a căuta “cauza”... (E.Benveniste) In

the French and Romanian examples in the given context the infinitive is

possible, taking into consideration the fact that the verb equivalents of the

verb „to consider” lexically preserve the durative meaning expressed by the

English gerund. c) Gerund – imparfait – imperfectul: Soames made a point

of eating one every year. Soames goutait une fraise chaque année. Soames

gusta în fiecare an câte o mură. The grammatical duration expressed by the

English gerund is expressed by imperfect forms in the confronted sentences

(see the same in the case of participle I and imperfect forms).

Participle I perfect forms. a) Perfect participle – participe passé

composé – gerunziul perfect: Having arrived the first, you have the

primarity. Vous avez le pas, étant arrivé le premier. Aveţi întâietate fiind

venit primul. Here we have complete coincidence in all the three languages,

though gerunziul perfect in Romanian is rarely used and is usually

substituted by forms given below. The only difference that the auxiliaries in

the target languages are the verbs “étant, fiind”. b) Perfect participle –

infinitif passé – perfectul compus: The courtiers, having entered, brought

furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. Les courtesans ont

apporté des forges et après avoir entré, il ont cloué la porte de l’intérieur.

Curtenii aduseseră cu ei forje şi ilăie grele şi, după ce au intrat, au ţintuit

78

poarta pe dinăuntru. In spite of the fact that there are different forms in the

confronted languages the grammatical meaning of anteriority is preserved

in all of them. c) Perfect participle – plus-que-parfait – mai mult ca

perfectul: Soames, having prolonged his week-end visit had been spending

the afternoon at the Zoological Gardens. Soames avait continué son week-

end à Londres et avait passé l’après-midi dans le jardin zoologique.

Soames îşi prelungise week-endul la Londra şi îşi petrecuse după ameaza

în grădina zoologică. (J.Galsworthy) Perfect participle is readily translated

into French and Romanian by means of past perfect forms, expressing the

grammatical meaning of past anteriority. It could be substituted by a past

perfect form in English as well.

Past Participle. The past participle is regularly confronted with the

French participe passé and the Romanian participial trecut: The

methodology tested in the Indo-European field set the pattern. La méthode

éprouvée sur le domaine indo-européen est devenue exemplaire. Metoda

experimentată în domeniul indo-european a devenit exemplară. The

English participle II can sometimes correspond to the Romanian mai mult

ca perfectul: On the staircase Charny met only some officers, friends of his,

informed beforehand. Charny ne rencontra sur les degrées que plusieurs

officiers, ses amis, prévenus assez à temps. Pe scări, Charny întâlni numai

câţiva ofiţeri, prieteni de ai săi, care fusese anunţaţi (anunţaţi) din timp.

The anteriority meaning in the confronted languages is practically the same.

The category of taxis expressed by the category of representation is

expressed in a “most pure” way.

10.9. The Category of Taxis in Oblique Moods

Anteriority is expressed in the purest way by lexical means and by

non-finite forms of the verb. The taxis marked grammatical forms have

much in common in many European languages, as their systems go back to

the same source. The grammatical perfect forms historically appeared in the

ancient times, developed into a complex system, and they started to lose

their position to some other linguistic means, like lexical and contextual

ones, which up till now played a secondary part in the conceptual category

of anteriority. The grammatical forms gradually lose their weight and are

substituted by much simpler forms of the verbs, anteriority being expressed

by non-grammatical means. Thus, the category of taxis can be expressed

grammatically, lexically, lexico-grammatically, contextually, and it may be

79

prosodically intensified. In the majority of cases taxis is expressed by at

least two of the existing categorial linguistic means (lexical and

grammatical means occur much more frequently). Even in the English

language the lexical means are nowadays in the process of gaining more

ground than the grammatical ones. In many European languages the

category of taxis (simultaneity-anteriority, correlation, anteriority,

perfectivity, time relationship, perfect aspect, etc.) is in constant process of

transition from pure grammatical categories to lexical and grammatical

ones, or just to pure lexical means. It has been observed that the non-finite

perfect forms are practically not used in journalese, either in British or

American newspapers. As far as finite perfect forms are concerned,

preference is given to present perfect, because this is the form that is best

suited to establishing a correlation between past and present, on the one

hand, and the connection between the performer and the undergoer of the

speech event, on the other.

Oblique Moods and the Category of Anteriority.

b) subjunctive II and conditional mood, anteriority to a past action: He

said he would have come earlier if he had known; El a spus că ar fi venit

(venea) mai devreme dacă ar fi avut (să fi avut, dacă avea) timp;

c) subjunctive II, anteriority to the present moment of speech: If she had

come in time yesterday you would have seen her; Dacă ea ar fi venit (să fi

venit, dacă venea) la timp ieri ai fi văzut-o (o vedeai);

d) subjunctive II, future anteriority in the past: I knew he would say that he

would have come if he had known; Eu ştiam că el va spune că ar fi venit

(venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut);

e) subjunctive II, anteriority to a moment or action in the future: She thinks

he will say that he would have come if he had known; Ea crede că el va

spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut, dacă ştia).

It is well known that in the natural human languages content and

form are actually inseparable. We cannot abstract ourselves from form in

analytical comparison and from content in comparative philology. What is

the actual connection between confrontational linguistics and comparative

philology? In what way are we supposed to avail ourselves of the results of

comparative-historical investigation when confronting cognate and

unrelated languages? In order that this problem may be presented as clearly

as possible, we shall turn to the category of anteriority in English and

Romanian. By confronting, for example, the category of taxis in English

and Romanian, we came to the conclusion, that there is a common tendency

in both languages. The perfect forms in both languages tend to be replaced

80

by simple non-perfect forms and the categorical meaning of anteriority is

expressed lexically or contextually. This process is more advanced in

Romanian, where some analytical perfect forms are now very rarely used.

11. The Semiotic and Metasemiotic Use of the

Category of Voice

The morphological-grammatical forms can be studied on two levels

1) the semantic level, where, for example, the present tense forms express

actions which include the moment of speaking, and 2) the metasemiotic

level, where present tense forms are used to denote an action which clearly

does not include the moment of speaking. The process of transition of some

grammatical categories into lexical ones is being observed in many

languages. It has been observed that the marked members of the opposition

are metasemiotically charged and are often used for expressivity and

emphasis. In the grammatical category of voice the marked form is the

passive voice categorical form. N. Raievscaia considers that the analysis of

the category of voice is not limited only to the definition of verbal relations

of the subject and object. The relation of more levels are involved in the

development of various means of expressing voice, the characteristic

feature of which cannot be demonstrated without taking into consideration

the correlation between the grammatical and lexical (both the denotational

and connotational) meanings. That is why it is important that the analysis

of the category of voice should include all the linguistic and extra-linguistic

phenomena. At a closer inspection we observe that the passive voice, for

instance, is preferred in specific functional styles, where the message is

more impersonal, the doer of the action is not made prominent. Thus, J.

Stanley writes that the passive categorial form is regularly used in

governmental documents, in scientific registers and fiction. He thinks that

the passive voice permits to abstract ourselves from the author and

concentrate our attention on other elements of the utterance. Some authors

think that the passive voice is mostly used in extreme situation, especially

to express notions of violence, misfortune, etc. For instance L. Payne

considers that in the sentence She was hit by a car (ea a fost lovită de o

maşină) the passive voice expresses an atmosphere of misfortune and the

author wants to make it prominent to influence the reader, this task would

be impossible in case of active voice. Positive information may also be

expressed in the passive voice: The famous scientists were awarded the

81

Nobel Prize. The hard working student was always highly appreciated. In

these two examples the emphatic use of the categorical form of the passive

voice is further intensified by lexical means. To increase the evaluative,

expressive and emotional overtones in oral speech people use elements of

suprasyntactic prosody. If the utterances given above are said by persons

being in a strong emotional state, the most important part of the message

would be characterized by specific metasemiotic prosody: slowed down

tempo, increased loudness/ or decreased loudness (with the same effect),

high fall on the most important lexical unit, the range of the voice is

widened. Also here the corresponding to the given situation body language,

voice qualifications and voce qualifiers are used to make a stronger impact

on the listener. Thus, in the examples: She was \hit by a car – the whole

utterance may be pronounced with an emphatic emotional prosody, and

“was hit” can be further singled out by a high fall on it. Medvedeva L.

mentions the fact that quite a number of proverbs are used in the passive

voice for the sake of expressivity and emphatic use: No sooner said than

done; Soon learnt, soon forgotten; Rome was not built in a day, etc. The

omission of the auxiliaries and the use only of the past participles in the

first two examples intensify the metasemiotic connotation.

In texts the authors would usually use various means of passive

forms and alternating them with active voice forms in order to avoid

monotony. Turner G. says that sometimes we forget that the utterance

„Caesar conquered Gaul” varies not only with „Gaul was conquered by

Caesar”, but also with „Caesar’s conquest of Gaul”, „The Conquest of

Gaul by Caesar” and „The Conquest of Gaul”, „Caesar’s Conquest”. In

all these examples we have difference of emphasis and various

connotations to be expressed by this or that utterance. The metasemiotic

use of passive voice and other categorical forms like aspect, mood and taxis

are usually combined in the same utterance to produce a stronger stylistic

effect not only in English. Thus, translating passive continuous forms from

English into continuous Romanian and Russian we observe that they are

regularly rendered by means of verbs with the particle “se” in Romanian

and flexion “-ся” in Russian. “Se” and“-ся” (cf. the English “self”) in both

languages are usually used to express lexical-grammatical reflexivity. But

in the examples bellow they are used purely grammatically to express a

different meaning, that of a durative action in the passive voice: The house

is being built now, The house was being built when we arrived there, The

house will be built this time next year – Casa se construieşte acum (Casa

este construită acum), Casa se construia (era construită) cînd am sosit

82

acolo, Casa se va construi (va fi construită) pe timpul acesta anul viitor -

Дом строится сейчас. Дом строиля, когда мы приежали туда, Дом

будет строится в это время в следующем году. The reflexive particle

and flexion here have the meanings of passive voice of imperfective

(durative) actions with metasemiotic connotations, expressed by both the

aspectual and voice categorical means. In English there is no continuous

aspect in the passive voice in the future, while in Romanian and Russian

continuity is expressed by forms like se va construi, будет строится. Va

fi construită”. Будет построено usually represent perfective actions. The

same opposition of finished (perfective) and imperfective in the passive

voice past indefinite is found in both Romanian and Russian: Casa se

construia – Casa era construită – Casa a fost construită (Casa era

construită may have the meaning of imperfectul pasiv and

pluscvamperfectul activ). The Russian: Дом строился - Дом был

построен represent the above-mentioned aspectual opposition.

The

Romanian examples in this case are different from the Russian ones

because they belong to the colloquial style. The grammatical categorial

forms of passive both in English and Romanian mean an action or process

directed towards the subject from outside and is usually expressed by the

grammatical form of the verb “to be + past participle”. In Romanian the

difference between the following two types of sentences is a stylistic one. A

lexical shift in the meaning is observed both in English and Romanian,

there is a contradiction between the lexical and grammatical meanings of

passive and pseudo-active voice: They sell the book – The book sells well

(The book is sold/bing sold well) – Ei vând cartea – Cartea se vinde bine;

The shop opens now ( The shop is being opened now) - Magazinul se

deschide acum – Magazinul este deschis acum (este deschis may be used in

the meanings of „in the process of being opened” and „is open”); The

book reads well – The book is read well (The book is being read well) –

Cartea se citeşte bine – Cartea este citită bine. In the second example the

passive meaning is combined with the durative one enhancing the

metasemiotic connotation. The following sentences The house is built by

this firm; The house is being built by this firm; The house has been built by

this firm; The house was built by this firm; The house was being built by

this firm; The house had been built by this this firm; The house will be built

by this firm can be rendered into Romanian by the following equivalents:

Casa este construită de către firma aceasta; Casa se construieşte de către

firma aceasta; Casa a fost construită de către firma aceasta; Casa s-a

construit de către firma aceasta; Casa era construită de către firma

83

aceasta; Casa se construia de către firma aceasta; Casa fu construită de

către firma aceasta; Casa se construi de către firma aceasta; Casa fusese

construită de către firma aceasta; Casa se construise de către firma

aceasta. As we see in Romanian each example there are two forms of the

passive voice. The difference between the two variants of utterances in the

passive voice is one of aspect – in the second variant we have two marked

categorical forms: passive voice and durative or imperfective aspect and

that means that the stylistic connotation is much stronger than in the first

variant, where we have only one marked categorical form, that of the

passive voice.

Analysing a great number of examples we observe that the passive

construction of the auxiliary “to be + past participle is prevailing in English

and relatively less often used in Romanian and especially in Russian. The

passive forms in the following sentences We were told to come at five, The

soldiers were ordered to guard the airport are preferrable in English to the

active forms They told us to come at five, They ordered the soldiers to

guard the airport. Passive constructions like in the examples given above

are usually rendered into Romanian by means of pronominal verb

constructions expressing passive voice, characteristic of coloquial speech:

(Nouă) ni s-a spus să venim la ora cinci, Soldaţilor li s-a ordonat să vină la

ora cinci. In some cases it is unacceptable in Romanian to use the

construction with the verb “to be” plus past participle. Soldaţii au fost

ordonaţi să vină la ora cinci would express a completely different

connotational meaning. In Russian the sentence Нам было приказано

прийти в пять часов, sounds to be too strict, official and pedantic. What

we usually find in translations is: “(Они) нам приказали прийти в пять

часов, i.e. the active voice is preferred here and it is metasemiotically less

charged, it is a milder and more polite form of expressing an order or

emphatic request.

Prof. A.Smirnitsky put forward the idea that there are lexical units

expressing pure lexical passive or active meanings and they form a pure

lexical opposition. Thus, the relation between the verbs „to act” („a

acţiona”) and „to suffer” („a suferi”) resembles the relation between the

active and passive voices: Tom’s bosom friend sat next to him, suffering,

just as Tom had been from the same mortal boring… Alături de Tom şedea

prietenul lui la cataramă, care suferea de aceeaşi ucigătoare plictiseală, de

care suferise nu demult Tom (M.Twain). The verb „to suffer” („a suferi”) in

the above given example expresses a logical passive meaning and comes

into contradiction with their active form. According to A.Smirnitsky the

84

word “noise” (“zgomot”) in the sentence A noise was heard (Un zgomot a

fost auzit or Un zgomot s-a auzit) is grammatically influenced by the

subject, but lexically it is really directed to the object. The two variants in

Romanian express the same categorial form of passive voice and are only

stylistically different. In translations often we have non-coincidences while

comparing the source and the target language variants, because of cases

when the passive is preferable in the source language or vice versa: But

they discovered the danger in time- Însă primejdia fu observată la timp”

(M.Twain). In this example the translator used the passive voice by

changing the place of the subject and object and achieving an additional

expressivity and putting the stress on the danger while in the source

language they is made prominent. Besides, the speaker can pronounce fu

observată with suprasyntactic prosodic means mentioned above: slowed

down tempo, increased loudness, high fall on the most important lexical

unit observată, the range of the voice is widened. By this we will have

quite a different interpretation of they discovered in Romanian, absolutely

different form the point of view of stylistics connotations. The active form

could be quite acceptable in Romanian as well: Dar ei au observat

primejdia la timp.

Non-finite passive forms of the verb are also regularly used

metasemiotically. Thus, past participle of transitive verbs may be used

instead of finite perfect forms to express both anteriority and passive

categorical meanings. Let’s take two examples with past participle in

English, participe passé in French and participial trecut in Romanian: The

methodology tested in the Indo-European field set the pattern. La méthode

éprouvée sur le domaine indo-européen est devenue exemplaire. Metoda

experimentată în domeniul indo-european a devenit exemplară. All these

observations bring out the essential difference between the method of

communication discovered among bees and our human language.

L’ensemble de ces observations fait apparaitre la différence essentielle

entre les procédées de communication découverts chez les abeilles et notre

langage. Toate observaţiile acestea scot la iveală diferenţa esenţială dintre

metoda de comunicare descoperită la albini şi limba umană. The

anteriority and passive categorical meanings of the past participles in the

confronted languages are clearly expressive. Structurally the sentences are

shorter, the past participle usually substituting a whole secondary clause.

The use of past participle in the function of attributes expresses a stronger

metasemiotic connotation: Hydrogen is the lightest substance known.

Hidrogenul este cea mai uşoară substanţă cunoscută. Unfortunately it is

85

not possible to present in this book all the information obtained. Din

păcate nu este posibil de a prezentaîn cartea aceasta toată informaţia

obţinută. In both languages a complete coincidence is attested as to the

semiotic and metasemiotic meanings of past participles in attributive

functions. Past participle as an adverbial modifier of concession: But the

Right-wing Labour leaders, though forced to give way on some questions,

will stick to their policies. Liderii laburişti de dreapta, deşi forţaţi să

cedeze în unele probleme, vor susţine politica lor. Complex object with

past participle: We hope to see this issue raised in all trades councils, in

every union. Noi sperăm vedem această problemă ridicată în fiecare

sindicat. Thus, the past participle in some constructions is also used to

express anteriority and passive categorical meanings [39, 165-172].

Let’s take an example given by A.Smirnitsky where the past

participle “gone” in the combination “is gone”, is used in a transferred

meaning of “he died”: “Poor Mr. Brown is (has) gone. He was taken from

us. He has left us. He has joined the great majority” Sărmanul dl.Brown a

murit (a plecat). El a murit (ne-a părăsit). El a plecat/a fost dus în lumea

străbunilor. “Is gone” in this example possess a strong inherent stylistic

connotation with a sociolinguistic motivation. The same combination can

be used in the direct sense of the word in colloquial speech as in Where is

Mr. Brown? He is gone. He will be back in an hour. Unde e dl Brown? El e

plecat. Se va întoarce peste o oră. “Is gone” in this example is used in the

colloquial style.

Having analysed a considerable number of examples we can state

that past participle of transitive verbs can be used to express anteriority and

passive categorical meanings not only in constructions to be+participle II.

It may be used independently to express the same categorical meanings.

Both anteriority and passive voice marked categorial meanings possess a

certain metasemiotic connotation which is usually intensified by lexical an

suprasyntactic prosodic means depending on the context. Various points of

view concerning the category of voice could be explained by the fact that

there is not a clear-cut distinction of lexical and grammatical means of

expressing the categorial forms of voice. The lexical and grammatical voice

means are often very close and they both interact. The number of categorial

forms in various linguistic interpretations ranges from two up to six in most

grammar books: active voice, passive voice, mediopassive, reflexive voice,

reciprocal voice, dynamic voice, etc. Most linguists consider that as pure

grammatical categorial forms we could single out only the active and

passive voice. The rest of the above stated categorial forms express the

86

given meanings of voice lexically or lexically-grammatically. In Romanian

the system of categorial forms of voice resembles the one in English, but in

most grammar books a system of three forms is usually put forward: active,

passive and reflexive. The reflexive voice in English is considered to be a

purely lexical categorial form. But even here we have a combination of

lexical and grammatical meanings. The reflexive pronouns express lexical

reflexivity. The verb combined with such a pronoun usually expresses an

active grammatical voice action reflected back on the subject. Thus, for

example: I see somebody there in the mirror structurally is the same as I

see myself there in the mirror, i.e. subject + predicate + object, with the

only difference that “myself” lexically expresses the reflection of the given

action on the subject. In Romanian the reflexive is also a lexical-

grammatical categorial form (the lexical meaning still prevailing over the

grammatical one). Depending on different meanings of the verbs with the

pronouns “se” and “îşi”, in Romanian there are six pronominal voices:

reciprocal, passive, dynamic, impersonal, objective and inventive. The

pronouns “se” and “îşi”, in the first and second person singular and plural,

have the forms of personal pronoun objects. The Romanian reciprocal and

reflexive pronouns form stable combinations with verbs and are the

markers of the corresponding lexical-grammatical categorial forms of

voice. The English reflexive pronouns are more independent but they also

form similar stable combinations with verbs to express reflexivity. The

same can be said of the reciprocal pronouns (each other, one another). In

some clear-cut contexts the reflexive pronoun may be omitted in English

because of redundant information: “In the morning I wash and shave at six

o’clock”. The reflexive pronoun “myself” is dropped because reflexivity

here is expressed contextually. It is quite clear from the context that I wash

and shave myself not something or somebody else. Let us confront some

categorial forms of voice in English and Romanian. The active voice in the

confronted languages express an action carried out by the subject and not

reflected back on the doer of the action: The widow’s servant kept him

clean and neat, combed and brushed, and they bedded him nightly. –

Servitoarea văduvei îl spăla, îl îmbrăca, îl pieptăna şi îl culca în fiecare

seară (M.Twain). Sometimes the original text does not coincide with the

translation, because in such cases the passive is preferrable in the target

language (or vice versa): But they discovered the danger in time- Însă

primejdia fu observată la timp (M.Twain). In this example the translator

used the passive voice by changing the place of the subject and object and

achieving an additional expressivity. The active form could be quite

87

acceptable here: Dar ei au observat primejdia la timp. After a detailed

analysis of the material we can conclude, that pronominal verbs in

Romanian form a large lexico-grammatical system, and they are very often

used in speech. Thus, the English active voice forms are regularly rendered

into Romanian by means of pronominal verbs in the reflexive or reciprocal

voices: I’ll never marry anybody but you – and you ain’t to ever marry

anybody but me –N-am să mă mărit cu altul, dar şi tu să nu te însori cu

nimeni afară de mine (M.Twain). But Sid snatched his clothes and gone –

Dar Sid îşi înşfăcă hainele şi dispăru (M.Twain). Dar Sid a înşfăcat hainele

sale şi a dispărut is stylistically different from the official translation. The

English reciprocal voice is usually translated into Romanian by means of

reciprocal pronouns and a reflexive pronoun plus the given verb: They

loved each other – Ei se iubeau unul pe altul. Now we shall adduce

examples in which the English reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in the

function of objects and verbs in the active voice correspond in Romanian to

pronominal verbs. To intensify the meanings of reflexivity and

reciprocality we sometimes use synonymous pronouns: unul pe altul, unii

pe alţii, una pe alta, unele pe altele, pe sine, etc.: A deep peel of thunder

went rolling and tumbling down the heavens and lost itself in sullen

rumblings in the distance” – Un tunet surd răsună, rostogolindu-se pe

bolta cerului şi se pierdu undeva în depărtare, bodogănind supărat; The

boys dressed themselves, hid their accoutrements, and went off, grieving

that there were no outlaws any more, and wondering what civilization

could claim to have to compensate their loss (M.Twain) – Băieţii se

îmbrăcară, ascunseră armele şi porniră spre casă, căinându-se că pe lume

nu mai sunt tălhari vestiţi, frământându-şi minţile cu ce ar putea înlocui

astăzi această pierdere (M.Twain). As we see “se” and its variants in

Romanian form analytical forms with the corresponding verbs, and

sometimes it may be added to a word in colloquial speech: “rostogolindu-

se, căinându-se, frământându-şi, ducă-se”. In Russian the reflexive “-ся”

has become a flexion and is used only as a flexion, which still preserves its

original lexical meaning of reflexivity. Thus, compare: Он моется = Он

моет себя. “Cя” in моется has become part of the given word and is

much stronger connected with the corresponding verb than “himself” in

English. The grammatical categorial form of passive both in English and

Romanian means an action or process directed towards the subject from

outside and is usually expressed by the grammatical form of the verb “to be

+ past participle”. Let us compare some examples of passive categorial

form in both languages on the etic level and see which forms are preferable

88

in official translations: Smaller boys than himself flocked at his heels, as

proud to be seen with him, and tolerated by him – Băieţii mai mici alergau

buluc în urma lui, mândri de a fi văzuţi împreună cu el, şi că el nu-i alungă

Tom was therefore elevated to a place with the judge and the other elect,

and the great news was announced. - Tom fu poftit să se sue în strană, unde

şedea judecătorul şi celelalte persoane simandicoase, iar marea noutate fu

adusă la cunoştinţă. The passive voice forms here structurally coincide in

both languages. Of interest is the case when the English passive voice is

translated into colloquial Romanian by means of pronominal verbs, which

are reflexive in their structure and meaning: Oh! Michael! You will be

bored to death! – O, Mihail! Ai să te plictiseşti de moarte! The translation

in the target language may be interpreted in two ways: 1.Michael will be

bored by what will be taking place there, i.e, the effect will come from

outside, there will be nothing interesting there, and in this case this

sentence could be easily translated by means of passive form expressed by

‘to be” + past participle’ as well: O, Mihail! Ai să fii plictisit de moarte!

(the action is coming from the object not from the subject and between the

two varaiants there is a stylistic and aspectual difference). The latter

example belongs to the literary style, while the former belongs to the

coloquial one. After a closer investigation of similar examples we have

come to the conclusion that examples like O, Mihail! Ai să te plictiseşti de

moarte! can also be treated as forms expressing a durative passive voice

action. 2. The second situational interpretation of the sentence O, Mihail!

Ai să te plictiseşti de moarte! is that Michael will do something boring, i.e.

he will be the doer of the action reflected on him and in this case the

translation can be interpreted as a form of the reflexive voice. This

observation concerning the multifunctional status of the Romanian particle

“se” turned out to coincide with that of the Russian flexion “-ся”. In both

Russian and Romanian the given reflexive pronouns have developed

homonymous meanings, which like in the case of the English “myself,

yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves” have

turned out to express not only reflexive meanings. They are also used to

express passive continuous actions. Regular confrontation of examples

allows us to conclude, that the English continuous forms are regularly

translated by means of verbs with the particle “se” into Romanian and

flexion “-ся” in Russian, The reflexive particle and flexion are usually used

to express a reflexive action but in this case they are homonyms and

express unfinished (continuous or durative) actions in the passive voice.

For example: The problem is being discussed at the meeting now, The

89

problem was being discussed at the meeting this time last week, The

problem will be discussed (dialectal: The problem will be being discussed)

this time next week – Problema se discută (este discutată) la adunare

acum, Problema se discuta (era discutată, a fost discutată) pe timpul

acesta săptămâna trecută, Problema se va discuta (va fi discutată) pe

timpul acesta săptămâna viitoare – Проблема обсуждается на собрании

сейчас, Проблема обсуждалась в это время на прошлой недели,

Проблема будет обсуждаться в это время на следующей недели. We

should note the fact that in Romanian we have two forms to render

imperfective actions in the past: „se discuta” (colloquial) and „era discutat„

(imperfectul). The reflexive particle and flexion are completely

synonymous with the meanings of passive voice of imperfective (durative)

action. In English there is no continuous aspect in the passive voice in the

future, because both categorial forms are used with the verb “to be” and it

is not acceptable in the literary English to say: “The house will be being

built”, which can be found only in dialects. Both in Romanian and Russian

future continuity is expressed: “se va construi”, “будет строится». “Va

fi construită” usually represents a perfective action, but in combination

with lexical aspectual durative means it expresses a continuous action:

Casa va fi construită în curs de un an. The same opposition of finished

(perfective) and imperfective in the passive voice past indefinite is found in

both Romanian and Russian: Casa se construia – Casa era construită –

Casa a fost construită (Casa era construită) may have the meaning of

imperfectul pasiv and pluscvamperfectul activ). The Russian: Дом

строился - Дом был построен also represent the abovementioned

aspectual opposition. We should mention here that the particle «-se» and

the flexion “-ся” in the reflexive meaning combined with a verb are used

lexico-grammatically, while in the passive continuous (imperfective) they

become purely grammatical forms. In the result of the analysis we can also

conclude that the traditional passive construction of the auxiliary “to be +

past participle is prevailing in English and less often used in Romanian and

especially in Russian. The passive forms in the following sentences We

were told to come at five, We are told to come at five, We will be told to

come at five; The soldiers were ordered to guard the airport, The soldiers

are ordered to come at five, The soldiers will be ordered to come at five are

preferrable to the active forms used in They told us to come at five, They

ordered the soldiers to guard the airport. The passive constructions are

usually rendered into Romanian by means of pronominal verb

constructions expressing passive voice, characteristic of coloquial speech:

90

(Nouă) ni s-a spus să venim la ora cinci, (Nouă) ni se spune să venim la

ora cinci, (Nouă) ni se va spune să venim la ora cinci; Soldaţilor li s-a

ordonat să vină la ora cinci, Soldaţilor li se ordonă să vină la ora cinci,

Soldaţilor li se va ordona să vină la ora cinci. In some cases it is

unacceptable to use in Romanian the construction with the verb “to be”

plus past participle. Soldaţii au fost ordonaţi să vină la ora cinci would

express a completely different connotational meaning. In the Russian the

sentences Нам было приказано прийти в пять часов, Нам будет

приказано прийти в пять часов sound to be too official and pedantic and

what we usually find in translations is: (Они) нам приказали прийти в

пять часов, (Они) нам приказывают прийти в пять часов, (Они) нам

прикажут прийти в пять часов, i.e. the active voice is preferred here

and it is metasemiotically less charged. A lexical shift in the meaning can

be observed both in English and Romanian. A well known feature is the

contradiction between the lexical and grammatical meanings of passive and

active voice: They sell the book – The book sells well – Ei vând cartea –

Cartea se vinde bine; The shop is being opened now – The shop opens now-

Magazinul se deschide acum –Magazinul este deschis acum. Este deschis

may be used in the meanings of in the process of being opened and is open;

The book reads well – The book is read well – Cartea se citeşte bine –

Cartea este citită bine. Both in English and Romanian there are verbs, the

lexical meanings of which can be either passive or active and they form a

pure lexical opposition. Thus, A.I.Smirnitsky writes that the relation

between the verbs „to act” (a acţiona) and „to suffer” (a suferi) resembles

the relation between the active and passive voices: Tom’s bosom friend sat

next to him, suffering, just as Tom had been (suffering) from the same

mortal boring…– Alături de Tom şedea prietenul lui la cataramă, care

suferea (suferind) de aceeaşi ucigătoare plictiseală, de care suferise nu

demult Tom (M.Twain). The verb „to suffer” („a suferi”) in the above given

example has in both languages a logical passive meaning, in spite of the

active form of the verbs. There are many lexical passive verbs, which come

into contradiction with their active form in the sentence: to hear – a auzi, to

observe – a observa, to see – a vedea, etc.: I have heard about this – Eu am

auzit de aceasta; I heard her cry - Am auzit-o plângând. Thus, in thesxe

examples the verbs are used in the active voice forms, but the action is

really directed towards the subject from outside, like in the case of passive

voice actions. According to A.Smirnitsky the word “noise” (zgomot) in the

sentence A noise was heard (Un zgomot a fost auzit or Un zgomot s-a auzit)

is grammatically influenced by the subject, but lexically it is really directed

91

to the object. The two variants in Romanian express the same categorial

form of passive voice and are only stylistically different. We can conclude

that English and Romanian possess well developed systems of grammatical

categorial forms of passive and active voice. In Romanian the lexico-

grammatical categorial form of reflexive voice is represented by the stable

combination of a verb and pronouns “se” and “îşi”(and their variants). In

English the reflexive voice is not purely lexical as it is usually stated: the

reflexive pronouns express reflexivity lexically but in speech they can not

be separated from the grammatical meanings of the verbs, that is, here we

have the same combination of grammatical and lexical voice meanings and

the given categorial form should be considered to be lexical-grammatical.

Both in English and Romanian the reflexive pronouns have developed non-

reflexive homonymous meanings: in Romanian they may be used to

express the categorial form of passive voice and in English they may be

used as emphatic pronouns [39, 165-172].

12. The Category of Comparsion in English

and Romanian

The category of comparison has historically changed in both

languages. The reduction of the morphological paradigm in English led to

the obliteration of the grammatical categories of gender, number and case.

In Romanian grammatical gender and number have been preserved. The

marked and unmarked categorial forms of positive, comparative and

superlative degrees are expressed in English synthetically, analytically and

suppletively. Historically the synthetic forms were used in Old English and

the analytical ones appeared as a system in the Middle English, when the

periphrastic comparative forms, only occasionally used in Old English,

began to be substituted (under French influence) by analytical forms with

ma, mo. mare, more, mast, most, which were used both with English and

French adjectives, with monosyllables and disyllables, as well as with

polysyllables. The preference of these over synthetic forms may in some

cases be stylistic.

The absolute superlative (most + positive form) may have appeared

under the influence of Latin (You are most kind). It is known that in Latin

the degrees of comparison were formed synthetically. But even in the

classic Latin a number of adjectives existed which formed the degrees of

comparisons analytically. In the V and VI centuries the analytical forms

92

started to substitute the synthetic ones. Magis and plus were used to form

the comparative degrees, and maxime, super, valde, bene were used to form

the superlative. In Old Latin the comparison of the adjective by means of

magis became a grammatical way in Iberia, the South of Galia and the

Danube basin. The adverb plus was also used in forming the comparative

degree, but it was not widely spread being used only in the Northern part of

Galia. The superlative was formed by means of maxime and multum. In the

Oriental Romance languages the forms magis dulce turned into mai dulce –

cel mai dulce. Besides that other comparative constructions appeared: tot

atît de bun, mai puţin bun, prea bun, foarte bun, extrem de bun, etc.. Some

linguists affirm that the positive degree should not be considered as part of

the category of comparison. Here we should say that there exists an

opposition of marked (superlative and comparative degrees) and the

unmarked (the positive degree) categorial forms. Even within the positive

degree we can compare lexically and contextually: This apple is sweet and

that one is sour (Compare: This apple is sweeter than that one. That apple

is less sweet than this one. That apple is not as sweet as this one. That

apple is sourer than this one.) That means that we taste the two apples and

compare them on the same level. While when we say that the apple is

sweater/sourer or the sweetest we compare in the limits of the same

adjective and quality. Some linguists affirm that the positive degree should

not be considered as part of the category of comparison, but it is one of the

three categorial forms of comparison, the unmarked one.

The degrees of comparisons of adjectives and adverbs are usually

considered to be part of the corresponding grammatical categories. The

synthetic forms express comparison purely grammatically. When we turn to

the analytical forms the picture is different. “More” and “most” which

regularly are used to form the analytical degrees of comparison, being

elements of the given analytical forms, have partially preserved their

original lexical meaning. The same can be seen in Romanian: “mai”,” cel

mai” practically express the same meanings. Besides there are a number of

words used as lexical intensifiers in both languages, which are used with

both analytical and synthetic forms. Degrees of comparison express

equality and difference of degree within the same quality. Only those

adjectives, which denote properties, can have degrees of comparison.

Usually grammar books say that qualitative adjectives can form the degrees

of comparison and the relative ones do not. This is not always the case.

Thus: adjectives with the suffix –ish (reddish), with a negative meaning

(like impossible), a number of adjectives, which mainly belong to a

93

superlative meaning (exclusive, absolute, extreme, principal, chief, unique,

superior, inferior, complete, etc.) But even these adjective can be used with

intensifiers to express a certain inequality: far superior, much more

superior, very much superior, less superior, much less superior, least

superior. Even those adjectives that do not form the degrees of comparison,

belong to the positive degree and can in some cases be used for stylistic

purposes to form a comparative degree: You cannot be deader than dead.

He was the deadest of them all. You are not less dead than he is.

(E.Hemingway) Relative adjectives do not form degrees of comparison

(woolen, wooden, economic, etc. and some of them can express relative

quality of objects or phenomena (wooden door, glass door, a monthly

magazine, daily program, European country, political life, capitalist

society, socialist ideology). In some cases relative adjectives acquire an

additional meaning and can form the degrees of comparison: The life there

had been more English than in England. (Aldridge) John is more English

than the English. John is very English. (Swan) He is English to the

backbone. He has very little English in him and you have even less. A

grammatical topic – a less (least) grammatical topic – a purely

grammatical topic – a more grammatical topic - the most grammatical of

the suggested topics. In all these examples we really detect a difference or

variation of quality within the same adjective. Qualitative adjectives

express various qualities within the same adjective defining a certain object

or phenomenon. Thus, varying and static quality could be considered as an

opposition. In this respect we should mention Blokh’s division of

adjectives into “evaluative” and “specific”. One and the same adjective can

be used either in the evaluative or in the specificative function. As an

example he gives the adjective good, which is basically qualitative (good-

better-the best), but when used as part of a marking scale together with the

grading terms bad, satisfactory, excellent it acquires a static or

“specificative” function. On the other hand, the whole grading system here

(bad-satisfactory-good-excellent) could be considered as a paradigm of

lexical degrees of comparison. All the adjectives, which can form degrees

of comparison either lexically or grammatically (the synthetic forms) can

vary their quality or be “evaluative”. The comparative degree in English

and Romanian help to establish a correlation of superiority, inferiority and

equality of a variable quality or property, possessed by objects or

phenomena, which are compared or contrasted. The comparative degree of

equality compares objects or phenomena on the same level, i.e. expresses

equality or an equivalence of qualities or properties of two or more objects:

94

This mountain is as high as that one. = This mountain is not less high than

that one. This mountain is not higher than that one. Acest munte este tot

atât de înalt ca şi celălalt = Acest munte nu este mai puţin înalt decât

celălalt. Acest munte nu este mai înalt decît celălalt. In this example we

practically have different forms (comparative of equality and inequality)

expressing the same meaning. Thus, if negation is added here then

inequality comparison is used: This flower is beautiful. This flower is as

beautiful as that one. This flower is not so beautiful as that one = This

flower is less beautiful than that one = That flower is more beautiful than

this one. Această floare este frumoasă. Această floare e tot atât de

frumoasă ca şi aceea. Această floare nu este tot atât de frumoasă ca aceea.

= Această floare este mai puţin frumoasă ca aceea = Floarea aceea este

mai frumoasă decât aceasta. Here the comparison of equality is followed

by that of inferiority and superiority inequality. In Romanian the degree of

comparison of equality and inequality is formed by the help of the

following constructions: tot aşa de, tot atît de, la fel de, deopotrivă de,

întocmai ca, la fel ca, mai puţin, mult mai puţin, etc. Examples: …O foame

tot aşa de tristă ca şi acele gînduri. Un ostaş tot aşa de viteaz ca Ion.

Această greşeală nu este tot atît de gravă ca aceea (This mistake is not as

grave as that one). There are quite a number of idioms, where the

comparative of equality is used (though in many cases the meaning of

superlative is implied): as busy as a bee (very busy) – harnic ca albina

(foarte harnic). The comparative degree of superiority shows that the object

or phenomenon has a higher degree of quality in comparison with those,

which are compared. In English the comparative of superiority is expressed

by the comparative degree (synthetic, analytical or suppletive forms) of the

adjective and is followed by the conjunction “than”: You are more

interested in my dresses than my dressmaker. He looked younger than his

friend. Intensifiers are often used to increase the variation on the

comparative degree level: This is much better (Aceasta e mult mai bine);

This is much more better (Aceasta e cu mult mai bine); This is far better;

This is better by far; This is considerably better. The performance became

more and more thrilling; The water was deieper and deieper (repetitions).

Ever greater success have been achieved (Apa era/devenea tot mai adâncă

şi mai adâncă). The more leasure he has, the happier hie is. Cu cât mai

mult se odihneşte, cu atât mai fericit el este). Nimic pe lume nu e mai

scump şi mai slăvit decât libertatea. Very often the usual intensifiers are

further intensified by other contextual lexical means: nimic în lume =

nothing in the world. Very often the second element of the comparison of

95

superiority or inferiority is omitted because of contextual redundancy:

Rămânea o sarcină mai grea şi mai primejdioasă. A more difficult and

dangerous task remained. You won’t find better examples. Nu vei găsi

exemple mai bune. Fata se făcea din ce în ce mai frumoasă. The girl was

getting more and more beautiful. Thus comparing English and Romanian

here we could say that we observe a very close coincidence on the semantic

level, on the formal level the synthetic forms are not used in Romanian.

The comparative degree of inferiority both in English and Romanian shows

that objects or phenomena have a lower degree of quality in comparison

with other ones: The number of people is less numerous than it was last

time. Numărul de oameni este mai puţin numeros decât data trecută. John

is less happy than his brother. John este mai puţin fericit decât fratele său.

If we combine “less” and “mai puţin” with ”not” (nu) we get an equivalent

of comparative of equality: The number of people is not less numerous than

it was last time. Numărul de oameni nu e mai puţin numeros decât data

trecută. It is not less important = It is not more important = It is as

important. Nu este mai piţin important = nu este mai important = E tot atât

de important. We can see from the last example that the three variants

practically express an equal quality of the compared objects. By using

intensifiers of various degree, we can have a gradual transition on the level

of the same categorial form: Tom was taller than Peter – Tom was far

taller than Peter – Tom was much taller than Peter – Tom was much more

taller than Peter – Tom was considerably taller than Peter – Tom was by

all means taller than Peter – Tom was undoubtfully taller than Peter, etc.

Tom era mai înalt decât Peter – Tom era cu mult mai înalt decât Peter –

Tom era mult mai înalt decât Peter – Tom era incomparabil, considerabil,

infinit, incomensurabil mai înalt decât Peter, etc.

The superlative degree establishes that an object or phenomenon

possesses a quality or a property in the highest or in the lowest degree The

English relative superlative has two forms (analytical and synthetic) while

in Romanian only the analytical forms are used. The superlative degree

may be absolute and relative, the latter also being divided into superlative

of superiority and superlative of inferiority. The absolute superlative shows

a quality in its highest degree without a comparison with other objects in

the given context. Intensifiers are often used here: You are a very good

child – You are an extremely good child – You are a very good child indeed

– You look too good. Addy and Ellie look beautiful enough to please the

most fastidious man. (Shaw) He said of him that he was too serious.

(Dreiser) Be quick or it may be too late. (Dickens) He is awfully nice. She is

96

extraordinarily (extremely, terribly, etc.) clever. We should mention here

that most of the intensifiers are not only used to intensify the degree of

variation of the equality but they are also used metasemiotically, to produce

a stylistic effect. In this case grammatical and especially the lexical means

are widely supported by prosodic means: Oh, she is glorious! In addition to

the lexical superlative expressed by “glorious” the prosodic elements that

should be used here considerably intensify the degree of absolute

superlative both semiotically and metasemiotically: the adjective “glorious”

is pronounced in a loud voice (increased loudness), slowed down tempo,

wide range, high falling tone – all these prosodic elements are characteristic

of highly emotional, emphatic speech.

There are quite a number of adjectives which become absolute

superlatives by using such lexical means like: a) affixes: -“less”, “ultra-,

super-, over-, etc. matchless, peerless, oversensitive, over-greedy,

overgenerous, over-busy, overambitious, overactive, superfine,

supereminent, superabundant, ultrashort, ultramodern, etc.; b) analytical

genitives: A mountain of a man – a very tall man. A devil of a child – a

very naughty child. A monster of a dog – a monstruous dog. A mountain of

happiness – extremely happy, etc. c) Some other combinations: beyond

belief, without compare (equal) -too good (great) to be compared to

anybody else). d) repetitions: A red, red rose! e) hyperboles: scared to

death = very frightened; immensely obliged = very much obliged; full to

the brim – quite full; g) Simile: (as) black as coal = quite black; (as) dry as

a bone = very dry; h) metaphor: blowing hot and cold = very hesitating; he

is a fox = he is very sly; i) litotes: no coward = very brave. Practically all

these means, which help express an absolute superlative are

metasemiotically charged and posses inherent stylistic connotations. It

should also be mentioned here that the absolute superlative is not used with

a definite article, while the relative superlative is regularly used with a

definite article or other deictic means: The girl put on the best clothes to go

to the theatre = The girl put on her best clothes to go to the theatre.

Sometimes the article may be omitted for the sake of expressivity and is

emotionally coloured, intensified here by prosody: Oh, most faithful of

friends! When a noun is defined by a number of superlatives the definite

noun may be repeated only in case of emphasis: He is the cleverest,

sweetest and most affectionate of children. He is the cleverest, the sweetest

and the most affectionate of children (emphasized). Sometimes the use of

superlative degree with an indefinite article is explained by stating that it is

just an adjective used to express a high degree of the quality possessed by

97

the noun. This probably is not the case in the following examples:

Yesterday I have read a most interesting book, I have seen a most

interesting film. In this case it is not just an absolute superlative (“a very

interesting book or film”), in each example we have an adjective defining a

noun belonging to a class of object possessing a superlative quality, one of

the class (“a most interesting book”, belonging to the class of “the most

interesting books”). When a noun is preceded by “most”, the zero articles

usually used, the meaning of “most” in many cases is “most, but not all of

them”, “the majority of”: Most leaves are green. He finds most pleasure in

reading. Most of his mistakes are made through carelessness. In case the

second element of comparison is omitted the definite article may be

dropped: The book is most interesting; He is happiest when everybody is at

home. Most intensifiers, including double superlative, are used for the sake

of intensification or to produce a stylistic effect, or both, belong to

colloquial or dialectal style. Thus, such forms as “most noblest” was

accepted in Shakespeare’s times, but now it is not acceptable in the literary

language. But other intensifying elements are found quite often: I hope you

will have the finest weather possible. (Sper că veţi avea cel mai minunat

timp posibil.) I have read the worst novel imaginable. It is by far the most

interesting play I have ever seen. They are the very best friends.

In Romanian we have the same division of the superlative degree as

in English: relative-superlative of superiority and that of inferiority, and

absolute superlative: El este cel mai sârguincios dintre toţi studenţii. El

este cel mai puţin activ dintre toţi studenţii. De câte ori am trecut de la

treptele cele mai înalte la cele de mai jos. A number of lexical units are

used in this case: foarte, tare, prea, adânc, profund, amarnic de, mult, mult

prea, grozav de, nemaipomenit de, straşnic de, minunat de, îngrozitor de,

teribil de, dureros de, negrăit de, neobişnuit de, nespus de, peste seamă de,

infinit de, peste măsură de, etc.: “,,,O prea frumoasă fată” (A most

beautiful girl). (M.Eminescu) “Mă nelinişteşte gândul prea puţin modest că

s-ar fi putut să nu fie nimeni. Generaţia lui e mult prea scutită de grijile

zilnice… Here we should stress the fact again that the superlative forms,

especially those used with intensifiers, are emphatic and, thus, belong to a

stylistic category as well [39, 173-180].

98

13. The Category of Grammatical Deixis in English

and Romanian

The category of deixis in English and Romanian is expressed

grammatically, lexically and lexico-grammatically. The linguistic and

extra-linguistic contexts and prosodic means are also important in the

realisation of this category. The deictic means identify the objects to both

the speakers and the listeners and they have the function of differentiation,

defining, singling out, of a special type of identification by correlating

persons and objects, being in this or that relation to the speaker. The main

deictic means are: articles, pronouns, numerals, prepositions, adjectives,

adverbs, particles, etc. Deixis is a category consisting of three categorial

forms: definite, indefinite and general identification, and is expressed best

of all by the definite, indefinite and zero articles.

The Definite Deictic Identification (Indication). In the case of the

definite article “the object is viewed upon as known and concrete, and

singled out from a class of similar objects”81

; the indefinite article is used

when the noun belongs to a certain class of objects, and the zero article

(meaningful absence of the article) represents the given object in a general

meaning denoting all the members of the given class. Both in English and

Romanian the definite and indefinite articles correspondingly go back to

demonstrative and indefinite pronouns (the latter in their turn were formed

from the numeral), which gradually lost their original meaning. But in

some contexts they have still preserved the original meaning: (At the time

he was engaged = At that time he was engaged; A man entered the room,

not two). Now we are going to confront the categorial form of the definite

deictic identification (DDI) on the etic level. The definite article is mostly

used in this case to single out an object or a group of objects from a class:

The lads came gaily back... (M.Twain) - Băeţii se întorseseră pe insulă

veseli..; The young man felt suddenly quite homesick. (J.Galsworthy) -

Deodată tânărului i s-a făcut dor de casă. .Upon leaving him on the night

of our adventure, he solicitated me, in what I thought an urgent manner, to

call upon him very early the next morning. - În noaptea aceea luându-şi

rămas bun de la mine, m-a rugat, şi pe cât mi s-a părut, foarte stăruitor, să

vin la el a soua zi dimineaţa cât mai devreme. But as we see from the

above given examples the definite article is not the only means to

distinguish an object. Thus, if in the first and second examples the DDI is

expressed by articles and context, then in the third sentence it is intensified

99

by other identifiers - limiting attributes of the nouns ( of our adventure). In

Romanian in “a doua zi dimineaţa” three identifiers are being used: the

possessive article “a” (which loses its meaning of possessiveness before a

numeral), a synthetic article “a”, and the numeral in an attributive function.

In the phrase “în noaptea aceea” we have: the synthetic definite article, the

demonstrative (adjectival pronoun and the preposition “în”. The limiting

attribute may be expressed by a noun with a preposition (the of phrase is

often used ins such cases), by a subordinate attributive clause, a participle

phrase, an adjective, when contrast and choice is implied: I became used to

seeing the gentleman with the whiskers - M-am deprins să văd gentlemenul

cu bachenbarzi. The room where we sat was small - Camera, unde şedeam,

era mică; It was the very thing he liked - Era chiar acel (lucru) ce îi placea.

Some prepositions, especially in Romanian, contribute to the

realisation of the categorial form of DDI. Thus, for example: Peter sprang

a couple of yards in the air, and then delivered a war-whoop and set off

round and round the room, banging against furniture... - Peter sări în aer,

scoase un urlet sălbatic şi începu o goană turbată prin odaie, izbindu-se cu

capul de mobilă... A deiep peel of thunder went rolling and thumbling down

the heavens and lost itself in sullen rumblings in the distance. - Un tunet

surd răsună rostogolindu-se pe bolta cerului şi se pierdu undeva în

depărtare, bodogănind supărat. He was near the river. - El era lângă râu.

From these examples we can see that the prepositions (with articles and

without them), combined with the linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts

can intensify the deictic function till its possible realisation as a definite

deictic form. There are examples where in Romanian only the preposition

is used to express the definite deixis: (in the distance - in depărtare; near

the river – lânga râu, etc.).

The demonstrative article in Romanian has, to a certain extent,

preserved the meaning of a demonstrative pronoun. In its purest meaning it

expresses the definite deixis in the grammatical form of the superlative

degree, where it is regularly confronted with the English definite article: He

is the best student in our class. - El e cel mai bun student în clasa noastră.

She was the most beautiful girl in the village. - Ea era cea mai frumoasă

fată în sat. Demonstrative and possessive pronouns, the possessive case (in

English) and the possessive article (in Romanian) are used to regularly

express definite deixis: A frightened look in Becky’s face brought Tom to

his senses and he saw that he made a blunder. - Faţa speriată a Bechei îi

arătă că a dat greş. But Tom’s energy did not last. - Dar zelul lui Tom nu

ţinu mult. I’ll tell my big brother on you, and he can trash you with his little

100

finger. - Am să te spun fratelui meu mai mare, care numai cu degetul cel

mic ţi-a trage o mamă de bătaie! Tom was suffering in reality now, so

handsomely was his imagination working, and his groans had gathered

quite a genuine tone. - Tom suferea acum cu adevărat, atât de viu lucra

puterea sa de imaginaţie, iar vaietele lui sunau firesc. This boy was well

dressed. Băiatul acesta era bine îmbrăcat. This functionary grasped it in a

perfect agony of joy. - Poliţistul o înhăţă în culmea fericirii. (M.Twain)

Analyzing these examples we can conclude that possessiveness (both

grammatical and lexical) is an effective means of expressing definite

deictic identification. In the first sentence The English possessive case

corresponds to the Romanian genitive and in “faţa speriată a Bechei” we

have two deictic means: the efinite “a” and the possessive “a”. Two definite

articles are used in “zelul lui Tom”. The synthetic article is dropped, when

the attribute is in preposition (A Bechei faţă speriată), and in this case the

possessive article is used before the noun. In the fifth example the

demonstrative pronoun in postposition requires the use of a noun with a

definite article. In preposition “acesta” (like other attributes) is used

emphatically, intensifying the deictic identification. There are many cases,

when the demonstrative pronoun is not translated into Romanian, but its

deictic meaning is rendered by a definite article. Such examples could be

easily translated by using a demonstrative pronoun like in the sentence six:

Poliţistul acesta o înhăţă or Acest poliţist a înhăţat-o.. Depending on the

degree of identification of the noun by the attribute and by macro- and

microcontexts, the category of the definite deixis could be realized without

articles and pronouns: Poor Huck stood abashed and uncomfortable not

knowing exactly what to do or where to hide from so many unwelcoming

eyes. - Sărmanul Huck, fâstâcit, nu se simţea în apele lui, neştiind ce să

facă şi unde să se ascundă de privirile dusmănoase. In Romanian the

synthetic article is shifted within the substantival group depending on the

position of the attribute. Thus, the sentence Tom hailed the romantic

outcast could be translated as Tom îl strigă pe vagabondul romantic, and

Tom îl strigă pe romanticul vagabond, the latter example being stylistically

coloured. Extra-linguistic reality also plays an important role in realizing de

definite deixis: Peter switched off the TV set, went to the kitchen and

opened the refrigerator looking for something to eat. - Peter a deconectat

televizorul, s-a dus la bucătărie, a deschis frigiderul, căutând ceva de

mâncare. The dining room was large enough. Sufrageria era îndeajuns de

încăpătoare. Anything that is considered typical, something that should, for

example, be expected to be found in our flats, is used with a definite deixis.

101

The number of such objects is constantly growing with the progress of

civilization.

The Indefinite Deictic Identification (IDI). In the singular the

indefinite article is one of the main means of expressing IDI. A closer

analysis of examples helps us to conclude that in both languages we have a

developed system of means to express IDI in both singular and plural:

pronouns, numerals, adjectives, and other markers. Let’s take some

examples where the indefinite article is used: I had written a letter by five

o’clock. - Eu scrisesem o scrisoare către ora cinci. He took a letter out of

his pocket to read a second time. - El scoase o scrisoare din buzunar,

pentru a o citi a doua oară. The villagers began to gather, loitering a

moment in the vestibule (M.Twain). Orăşenii începură să se adune în

biserică, oprindu-se pe o clipă în vestibul (M.Twain). In these examples we

have complete coincidence in the use of indefinite article. The indefinite

article is used here in the singular. In the plural in English there is no

indefinite article. In this case other means are used. In Romanian grammar

books the indefinite pronoun nişte (corresponding to the English some) is

considered to be an indefinite article: Give me books - Give me some books;

Dă-mi carţi. Dă-mi nişte cărţi. In both sentences indefiniteness is expressed

in both languages, but in the first sentences the indefinite meaning is more

general, in the latter case a certain limited indefinite number of books is

meant. The categorial meaning of deixis is different in dependence of a

number of factors: context, intensifiers, defining identifiers, etc. The

decrease of the categorial meaning of IDI as a result of using defining

elements. There are cases when the definite deixis “the” is used very

closely to an indefinite meaning, especially in idiomatic expressions, stable

combinations, used metaphorically, etc.: They went to hunt the fox. Ei s-au

dus să vâneze vulpi. We shall show him the door. Noi îi vom arăta uşa. It is

still in the egg. E încă în ou. He saw him with the naked eye. El l-a văzut cu

ochiul neînarmat. In the first sentence the noun (fox) is used in the

singular, though many indefinite objects are meant. This sentence is

translated into Romanian by a free word combination and the noun is used

in the plural with a zero article. Examples 2-3 in both languages are used

metaphorically. The definite deictic identification is preserved in Romanian

as well: the definite article in number 2 (uşa) and the identifying

preposition in the third sentence. The general deictic meaning here is really

indefinite. The same can be observed in examples where musical

instruments are used: He plays the violin. El cânta la vioara, the English

102

definite deixis is translated into Romanian by means of a zero article. The

same is seen in such expressions like: to go to the theatre, to go to the

cinema - a se duce la teatru, a merge la cinema. It is quite possible that in

English the definite article goes back to those times, when in a town or city

there used to be only a theatre or only a cinema, and the definite article is

traditionally used now, when there are many theatres or cinemas in large

cities or even in towns. We have also observed that in all the

metaphorically used idiomatic or stable English expressions the definite

deixis is preserved if in Romanian a similar metaphorical usage is realized,

like in We shall show him the door - Noi îi vom arăta uşa. In the confronted

languages there are many other indefinite deictic means. The indefinite

article expresses the given categorial form in the purest way. The indefinite

pronouns, numerals, adjectives, negative pronouns, etc. function as

indefinite markers alongside their main lexico-grammatical functions:

some, somebody, someone, something, any, anyone, anybody, anything,

many, more, most, few, several, a little, lots, hundreds, any of them, certain,

indefinite, one, etc; unul, unii, altul, cineva, ceva, careva, altcineva,

fiecare, puţin, oleacă, orişicare, orişicine, orişicât, oricare, cutare, atât,

vreunul, câţiva, toţi, mulţi, niscaiva, niscai, alde, nimeni. nici unul, nici un,

nici o, pe nimic, pentru nimic, intru nimic, de nimic, vre-o, unu-doi, trei-

patru, cu sutele, etc. Thus, for example: I cannot identify anyone. Pe nimeni

nu pot să-l identific. But I could testify that a woman came out of the shop.

Dar eu pot să fiu martor, că o oricare femeie a ieşit din magazin. Several

people went out. Câţiva (nişte) oameni au ieşit. One of them was ready to

help us. Unul din ei era gata să ne ajute. Some people knew it. Unii oameni

ştiau aceasta. Hundreds of people were on the square. Sute de oameni erau

pe piaţă. The indefinite deictic markers under consideration can be used

with both singular and plural nouns. They can be used even with pronouns

or eliptically: Have you got any books? I have got some. Give me a book.

Take one. Aveţi ceva cărţi? Da, am câteva. Daţi-mi o carte. Luaţi una.

Numerals can often be used to express indefinite deixis with a meaning of

approximation.

The General Deictic Identification (Indication). The zero deixis,

traditionally named “zero article”, represents an object as a general

denotation of all the objects of the given class, when there is no

classification, no singling out of a class. What is meant is the essential, the

content of the object abstracted from its volume, number and boarder of the

form. The zero deixis is used, first of all, with nouns denoting matter and

103

abstract categories and in this case it has the widest generalizing meaning.

Class objects can also be used in a generalised meaning, and in such cases

they are used without definite or indefinite deixis. Here we prefer the term

“zero deixis” to “zero article”, because besides articles there are many other

deictic means to express the deictic categorial forms of definite and

indefinite identification. Thus, the zero deixis expresses a meaningful

absence of definite and indefinite deictic means, when there is no

classification and individualization, when the nouns have a generalizing

meaning. Thus, quite a number of deictic means limit the categorial form of

general deictic identification (GDI): I’ll make it my business. O să-ţi arăt

eu că-i treaba mea; Because I heard you call your hostess a snob. Pentru

că v-am auzit spunând despre gazda dumneavoastră că este o snoabă. After

destroying some further portions of his lawn, he joined the nearest Golf

Club.. După ce distrusese alte câteva porţiuni de pe pajiştea sa, se înscrise

în cel mai apropiat club de golf. Analyzing examples we come to the

conclusion that the absence of marked articles does not mean that we have

a zero generalizing marker. Various markers are used: possessive case,

possessive pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, limiting prepositions. The

fact that all these means belong to the marked categorial forms is evident

when we compare the translation with the original. Thus, in Romanian in

most cases a definite article is used (treaba mea, gazda dumneavoastră),

and other deictic means are usually used to intensify the categorial

meaning. In English as well it is observed, that the function of the definite

article before some nouns is taken over by other deixis, which are used with

nouns like “parliament, Senate, Congress, market, college, school,

breakfast, dinner, supper”, etc, which are rarely used or not used at all with

a definite article (legislative bodies, names of seasons, days, months,

holidays and so on). We can also conclude that some objects and

phenomena are interpreted differently in the confronted languages from the

point of view of the category of deixis. Thus, some nouns like “man”,

“Time”, “eternity” can be used in a broad general meaning, while in

Romanian they are viewed as words representing the class as a whole, in

comparison with other classes. Here are some examples: When man was

still abed and the land lived its own life, how full and sweet and wild that

life seemed. Când omul era în durerile naşterii şi pământul î-şi trăia

propria sa viaţă, cât de plină şi dulce şi sălbatică acea viaţă era! (omul -

used with a definite article); At last he was satisfied that time had ceased

and eternity began; he began to doze, in spite of himself. Era adânc

104

încredinţat că timpul se oprise şi începuse veşnicia şi fără a-şi da seama

începu să moţăie (timpul, veşnicia).

The category of general deictic identification is regularly realized in

both languages with countable, uncountable and abstract nouns: He put up

a good deal of glass too, and was laying down melons. Î-şi făcuse destul de

multe sere şi cultiva pepeni (zămoşi). Tell him that I’m awfully glad, and

hat I wish him luck.) Spune-i că mă bucur foarte mult şi că-i doresc noroc.

The names of diseases, as a rule, are used with a zero deixis: He has

influenza (but: He has the flu). El are gripă. The geographical names are

used differently in the confronted languages. Some geographical names are

used with a definite article in English as a result of French influence (names

of rivers, seas, mountain chains, etc.). In Romanian the majority of

geographic names are used with an article. For example: I have visited

Paris this year. Am vizitat Parisul anul acesta. In addressing someone, in

exclamation and commands the definite article is usually used in

Romanian, and in English we have a zero deixis: Uncle, come here quickly!

Unchiule, vino aici repede! In Romanian the article can be expressed by or

added to an attribute: Domnule preşedinte! (It can change places depending

on the metasemiotic usage: Cerul albastru - Albastrul cer). Some more

examples: Hands up! Hand off! - Mînile sus! Mînile jos! Daddy comes! -

Tăticul vine! The absence of definite and indefinite deictic means does not

mean that the category of general deictic identification is being realised. In

some cases the markers are dropped for the sake of economy of space, for

brevity (newspaper headlines, dictionary articles, etc.), in metasemiotic

usage, especially in colloquial speech, where the speaker can drop the

articles to attract attention, to make it more expressive [39, 181-190].

14. The Conceptual Category of Deixis

The category of deixis in English is expressed by grammatical

(morphological, syntactic), lexical, stylistic, lexical-grammatical,

phonological (supra-segmental, supra-syntactic), contextual and extra-

linguistic means. The prosodic means are very important in the realization of

the given category on both semiotic and metasemiotic levels. The deictic

means identify the objects to both the speakers and the listeners and they

have the function of differentiation, defining, singling out, of a special type

of identification by correlating persons and objects being in relation to the

speaker. The main grammatical and lexical-grammatical deictic means are:

105

tense, mood, aspect, anteriority, voice, articles, pronouns, numerals,

prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, particles, syntactic structures, etc.

Traditionally, linguists would mention the articles as a good example of

deixis. In the case of the definite article the object is viewed upon as known

and concrete, and singled out from a class of similar objects; the indefinite

article is used when the noun belongs to a certain class of objects, and the

zero article (meaningful absence of the article) represents the given object

in a general meaning denoting all the members of the given class. Both in

English and Romanian the definite and indefinite articles correspondingly go

back to demonstrative and indefinite pronouns (the latter in their turn were

formed from the numeral), which gradually lost their original meaning. The

definite article is mostly used in this case to single out an object or a group

of objects from a class: The young man felt suddenly quite homesick.

(J.Galsworthy) - Deodată tânărului i s-a făcut dor de casă. Upon leaving

him on the night of our adventure, he solicitated me, in what I thought an

urgent manner, to call upon him very early the next morning. - În noaptea

aceea luându-şi rămas bun de la mine, m-a rugat, şi pe cât mi s-a părut,

foarte stăruitor, să vin la el a doua zi dimineaţa cât mai devreme.

(M.Twain) But as we see from the above given examples the definite article

is not the only means of reference. Besides context and articles there are other

identifiers - of our adventure, very early the next morning. In Romanian in “a

doua zi dimineaţa” three identifiers are being used: the possessive article

“a” (which loses its meaning of possessiveness before a numeral), a

synthetic article “a”, and the numeral in an attributive function. In the

phrase “în noaptea aceea” we have: the synthetic definite article, the

demonstrative (adjectival pronoun and the preposition “în”. The limiting

attribute may be expressed by a noun with a preposition (the of phrase is

often used in such cases), by a subordinate attributive clause, a participle

phrase, and an adjective, when contrast and choice is implied: I became used

to seeing the gentleman with the whiskers – M-am deprins să văd

gentlemanul cu bachenbarzi. The room where we sat was small – Camera,

unde şedeam, era mică; It was the very thing he liked – Era chiar acel

(lucru) ce îi placea. The articles can be used with a different deictic

meaning, a metasemiotic one: Не was engaged to be married to a Miss

Hubbard (S. Maugham). In this example the indefinite article in

combination with Miss Hubbard create a specific pejorative deictic

connotation, expressed by the speaker, quite displeased with the fact that

the young man is engaged with an unworthy unknown young lady! "Have

you a Rosetti?" I asked (Have you a picture painted by Rosetti?). (S.

106

Maugham) I do not claim to be a Caruso (I do not think I sing very wel [56,

144].

Some prepositions, especially in Romanian, contribute to the

realization of the categorial deictic meanings: Peter sprang a couple of

yards in the air, and then delivered a war-whoop and set off round and

round the room, banging against furniture... – Peter sări în aer, scoase un

urlet sălbatic şi începu o goană turbată prin odaie, izbindu-se cu capul de

mobilă... A deep peel of thunder went rolling and tumbling down the

heavens and lost itself in sullen rumblings in the distance. – Un tunet surd

răsună rostogolindu-se pe bolta cerului şi se pierdu undeva în depărtare,

bodogănind supărat [Mark Twain]. He was near the river. – El era lângă

râu. From these examples we can see that the prepositions intensify the

deictic function of a definite deictic form. In Romanian only the preposition

is used to express the definite deixis: (in the distance – în depărtare; near

the river – lângă râu etc.). The demonstrative article in Romanian has

preserved the meaning of a demonstrative pronoun and expresses the definite

deixis in the grammatical form of the superlative degree, where it is regularly

confronted with the English definite article: He is the best student in our

class. – El e cel mai bun student în clasa noastră. She was the most beautiful

girl in the village. – Ea era cea mai frumoasă fată în sat. Demonstrative and

possessive pronouns, the possessive case (in English) and the possessive

article (in Romanian) are used to regularly express definite deictic

meanings: But Tom’s energy did not last. – Dar zelul lui Tom nu ţinu mult.

I’ll tell my big brother on you, and he can trash you with his little finger. –

Am să te spun fratelui meu mai mare, care numai cu degetul cel mic ţi-a

trage o mamă de bătaie! This boy was well dressed. Băiatul era bine

îmbrăcat. This functionary grasped it in a perfect agony of joy. – Poliţistul

o înhăţă în culmea fericirii (M.Twain). Analyzing these examples we can

conclude that possessiveness (both grammatical and lexical) is an effective

means of expressing definite deictic meanings. Extra-linguistic reality plays

an important role in realizing deicticity: Peter switched off the TV set, went

to the kitchen and opened the refrigerator looking for something to eat. –

Peter a deconectat televizorul, s-a dus la bucătărie, a deschis frigiderul,

căutând ceva de mâncare. The dining room was large enough. Sufrageria

era îndeajuns de încăpătoare. Anything that is considered typical,

something that should be expected to be found in modern flats, is used with

a definite deixis. The number of such objects is constantly growing with the

progress of civilization. The indefinite article and pronouns, numerals,

adjectives, and other markers can be used to express the corresponding

107

deictic meanings: The villagers began to gather, loitering a moment in the

vestibule. Orăşenii începură să se adune în biserică, oprindu-se pe o clipă

în vestibul.(M.Twain) In these examples we have complete coincidence in

the use of indefinite article. In the plural in English there is no indefinite

article. In Romanian grammar books the indefinite pronoun nişte (in reality

it is an indefinite pronoun) is considered to be an indefinite article: Give me

books. Give me some books; Dă-mi cărţi. Dă-mi nişte cărţi. In both

sentences indefiniteness is expressed in both languages, but in the first

sentences the indefinite meaning is more general, in the latter case a certain

limited indefinite number of books is meant. The categorial meaning of

deixis is different in dependence of a number of factors: context,

intensifiers, defining identifiers etc. There are cases when the definite

deixis “the” is used very closely to an indefinite meaning, especially in

idiomatic expressions, stable combinations, used metaphorically etc.: They

went to hunt the fox. Ei s-au dus să vâneze vulpi. We shall show him the

door. Noi îi vom arăta uşa. It is still in the egg. E încă în ou. He saw him

with the naked eye. El l-a văzut cu ochiul neînarmat. In the first sentence

the noun (fox) is used in the singular as part of a stable combination and

translated into Romanian by a free word combination and the noun is used

in the plural with a zero article. Examples 2-3 in both languages are used

metasemiotically (metaphorically). The definite deictic identification is

preserved in Romanian as well: the definite article in number 2 (uşa) and the

identifying preposition in the third sentence. The general deictic meaning here

is really indefinite. The same can be observed in examples where musical

instruments are used: He plays the violin. El cântă la vioară, the English

definite deixis is translated into Romanian by means of a zero article. The

same is seen in such expressions like: to go to the theatre, to go to the

cinema – a se duce la teatru, a merge la cinema. The deictic meaning in the

English example is not quite definite. It is due to the rule of using the definite

article with musical instruments in the given context. It is quite possible that

in English the definite article goes back to those times, when in a town or

city there used to be only a theatre or only a cinema, and the definite article

is traditionally used now, when there are many theatres or cinemas in large

cities or even in towns. We have also observed that in all the metaphorically

used idiomatic or stable English expressions the definite deixis is preserved if

in Romanian a similar metaphorical usage is realized: like in We shall show

him the door – Noi îi vom arăta uşa. In the confronted languages there are

many other indefinite deictic means. The indefinite article expresses the

given categorial form in the purest way. The indefinite pronouns, numerals,

108

adjectives, negative pronouns, etc. function as indefinite markers alongside

their main lexico-grammatical functions: some, somebody, someone,

something, any, anyone, anybody, anything, many, more, most, few, several,

a little, lots, etc; unul, unii, altul, cineva, ceva, careva, altcineva, fiecare,

puţin, oleacă, orişicare, orişicine, orişicât, oricare, cutare, atât, vreunul,

câţiva, toţi, mulţi, niscaiva, niscai, alde, nimeni. nici unul, nici un, nici o,

pe nimic etc. Thus, for example: I cannot identify anyone. Pe nimeni nu pot

să-l identific. Several people went out. Câţiva (nişte) oameni au ieşit. One

of them was ready to help us. Unul din ei era gata să ne ajute. Some people

knew it. Unii oameni ştiau aceasta. The indefinite deictic markers under

consideration can be used with both singular and plural nouns. They can be

used even with pronouns or elliptically: Have you got any books? I have

got some. Give me a book. Take one. Aveţi ceva cărţi? Da, am câteva. Daţi-

mi o carte. Luaţi una. Numerals can often be used to express indefinite

deixis with a meaning of approximation. The category of general deictic

meaning is regularly realized in both languages with countable,

uncountable and abstract nouns: He put up a good deal of glass too, and was

laying down melons. Î-şi făcuse destul de multe sere şi cultiva pepeni

(zămoşi). Tell him that I’m awfully glad, and hat I wish him luck. Spune-i

că mă bucur foarte mult şi că-i doresc noroc [J.Galsworthy]. The names of

diseases, as a rule, are used with a zero deixis: He has influenza (but: He

has the flu). El are gripă. The geographical names are used differently in

the confronted languages. Some geographical names are used with a definite

article in English as a result of French influence (names of rivers, seas,

mountain chains etc.). In Romanian the majority of geographic names are

used with an article. For example: I have visited Paris this year. Am vizitat

Parisul anul acesta. In addressing someone, in exclamation and commands

the definite article is usually used in Romanian, and in English we have a

zero deixis: Uncle, come here quickly! Unchiule, vino aici repede! In

Romanian the article can be expressed by or added to an attribute: Domnule

preşedinte! (It can change places depending on the metasemiotic usage:

Cerul albastru - Albastrul cer). Some more examples: Hand off! – Mâinile

jos! Daddy comes !– Tăticul vine! The absence of definite and indefinite

deictic means does not mean that the category of general deictic

identification is being realised. In some cases the markers are dropped for

the sake of economy of space, for brevity (newspaper headlines, dictionary

articles etc.), in metasemiotic usage, especially in colloquial speech, where

the speaker can drop the articles to attract attention, to make it more

expressive [39, 181-190].

109

In order to persuade and motivate people we have to use a system of

linguistic and extra-linguistic deictic means. The most important ones are the

supra-segmental categories: stress, pause, tone, range, tempo, rhythm, and

loudness. Grammatical relations within a sentence cannot be completely

intelligible without the corresponding prosody. A simple lexical unit can often

function as a one-word sentence and supplied with various prosodic

structures it can express different meanings. Let’s take the word "pretty". In

discourse we can realize several meanings using different prosodic patterns:

“\pretty” used with a simple falling tone is a simple statement stating the fact

that “She is \pretty”; "\Pretty" – here the speaker is greatly impressed and it

corresponds to the exclamation “She is quite \pretty!”, used with an emphatic

high fall, wide range, increased loudness and slowed down tempo to really

express once enthusiasm and admiration. In case of “/pretty” like in “Is she

really /pretty?” used with a low rise it may be a simple question or even

express some doubt of her being pretty. In case of “\/pretty” a fall rise with

specific voice qualifications like in “She is quite \/pretty” we have a pejorative

enantiosemic deictic meaning created by means of suprasyntactic prosody –

She might be pretty but I don’t like her! The particular prosodic pattern with

which the utterance is pronounced affects the meaning and understanding of

an utterance. The variation of stress-patterns can change the meaning:

‘'dancing 'girl (fata dansândă) and 'dancing girl' (dansatoarea). A simple

pause in an utterance can create confusion. Different tone patterns also

change the meaning: || He 'doesn’t 'lend his "books to \anybody|| and || He

'doesn’t 'lend his 'books to \/anybody||. In the first case nobody will get the

books, in the second, only some people will get them [39, 163-164].

Another prosodic element that should be taken into consideration especially

in public speaking is the rhythm.

In the example bellow the listener’s choice speaker combines prosodic

and paralinguistic means to achieve a favourable effect on the listeners:

|| U'nique "voice there of • Johnny /Mathis with ''Chances \are| and |

rather a u.nique\ letter here +'comes from [smile, giggle].Mary • Porter

who .writes from /Canberra in Aus\tralia. 'Mary', [high note] "unique"

because actually [whisper] I found your writing just a little bit difficult to

read [whisper]. I'm \sorry .love but I've 'tried /\awfully |hard. I 'hope I've

got 'everything \right. | You 'say that you'd 'like me to • send .greetings to

your .sister /Jane, [lento]| your friends 'Annie and /Angeline and your

'uncle \Peter. I 'think it's /Peter, I 'hope it \is [allegro, smile]. 'Anyway,

"here is the \song| 'comes from 'The\ Gallery'. ||

110

The text is characterized by overstatement reinforced by means of tones

and tempo, the effect of non-formality and a pleasant emotional colouring are

created by means of a husky voice, giggle and 'phonetic smile'. The lexical

units 'sorry' and 'awfully' are deliberately exaggerated. Whisper

accompanies the words that may not be very pleasant to the hearer; the

speaker sounds apologetic in “unique because actually I found your writing

just a little bit difficult to read” [whisper]. Cases of hesitation phenomena

are important for an effect of spontaneity as if she is talking and not reading

a prepared text. In using the above mentioned suprasyntactic and

paralinguistic means the speaker establishes contact with unseen listeners

through sympathy and warmth [40, 69-72]. In order to make the audience

listen, the speaker should also show a lively interest in what is being said.

A person may also speak with modesty and deliberate understatement by

using a kind of soft and gentle voice without using any means of emphasis,

speaking within the same narrow range and diminished loudness. This

meta-metalevel is used for the public to identify themselves with the

speaker. Any public appearance is a chance for a public speaker to show that

he or she is just the same as everyone else. A discourse is a success when a

contact is established between the speaker and the listeners. One must

sound interested, even enthusiastic about what he says, but he must not

forget about the attention and interest of the audience. The manner of

performance should correspond to the content [40, 74-79].

Phraseological units, including sayings, are subject to change. They may

be intentionally changed to produce a stylistic impact on the reader, listener

or TV viewer: A bird in hand is worth two in the bush – Time was passing

his bird in the bush no nearer the hand [J Galsworthy] – He was to be

approached with a sizable bird in hand [Dreiser]. This idiomatic

expression in different European languages has developed different forms:

Romanian – Nu da pasărea (vrabia) din mână pe cea de pe gard; Russian –

Лучше синица в руке, чем журавль на небе. There are many examples of

deformations of idioms in Russian and Romanian. An example of

advertising beer on Russian TV: Лучше бутылка пива в руке, чем

прекрасная девица на песке. Criticizing active buyers for not checking the

necessary documents before purchasing some bad quality foods, a TV

announcer used: Pară mălăiaţă în cavitatea bucală a consumatorului

(deformation of: Pară mălăiaţă în gura lui Nătăfleaţă). Examples of this

kind are numerous: To be born with a silver spoon in one's mouth (They

had sucked their silver spoon so long… now she is threatened with a spoon

of bone) [J.Galsworthy]. It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back...

111

(He said public patience was a camel, on whose back the last atom that

could be borne had already been laid. To cry over the spilt milk... (Try to

make him feel that we admire him for spilling the milk… There is no help

for spilt milk) [Trollope]. One may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a

lamb (If he was to be hung by the law, by all means let it be for a sheep) [J

Galsworthy]. Idioms belong to the periphery of the language and mostly they

are used for stylistic purposes, making speech more expressive and produce

a stronger impact on the reader/listener [40, 77-80]. Stylistic periphrasis

and euphemisms are also important means used by people in political

activity and polite discourse in general. People efficiently and intentionally

substitute pejorative utterances with relatively more euphemistic and polite

ones. Instead of saying "High pay and less work" one can use "Improved

financial support and less onerous work loads." Instead of “He has died”

people would use such euphemisms to produce a milder effect: “to pass

away, to expire, to be no more, to depart, to join the majority”, while such

stylistic synonyms like “to kick the bucket, to give up the ghost, /to go

west” are used with a pejorative connotation. Avoiding the word

combination “is lying” people may tell a person to “possess a vivid

imagination”, or “telling stories”. Euphemisms are often used in the

speech connected with religious, moral, medical, parliamentary and

diplomatic activities. Many euphemisms gradually acquire a pejorative

meaning of the lexical unit it has substituted and people have to create a new

euphemism. For example: “madhouse” became “lunatic asylum”,

substituted by “mental hospital”. There are plenty of political euphemisms.

Thus, instead of declaring that workers “have been sacked”, they may be

“dismissed, fired, discharged” and lately they are “made redundant”. Cf. with

the Romanian “a fi concediat”, which has turned into „a fi disponibilizat”,

„undernourishment of children in the third world” usually substitutes

„starvation of children in the third world” [41, 160-166].

We would like to conclude with the fact that analyzing the theme of

semiotic and metasemiotic usage of deictic means in linguistic and extra-

linguistic contexts we we observe that very important functions in the

realization of deictic categorical meanings play the lexical, stylistic,

sociolinguistic, extra-linguistic syntactic, suprasegmental, suprasyntactic

and paralinguistic means, which should be be analyzed taking in

consideration. In the present paper we have just made a little contribution to

the vast material still to be investigated and analyzed.

112

15. The Category of Representation

The category of representation (CR) is based on the opposition of

predicative and non-predicative forms. A.Smirnitsky in his book “The

Morphology of the English Language” put forward the idea that the finite

and non-finite forms have much in common as categorial forms of

representation, characterizing the verb as a whole. The main difference

between the members of the given opposition is in the degree of

representation of the verbal process. In some cases the verbal form is

represented as a pure process in time, in some other cases additional

meanings are imposed on the process (nominal forms) [70]. A. Smirnitsky

suggested that the category of representation should consist of three

categorial forms: verbal predicative representation (VPR), substantival

representation (SR) (gerund and infinitive) and adjectival representation

(AR) (participle). The substantival representation is further subdivided into:

maximum SR (the gerund, which combines features of both noun and

verb), and minimum SR (the infinitive, which combines features of both

noun and verb). The difference consists in the degree of substantival

representation. In SR and AR the verbal signification of a process is

primary and the substantival and adjectival representation of a process as an

object is secondary. Identical representation relations can be observed in

cases of other lexico-grammatical categories. A.Smirnitsky thinks that the

difference between various pronouns, like for example, my and mine, your

and yours, is like the one between the SR and AR. A similar point of view

was put forward by M. Blokh: “Non- finite forms of the verb are

intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features between the verb

and the non-processual parts of speech. Their mixed features are revealed

in the principal spheres of the part-of-speech characterization, i.e. in their

meaning, structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions. The

processual meaning is exposed by them in a substantive or adjectival-

adverbial interpretation: they render processes as peculiar kinds of

substances and properties. They do not express either grammatical time or

mood as in the case of finite verb categories). They can be combined with

verbs like non-processual lexemes (performing non-verbal functions in the

sentence), and they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like

verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence)” [6] M.Blokh, like

A.Smirnisky thinks that the non-finite forms possess features of nouns,

adjectives and adverbial modifiers, but their fundamental grammatical

meaning is that of expressing process. M.Blokh has come to the conclusion

113

that the non-finites are part of the verb system and form a specific verbal

subclass (a category, constituted by the opposition of both finite and non-

finite forms). The functions of the two members of the opposition are

strictly differentiated: while the finite forms serve in the sentence only one

syntactic function, namely, that of the finite predicate, the non-finite forms

serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate and

“the opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a

special grammatical category”. The opposition expresses “verbal time and

mood: while the time-mood grammatical signification characterizes the

finite verb in a way that it underlies its finite predicative function, the

verbid has no immediate means of expressing time-mood categorial

semantics and therefore presents the weak member of the opposition”.

Blokh agrees with B. Strang and other linguists in the fact that the category,

expressed by this opposition, can be called the category of "finitude", the

syntactic content of which is “the expression of predication” Also like A.

Smirnitsky, M. Blokh expresses practically the same point of view as to the

difference between the gerund and the infinitive: “Observations of the

actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in texts do show the clear-cut

semantic difference between the forms, which consists in the gerund being,

on the one hand, of a more substantive nature than the infinitive, i.e. of a

nature nearer to the thingness-signification type; on the other hand, of a

more abstract nature in the logical sense proper. Hence, the forms do not

repeat, but complement each other, being both of them inalienable

components of the English verbal system.” Blokh also singles out a special

lexico-grammatical category of processual representation: “The three stages

of this category represent the referential processual entity of the lexemic

series, respectively, as dynamic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-

dynamic (the gerund and its phrase), and static (the verbal noun and its

phrase). The category of processual representation underlies the predicative

differences between various situation-naming constructions in the sphere of

syntactic nominalization.” He also identifies another category within the

framework of substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis - the

category of modal representation, quoting L. S. Barkhudarov, who marks

the infinitive in contrast to the gerund, the infinitive having a modal force,

in particular, in its attributive [6].

Concerning the gerund and participle categorial forms, they are

differently interpreted by various linguists: some linguistic schools think

that all the verbal forms ending in –ing should belong to –ing forms. Thus,

Blokh mentions the fact that “in the American linguistic tradition which can

114

be traced back to the school of Descriptive Linguistics the two forms are

recognized as one integral V-ing”. To this point of view many other

linguists have adhered. Other scholars think that present participle and

gerund represent different homonymous non-finite categorial, each of

which is fulfilling quite specific functions. Among the second group of

linguists discrepancies have appeared as to how to differentiate between the

functions of the gerund and participle and their depending on their formal

combination with certain syncategorematic lexical units. The first subgroup

of scholars think that the formal factor is very important in case of gerund:

the use of preposition in any function (even in the function of adverbial

modifiers), also the functions of subject and predicate. Let’s take some

examples: Reading (subject) is to the mind what exercise is to the body. In

spite of myself I could not help smiling (object). On hearing (adverbial

modifier) the tragic news, she fell at once into an alarming state of

agitation. The independent particle model has the advantage of having

(attribute) a high degree of physical visuality. Modelul particulei

independente are avantajul de a poseda un grad înalt de visualitate fizică.

In the third example the adverbial modifier “on hearing” and the attribute

“of having” are classified as gerunds, because of the prepositions used in

font of them. The second group of scholars think that any ing-form in the

function of an adverbial modifier or attribute, with a preposition or without,

should be considered as a present participle. Thus, for example: Turning

round, he stared at me, but I perceived he did not see me. I kept silence for

a little while, thinking of what Stroeve had told me. He looked... like a

man, who has fallen into the water with all his clothes on, and, being

rescued from death, frightened still, feels that he only looks a fool. When

Ashendon, having warmly shaken their hands, closed the door behind the

pair he heaved a great sigh of relief ... having tried various topics of

conversation... I asked her to tell me who all the people at table were.

Ganshina, M A., Vasileskaya N. M. also consider that the characteristic

traits of the non-finite forms consist in the fact that they have a double

nature, nominal and verbal. Their tense distinctions “are not absolute, but

relative”; “the form of a verbal does not show whether the action it denotes

refers to the present, past or future; it shows only whether the action

expressed by the verbal' is simultaneous with the action expressed by the

finite verb or prior to it”. All the non-finite forms can form predicative

constructions, “i.e. constructions consisting of two elements, a nominal

(noun or pronoun) and a verbal (participle, gerund or infinitive); the verbal

element stands in predicate relation to the nominal element, i. e. in a

115

relation similar to that between the subject and the predicate of the

sentence. In most cases, predicative constructions form syntactic units,

serving as one part of the sentence” [39, 191-197].

Analyzing the non-finite forms in Romanian we have come to the

conclusion that the category of representation exists here as well and it is

represented by infinitivul, participiul, gerunziul and supinul, and in some

cases “conjunctivul”, when it is taking over the functions of the infinitive.

In Russian there are three non-finite forms of the verb, but they do not fully

coincide with those in the English language (причастие, деепричастие,

инфинитив). Infinitivul as a verb in the corresponding functions in a

sentence is connected with a doer of an action, the subject being common

with that of the regent verb or it may when it it is not related to the subject

of the sentence and have a separate subject. The short infinitive has some

substantival functions, and can be used after verbs (modal, inceptive,

terminative verbs) nouns, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions. Infinitivul is

considered to be used in several meanings: of the indicative (combined with

the main verb) (el începu a cânta); that of imperative (A nu cânta aici!).

Very often the infinitive is substituted by conjunctivul and vice versa,

depending on the language style used in the text or speech. The extended

infinitive in Modern Romanian has practically been substantivized and can

get an article or an attribute and may corresponds to the English gerund,

half-gerund or gerundial participle in translations. This means that the

Romanian extended or „long” infinitive has still preserved a considerable

processual or verbal meaning: She stopped reading the text. Ea a încetat

citirea textului (să citească textul). My entering the room surprised him.

Întrarea mea în odaie l-a surprins. He was suspected of keeping

(possessing) a large sum of mone. El a fost suspectat de păstrarea

(posedarea) a unei sume mari de bani. I felt surprised at his falling into the

water. M-am simţit surprins la căderea lui în apă. We need more time for

learning (to learn) the material. Avem nevoie de mai mult timp pentru (a

studia) studierea materialului. As we see the Romanian long or extended

infinitive, which is considered to have undergone complete

substantivization, in many cases has preserved its verbal function and may

correspond to the English verbal forms of gerund and infinitive (in same

cases to present participle or half gerund), and, in some cases to the

Romanian short infinitive like in the sentence „Avem nevoie de mai mult

timp pentru (a studia) studierea materialului.” Some linguists both in

English and Romanian consider that all the categorial forms of the category

of representation (the infinitive, the gerund, the participle in English, and

116

infinitivul, participial, gerunziul and supinul (partially conjunctivul ) in

Romanian) are part of the category of mood. Practically the infinitive in

both languages, conjunctivul and supinul in Romanian may be used to

express modal meanings. Examples: I have a letter to write. Am o scrisoare

de scris, De pedepsit el nu l-a pedepsit, pentru că era un om bun. We have

enough food to eat. Avem îndeajuns hrană de mâncat. You are not good

even for fishing. Nici de pescuit nu eşti bun. I could not finish writing the

essay in time. N-am putut termina de scris eseul la timp. What else is there

to be done? Ce mai este de făcut? They discussed what they had to discuss.

Ei au discutate ceea ce au avut de discutat. The Romanian supinul

possesses a meaning close to a long infinitive, having various functions like

those of an attribute, indirect object, adverbial modifier. The kind of

modality, expressed by the above mentioned verbal forms, is closer to that

of some modal verbs [39, 191-221].

The Infinitive. The category of representation in Romanian is

represented by infinitivul, participiul, gerunziul and supinul, while in

English we have the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle and the

past participle. In some cases the Romanian “conjunctivul” is taking over

the functions of the infinitive. The infinitive as a verb functioning in the

sentence is connected with a doer of an action, the subject being common

with that of the main verb or it may have a separate subject. The short

Romanian infinitive has some substantival functions like the English

equivalent, and can be used after all kinds of verbs, nouns, adjectives,

adverbes and prepositions. The infinitive can contextually express the

meanings of indicative and imperative. Very often the infinitive is

substituted by conjunctivul and vice versa. The extended infinitive in

Modern Romanian has practically been substantivized and can get an

article or an atribute. But in some cases the long infinitive has still

preserved the verbal meaning: Dupâ terminarea lucrului am plecat acasă.

After having finished (after finishing) work he went home. The extended or

substantivized infinitive in Romanian in the function of an adverbial

modifier may be substituted by the gerunziu: Terminând lucrul am plecat

acasă. Both sentences correspond to the English sentence: (After) having

finished work I went home (the English present participle). It may also

correspond to forms of simple infinitive: We need more time for leraning

(to learn) the material. Avem nevoie de mai mult timp pentru (a studia)

studierea materialului. The extended infinitive in other functions (subject,

object) usually correspond in English translations to substantivized

participles: citirea cărţii – the reading of the book; scrierea scrisorii – the

117

writing of the letter, lansarea navei spaciale – the launching of the

spaceship. The English infinitive has much in common with the gerund, but

the latter possess a more distinct substantival character than the former. The

English gerund can be used with a preposition, and this is not possible with

the infinitive. When we compare English, French and Romanian we always

expect great similarity, because they are related languages. If we take

closely related languages the degree of similarity should increase. In case

of English, French and Romanian, we begin concentrating on the original

identity and approach confrontation with preconceived ideas of potential

correspondences already formed in advance.

Non-perfect infinitive. When we analyze the material on the

categorial level, we have to take into consideration the specific system of

nominal (non-predicative forms). If we take the category of taxis in the

predicative forms, we observe that the categorial forms of anteriority are

mixed with those of tense and aspect, etc. In the nominal forms taxis is

usually expressed in a “pure” way. The non-predicative forms in English

are: the present participle and the gerund with their perfect and non-perfect

forms, past participle and the infinitive (both perfect and non-perfect

forms). Comparing related languages we always expect to find more

coincidences than differences. In what follows we are going to analyse a

number of examples with infinitive forms in English, taken from fiction,

with their translations in Romanian and French. Let’s start with sentences,

where non perfect forms, active and passive voice of the infinitive, are

used: Smaller boys than himself flocked at his heels proud to be seen with

him. (M.Twain) Les petits garçons couraient après lui, fiers d’etre vu avec

lui. Băieţii mici alergau buluc în urma lui, mândri de a fi văzuţi (să fie

văzuţi) împreună cu el. In the example given above we have complete

coincidence. In spite of the coincidence, the Romanian infinitive here

belongs to the formal literary style and can be easily substituted in some

contexts by conjunctivul in a less formal style. Analyzing a larger number

of examples we come to the conclusion that the great majority of them are

classified as non-coincidences, because the translator often preferred the

Romanian “conjunctivul” instead of infinitive, depending on the style used

by the author: The storm culminated in one matchless effort that seemed

likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the treetops, blow

it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at one and the same moment.

(M.Twain) L’orage se jeta avec une telle fureur qu’il semblait qu’elle

voulait mettre l’ile en pieces, la bruler avec ses flames, inonder les arbres,

la réduire a neant et exterminer toute creature vivante. Furtuna se năpusti

118

cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să sfărâme insula în ţăndări, s-o mistue

în flăcări, să inunde copacii, s-o mistue depe faţa pământului şi să

stârpească orice fiinîă vie. (M.Twain) The English non-perfect infinitive

can be translated into Romanian and French by means of present tense

form: But what has Cahrlie Ferar done not to be spoken to for six years!

Mais qu’est-ce qu’il a fait ce Charlie Ferrar qu’ils ne se parlent pas depuis

6 ans? Dar ce a făcut Charlie Ferar de nu-şi vorbesc de şase ani! In

Romanian after some verbs the conjunctive is preferable in both the formal

literary language and in the colloquial informal language. Thus, in the

sentence Furtuna se năpustise cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să

sfărâme insula în ţăndări, s-o mistuie în flăcări, să inunde copacii, s-o

măture de pe faţa pământului şi să stârpească orice fiinţă vie, if we change

or substitute the verb like “vrea” with “a avea/are intenţia de” (with the

preposition “de”) then the infinitive is readily used: Furtuna se năpustise

cu atâta furie, încât părea că a avea/are intenţia de a sfărâma insula în

ţăndări, de a o mistui în flăcări, de a o inunda copacii, de a o mătura de

pe faţa pământului şi de a stârpi orice fiinţă vie. Thus, the preposition “de”

is repeated in front of each infinitive used after the dominant modal word.

Here we should add an interesting observation concerning the use of the

infinitive in Romanian. In Republic of Moldova the use of the infinitive has

gradually increased since the beginning of the 1990th. More people learn

the literary formal and literary colloquial language, and they now prefer in

many cases the form of the infinitive to the form of conjunctivul. Another

form to be found in Romanian informal language, corresponding to the

English infinitive, is supinul: It is necessary to do the job today. E necesar

de făcut (de a face, să se facă) lucrul astăzi. I have to write three letters.

Am de scris trei scrisori. I have a difficult exercise to do. Am un exerciţiu

dificil de făcut. The underlined forms in the three sentences in both

languages are modally charged and these forms are stylistically expressive.

Supinul is formed by means of particle «de» plus past participle of the main

verb and it is usually used after a modal word, especially in informal

language, and expresses an action with a goal to be fulfilled. In such cases

it is regularly corresponding to the English infinitive having the same

semantic function. In brackets the alternative forms are given, which can be

used depending on the style.

Next come examples with perfect infinitive forms in English,

French, and Romanian in both active and passive forms: He seemed to have

forgotten that he had talked with the king. Il semblait avoir oublié qu’il eut

un roi auquel il avait parlé. El părea a fi uitat (să fi uitat) că îi vorbise un

119

rege. What a joy not to have been discovered. Quelle chose est un bonheur?

N’avoir été découvert. Ce bucurie de a nu fi fost descoperiţi. (A.Dumas) In

Romanian the form of perfect infinitive is found in formal speech, while in

the colocquial speech pluscvamperfectul or conjunctivul perfect may be

often used. After the preposition “de” infinitivul perfect should be used. In

all the confronted languages we have the same categorial form of taxis, the

marked form of anteriority. An example of non-coincidence: She pretended

to have never seen or known this monsieur Rétau de Villette. Elle prétendit

n’avoir jamais vu, ni connu, ce monsieur Rétau de Villette. Pretinse că nu-l

văzuse, şi nu-l cunoscuse (de a nu-l fi văzut, şi de a nu-l fi cunoscut) nici o

dată pe acest domn Rétau de Villette. (A.Dumas). In the official translation

we find out that in English and French we have a complete coincidence. In

Romanian in all the examples past perfect (pluscvamperfectul) was used

when we have anteriority in the past, which in this case belongs to

colloquial non-formal register. Past perfect here can be easily substituted in

the formal language by perfect infinitive, which is less often used in

Romanian and, thus, the difference between the two forms will be one of

style. The English perfect gerund may sometimes correspond in French and

Romanian to perfect infinitives: I don believe in having given (to have

given) you the opportunity to Your Majesty to suspect my frankness. Je

crois n’avoir jamais donné lieu à Votre Majesté de suspecter ma frqnchise.

Nu cred să fi dat (de a fi dat) vreodată prilej maiestăţii voastre ca să se

îndoiască de sinceritatea mea… The English perfect gerund is often found

to correspond to the Frencch perfect infinitive and Romanian conjunctivul

and infintivul perfect in cases when the action is aspectually extended.

There are examples where the French plus-que-parfait is also confronted

with perfect infinitive in English: A sun, that he did not seem to have seen

since he came over here. Un soleil, comme il lui semblait, qu’il n’avait pas

vu depuis le jour quand il avait traversé l’océan. Un soare pe care, după

câte i se părea (să nu-l fi văzut, de a nu-l fi văzut), că nu-l mai zărise de

când trecuse oceanul. The perfect infinitive forms in English are rendered

into both Romanian and French by means of past perfect (preferable in

colloquial informal speech), but they could be easily translated by means of

perfect infinitive into both languages, besides in Romanian the form of

perfect conjunctive is possible. All these forms coincide in their categorial

meaning anteriority.

The perfect infinitive in English and infintif passé can be confronted

with the Romanian perfectul compus, expressing anteriority to the present

moment: I am sure only to have heard what I have heard, to have seen

120

what my eyes have seen! Suis-je bien sur de avoir entendu ce que j’ai

entendu, d’avoir vu ce que mes yeux ont vu! Sânt sigur numai că am auzit

(de a fi auzit) ceea ce am auzit, că am văzut (de a fi văzut) ceea ce am

văzut. This fact is easily explained by the fact that in different languages in

certain situations various types of taxis means are used to express

anteriority. Perfectul compus in Romanian belongs here to the informal

style; in the formal language the infinitive would be acceptable. There are

cases where French passé composé is also confronted with the English

perfect infinitive: Sorry to have bothered you. C’est dommage que je vous

ai ennuyé. Îmi pare rău că v-am plictisit. Confronting the material we come

to the conclusion that the perfect infinitive forms are widely used in

English and French, and relatively not so often used in Romanian informal

style of the language. Even in those cases where we do have perfect

infinitive forms in translations, they can be easily replaced by the

“conjunctivul perfect”, which is preferable in less bookish speech.

Perfect Infinitive in English after modal auxiliaries and after

modal verbs in general is regularly corresponding to the Romanian

conjunctivul: Some mistakes must have been made in assembling the parts

of the machine. Nişte erori trebuie să fi fost făcute la asamblarea pieselor

maşinii. The structures proposed may not have been established with

complete certainty. Structurile propuse puteau să nu fi fost stabilite cu o

certitudine completă. Coal was formed millions of years ago from the

enormous quantities of vegetation and trees. The process of their decay

must have been very gradual but constant. Cărbunele s-a format milioane

de ani în urmă din cantităţi enorme de vegetaţie şi copaci. Procesul de

descompunere trebuie să fi fost treptat dar constant. In the Romanian

examples here conjunctivul is used in both formal and informal styles. In

such structures, like in the above given examples, infinitivul perfect cannot

be used. Having analyzed the material on the categorial level we have taken

into consideration the specific system of nominal (non-predicativce forms).

The category of taxis expressed by the category of representation expressed

in a “ most pure” way. In spite of the fact that there are quite a number of

formal discrepancies, we still can state that on the categorial meaning of

anteriority we have complete coincidence in most cases [39, 197-221].

The Present Participle. The categorial forms of gerund and

participle are differently interpreted in various grammar books: some

linguistic schools think that all the verbal forms ending in –ing should be

named as –ing forms. Blokh mentions the fact that “in the American

linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive

121

Linguistics the two forms are recognized as one integral V-ing. Other

grammar text books consider present participle and gerund represent as

different homonymous non-finite categorial forms, each of which is

fulfilling specific functions. Among linguists there are discrepancies as to

how to differentiate between the functions of the gerund and participle, and

their dependence on their formal combination with certain

syncategorematic lexemes. There are two main points of view. The first

group of scholars think, that the formal factor is very important in case of

gerund: the use of preposition in any function (even in the function of

adverbial modifiers), also the functions of subject and predicate. Let’s take

some examples: After having finished (adverbial modifier of time) the work

he went home. Terminând (după ce terminase, după ce a terminat, după

terminarea lucrului) lucrul el a plecat acasă. Without being subjected to a

special treatment, raw rubber cannot be used for manufacturing things...

Fără a fi supus unui tratament special, cauciucul neprelucrat nu poate fi

folosit pentru a produce obiecte… The independent particle model has the

advantage of having (attribute) a high degree of physical visuality. Modelul

particulei independente are avantajul de a poseda un grad înalt de

visualitate fizică. The second group of grammarians thinks that any ing-

form in the function of an adverbial modifier or attribute, with a preposition

or without, should be considered to be a present participle. The –ing forms

have the function of adverbial modifier of time, usually carriead out by

present participle forms. Besides, here they can be translated into

Romanian by means of gerunziul, which regularly corresponds to the

English present participle (some othe grammatical forms are possible to be

used in Romanian: mai mult ca perfectul, long infinitive, perfectul

compus).The categorial meaning of anteriority is expressed both

grammatically, lexico-grammatically and lexically. Gerunziul historically

took over the meanings and functions of participiul present, when it got out

of usage. Thus, the difference between gerund and participle is that the

gerund is closer to the noun in its functions (subject and object), and the

participle is closer to the adjective, and may have the functions of an

attribute or adverbial modifier. In their perfect forms they both express

anteriority. If the actions follow one after the other, a simple form (non-

perfect) is used, anteriority being expressed simply lexically or

contextually, because there is no need to intensify it by grammatical

anteriority. Thus for example: Having registered (grammatical anteriority)

all the letters, the secretary sent them down to be posted. On entering

(contextual anteriority) the room he introduced himself to all those present.

122

After looking through (lexical anteriority) the morning mail the manager,

called in his secretary and dictated a few letters. The perfect -ing forms are

usually used in the formal bookish language and their passive voice forms

are used much more rarely.

Confronting the participle and gerund, perfect forms in English and

Romanian it was observed that they are relatively more often used in

English and French than in Romanian, where predicative forms are

preferred. Non-perfect form:

a) participle I – participe présent – gerunziul: Tom lay… watching the two

intently. Tom était couché… les fixant des yeux tous le deux. Tom stătea

culcat, scurtându-i lung pe amândoi. The Romanian gerunziul is naturally

confronted with the English participle I and does not correspond to the

English gerund.

b) Participle I – gérondif – gerunziul: So he got into the shoes snarling.

Tom, en mormotant, mit ses souliers. Tom, bodogănind, încălţă pantofii.

c) Participle I – imparfait – imperfectul (or gerunziul): Tom lay thinking.

Tom était couché et pensait. Tom sta culcat şi se gândea (gândindu-se). A

durative action expressed by participle I in a context in the past can easily

be rendered into French and Romanian by means of imperfect forms, which

express a continuous and unfinished action in the past. The translator

preferred in the Romanian variant the expressive forms of imperfectul, but

the form of gerunziul would be much more expressive if used here. The

regular equivalents or the English present participle in French and

Romanian translation are gérondif and gerunziul, which are regularly

confronted: In getting out, he looked back. En sortant, le jeune homme

tourna la tête. Ieşind, tânărul întoarse capul. Upon leaving him on the

night of our adventure, he solicitated me... Cette nuit-la en faisant ses

adieux il m’a prie... În noaptea aceea, luându-şi rămas bun de la mine, m’a

rugat... Similar English perfect forms are confronted in French and

Romanian with plus-que-parfait and mai mult ca perfectul: After destroying

some further portions of his lawn, he joined the nearest Golg Club. Quand

il avait détruit quelques autres portions de son paturage, il s’inscrivit dans

le club de golf le plus proche. După ce distrusese (distrugând, după

destrugerea) alte câteva porţiuni de pe pajiştea sa, se înscrise în cel mai

apropiat club de golf. French and Romanian prefer past perfect forms when

the English gerund is accompanied by lexical anteriority means (after). In

Romanian the forms of gerunziul or long infinitive and contextual

anteriority may be used the above given examples. Passé composé –

perfectul compus (or gerunziul) can also be used to correspond to the

123

English present participle with lexical anteriority: Upon reaching the

wharf, I noticed a scythe and three spades,,, Quand nous sommes arrives

sur la quai, j’ai remarqué une faux et bêches. Când am ajuns (ajungând) la

chei, am observat... o coasă şi două hârleţe. In all the confronted sentences

here we have consecutive actions. Thus anteriority grammatical forms are

not used here. The French passé composé and the Romanian perfectul

compus in the given context express an action separated from the present

moment, and, thus, they do not express grammatical anteriority in this case

and we have simultaneity in the confronted examples [39, 204-209].

Perfect participle – participe passé composé – gerunziul perfect:

Having arrived the first, you have the primarity. Vous avez le pas, étant

arrivé le premier. Aveţi întâietate fiind venit (venind) primul. In thish case

we have complete coincidence in all the three languages, though gerunziul

perfect in Romanian is rarely used and is usually substituted by forms given

below.

Perfect participle – infinitif passé – perfectul compus: The courtiers,

having entered, brought furnaces and massy hammers and welded the

bolts. Les courtesans ont apporté des forges et après avoir entré, il ont

cloué la porte de l’intérieur. Curtenii aduseseră cu ei forje şi ilăie grele şi,

după ce au intrat, au ţintuit poarta pe dinăuntru. In spite of the fact that

there are different forms in the confronted languages the grammatical

meaning of anteriority is preserved in all of them.

Perfect participle – plus-que-parfait – mai mult ca perfectul: Soames,

having prolonged his week-end visit had been spending the afternoon at the

Zoological Gardens. Soames avait continué son week-end à Londres et

avait passé l’après-midi dans le jardin zoologique. Soames îşi prelungise

week-endul la Londra şi îşi petrecuse după ameaza în grădina zoologică.

Perfect participle is readily translated into French and Romanian by means

of past perfect forms, expressing the same grammatical meaning of past

anteriority. It could be substituted by a past perfect form in English as well.

Thus, for example: He had never been outside Europe, and had a

somewhat sketchy idea of places like South Africa, Australia, Canada and

New Zealand. The difference we find in the given examples is one of

stylistics. Thus, both in English and Romanian the adjectival and adverbial

features of Participle I and gerunziul are manifested in their syntactic

functions as attributes and and adverbial modifier’s [39, 204-209].

Aspect Expressed by the Present Participle.

The category of aspect in various languages is expressed differently:

grammatically, lexico-grammatically, lexically and prosodically. In

124

English, aspect is an extremely reliable and grammatically impeccable way

of expressing the opposition in question. In Romanian the category of

aspect is expressed mainly lexically and partially grammatically. Both the

participle I and gerunziul (and also the English ing-forms) express a

durative action grammatically. The verbs possessing a durative lexical

meaning can express continuous aspect both lexically and lexico-

grammatically, the latter being emphatic or intensified aspectually. Thus,

He sat at the table/ He was sitting at the table are confronted with

imperfect forms both in Russian and Romanian: Он сидел за столом; El

şedea la masă; (L-am văzut şezând la masă. In the case of He sat at the

table the lexical aspectual meaning of “sat” is durative, and it is intensified

by superimposing a grammatical aspectual meaning on the lexical one in

“was sitting”. The Romanian and Russian equivalents belong to the

imperfective aspect and express an imperfect action; the grammatical

duration here is supplemented by the lexical one. Even terminative or

point-action verbs can be used in the continuous aspect if the action is

repeated or the speaker wants to show the action in development, or to

stress the fact that the action lasted during a certain period of time. For

example: The boy jumped over the fence/The boy was jumping round the

tree. I began to read, but the teacher interrupted me /I was beginning to

read when he came in. In Romanian we have practically the same situation:

Băiatul a sărit peste gard/ Băiatul sărea în jurul copacului; Eu am început

să citesc, dar profesorul m-a întrerupt/ Eu începeam să citesc, cînd el a

intrat. In Romanian there are no clear-cut grammatical flexions (with the

exception of imperfectul) to indicate the given categorial meaning. As to

the constructions with ing+forms we have already mentioned them above in

discussing the category of aspect. We should just mention some examples:

- Accusative with participle I in English and Accusative with gerunziul

in Romanian: Dupin was moving quickly to the door, when we again

heard him coming up - Dupin se mişca repede spre uşa, cînd peste o clipă

îl auzirăm pe necunoscut urcând din nou (E.Po).

- Nominative with Participle I and Nominative with gerunziul: He was

seen running to the river - El a fost văzut fugind spre rîu.

- Nominative absolute: The dinner being ready, he dished and served it up

– Prânzul fiind gata, el a servit masa. The house door being open, she went

in before Tom, requesting him to follow her (M.Twain) - Uşa casei fiind

deschisă, ea a intrat înaintea lui Tom, cerându-i s-o urmeze.

- Absolute Participle construction and Absolute gerunziul

construction: A lake with children swimming in it, appeared and

125

disappeared - Un lac, cu copii scăldându-se în el, apăru şi dispăru. Double

predicate: The little maid came running down - Fetiţa venea fugind în jos.

He walked singing - El mergea cântând.

- Independent participle constructions: The northern shores of the

Caspian Sea are frozen every winter, ice remaining for some hundred days

in the colder parts. Ţărmurile de nord ale Mării Caspice sunt îngeţate în

fiecare iarnă, ghiaţa rămânând pentru vre-o sută de zile în părţile mai

reci. The independent participle constructions with present participles

include in their structure a secondary subject and a secondary predicate (ice

remaining- ghiaţa rămânând; the motion becoming- mişcarea devenind).

The present participle here has a distinct marked aspectual connotation,

expressing an equivalent durative meaning like that of the continuous

forms: ice remaining - the ice is remaining for some hundred days in the

colder parts [39, 2011-2016].

Anteriority and Voice Expressed by the Past Participle.

Past participle and participiul (trecut) in English and Romanian can

synthetically express anteriority and voice and they also serve to form a

number of perfect and passive voice analytical forms. Thus, if we take

several examples of verbal forms like: reading – read, citind – citit; writing

— written, scriind - scris; seeing – seen, văzând ‚ văzut; creating - created,

creând – creat - we observe three distinct categorial oppositions, that of

simultaneity vs. anteriority (category of taxis), active vs. passive (category

of voice) and continuous vs. non-continuous (category of aspect). Not all

the participles posses all the three categorial forms. The intransitive verbs

do not posses the passive meaning: going – gone, plecând – plecat. The

category of transitivity-intransitivity should also be taken into consideration

in the analysis participles. Some intransitive verbs gradually acquire

submeanings, which are transitive in character. For example: Running a

factory is not easy. The factory is run well. Не was laughed at – El a fost

luat în râs. Past participles are practically rarely used independently, they

are usually found in analytical combinations of perfect and passive voice

forms. The intransitive verbs are used in perfect forms, but are not found in

passive analytical structures, with the exception of the verbs go and come

found in some word combinations: he is come, he is gone. The verbs can

also be classified according to their lexical meanings: terminative,

inceptive, iterative, durative, etc. The expression of both anteriority and

passive voice is usually found in terminative verbs, while in the durative

ones only the passive meaning is clearly seen. Thus, A.Smirnitsky thinks

that “loved” as a past participle loses its “perfectivity”, which is clearly

126

seen in participles like “broken”. But sometimes this division is not clear-

cut. Thus, in case of repeated actions of terminative verbs “perfectivity”

may weaken or get lost a durative meaning is taking over. The categorial

function of a given past participle depends considerably on the contextual

meaning it is used in the given text, and on its semantic feature. There is a

multitude of combinations of the verb “to be” the past participle. We

should pay attention to cases of homonymy. Combinations of the verb “to

be + past participle” like in The letter is written by Peter. Soon he will

finish writing it, or The door is closed by Peter (as a process) should be

distinguished from The door is closed as state, where is closed is not a

passive construction, but just defines the state of the door, that it is not

open, there is no meaning of “perfectivity in the latter case”. It is known

that the perfect non-finite forms of the verb express anteriority in a much

more pure way in comparison with the finite forms. The past participle

expresses anteriority in the most pure way. Let’s take some examples of

participle used in the function of attributes: Hydrogen is the lightest

substance known. Hidrogenul este cea mai uşoară substanţă cunoscută.

Unfortunately it is not possible to present in this book all the information

obtained. Din păcate nu este posibil de a prezentaîn cartea aceasta toată

informaţia obţinută. In both languages a complete coincidence has been

attested in the result of confrontational analysis of past participles in

attributive functions in English with their correspondents in the Romanian

language. But in many cases this coincidence is not always possible

because of some structural and semantic differences, and also because of

certain linguistic and sociolinguistic traditions in the confronted languages,

combinability of words, homonymy, etc. A.Smirnitsky takes as an example

the past participle “gone”. “Is gone” may be identical to the combination

“have gone” in a transferred meaning “he died” like in the sentence Poor

Mr. Brown is (has) gone. He has left us. He has joined the great majority

Sărmanul dl.Brown a murit (a plecat). El a murit (ne-a părăsit). El a plecat

în lumea străbunilor. Is gone can also be used in the direct sense of the

word to express perfectivity in colloquial speech as in Where is Mr.

Brown? He is gone. He will be back in an hour Unde e dl Brown? El e

plecat. Se va întoarce peste o oră. In case of transitive verbs the past

participle has a passive meaning closely connected with “perfectivity” (The

letter written yesterday was sent in time). But when used in analytical non-

perfect fiorms the past participle gets devoid of anteriority meaning and

preserves only the passive categorial function (The letter was written and

sent in time). The same thing is observed in Romanian: Scrisoarea scrisă

127

ieri a fost trimisă la timp./ Scrisoarea a fost scrisă şi trimisă la timp. The

past participle is regularly confronted with the French participe passé and

the Romanian participial trecut: The methodology tested in the Indo-

European field set the pattern. La méthode éprouvée sur le domaine indo-

européen est devenue exemplaire. Metoda experimentată în domeniul indo-

european a devenit exemplară. The paradigms in grammars lead one to

believe that all the verbal forms taken from the name stem belong to the

same conjugation. Les paradigmes des grammaires donnent à croire que

toutes les formes verbales tirées d’un même theme appartiennent à la même

conjugaison. Paradigmele date în cărţile de gramatică ne fac să credem,

că toate formele verbale luate din aceeaş temă aparţin la aceeaş

conjugare. All these observations bring out the essential difference between

the method of communication discovered among bees and our human

language. L’ensemble de ces observations fait apparaître la différence

essentielle entre les procédées de communication découverts chez les

abeilles et notre langage. Toate observaţiile acestea scot la iveală diferenţa

esenţială dintre metoda de comunicare descoperită la albini şi limba

umană. The English participle II can sometimes correspond to the

Romanian mai mult ca perfectul: On the staircase Charny met only some

officers, friends of his, informed beforehand. Charny ne rencontra sur les

degrés que plusieurs officiers, ses amis, prévenus assez à temps. Pe scări,

Charny întâlni numai câţiva ofiţeri, prieteni de ai săi, care fusese anunţaţi

(or anunţaţi) din timp. The anteriority meaning in English and French is

expressed only lexically, while in Romanian both lexical and grammatical

anteriority means are used for the sake of expressivity. Let’s some of the

syntactic functions fulfilled by past participle:

a) attributive - The data obtained are being carefully analyzed and

studied. Datele obţinute sunt analizate şi studiate atent; In both languages

the participles have the function of atributes. b) adverbial modifier of time

Asked (being asked) to comment about the U.N. resolution tabled by the

Afro-Asian countries, the Prime Minister replied... Întrebat (find întrebat,

când a fost întrebat) să comenteze rezoluţia ONU propusă de ţările Afro-

Asiatice, Primul Ministru a răspuns... ; In this case the English participle

„asked” has the function of adverbial modifier of time and ir could be

substituted by the passive voice form of the present participle „being

asked”. The form „tabled” has the function an attribute;

c) adverbial modifier of condition - If given the opportunity, this

industry will rapidly develop. Această industrie se va dezvolta rapid, dacă

vor vi create (condiţii) posibilităţi favorabile; The past participle in the

128

function of an adverbial modifier corresponds in Romanian to future

indefinite passive voice and this shows the fact that the forms are different,

but the grammatical categorial voice meaning is the same – passive voice;

d) adverbial modifier of concession- But the Right-wing Labour

leaders, though forced to give way on some questions, will stick to their

policies. Liderii laburişti de dreapta, deşi forţaţi să cedeze în unele

probleme, vor susţine politica lor; e) complex object with past participle -

The British people want hydrogen and atomic weapons outlawed. Poporul

britanic vrea ca armele nucleare şi cu hidrogen să fie puse în afara legii.

We hope to see this issue raised in all trades councils, in every union. Noi

sperăm vedem această problemă ridicată în fiecare sindicat. The

construction of complex object with past participle in English corresponds

to a construction of complex object with subjunctivul with meaning of

future and in the second complex object with participiul trecut. Thus,

having analyzed a considerable number of examples we can state that past

participle express anteriority in cases when the action is preceding to the

moment of speech. There are quite a number of cases where the forms

under research express both anteriority and passive voice (in case of

transitive verbs) meanings, or only the latter one [39, 216-221].

16. Word Order and Its Metasemiosis

Much work has been done by language typologists on diachronic

change, following up the work of J. Greenberg's set of implicational

universals, R. Hawkins' extensive investigation of universals [39, 255].

Translating these universals into claims about diachrony, analysts have

sought to develop hierarchies of change specifying that if a certain change

takes place, something else will follow, which in turn will cause a further

change, and, so on. This turns out to be related to Sapir's notion of drift

Sapir E. [39, 255] explains certain past and present morphological,

syntactic, and lexical changes of English by revealing that they are

consequences of certain major psychological tendencies of speakers of this

language - which he calls drifts. Since such tendencies remain alive over

long periods of time, he predicts certain further, similar changes for the

future of English and points out that these predictions are already in part

becoming true in the English of lower-class speakers. He shows,

furthermore, that the three major drifts - loss of case marking, stabilization

of word order, and the drift toward the invariable -word - are, at least to a

129

large extent, related to each other and are, ultimately, consequences of yet

another drift of English, the phonetic drift of the Germanic languages

toward reduction and loss of final syllables, itself a consequence of the

word-initial stress accent of these languages. This seems to us a

considerable achievement in the development of a theory of grammar

change because it is generally stated that every morphological system is

destroyed by phonological change. In our case, as a substantive Subject-

Object marking system is eroded by phonological change, English word

order syntax must react to compensate for the ambiguities and perceptual

complexities. In spite of these explanations, one should also note how

much Sapir has either not seen or kept for himself. From our present

viewpoint more than half a century later, the omissions look large and

surprising. Sapir limits his discussion to English. Yet similar changes occur

in many other languages. He also does not note that the stabilized word is a

particular one, the SVO (subject-verb predicate-object) order, while the

dominant word order of older period of the language, some five thousand

years ago, had been SOV, as Sapir must have known from the writings of

earlier authors. What is more important is the fact that English has been

subject to another major drift, the gradual change from an SOV to an SVO

language and the question arises whether this drift is language specific or

somehow universal. So that Sapir's picture of the major tendencies in the

development of English syntax remains incomplete in a rather conspicuous

way. Lakoff R. continues the investigation of drift by relating it to

comparative and typological linguistic studies. Lakoff begins by presenting

"a list of some changes... that occur in many or all of the Indo-European

languages, clearly not as a result of one being influenced by another" [39,

256]. The common feature of Lakoff's six drifts is that they "go from

synthetic to analytic" [39, 256]. This trend is also called by Lakoff a "meta-

condition on the way the grammar of a language as a whole can change"

(idem). Lakoff's paper is valuable and goes beyond Sapir's discussion in

that it points out that certain drifts may be shared by several languages at

least of a given family. This is a great step towards the development of

word order change from a universal point of view. In recent years J.

Greenberg's word order typologies

have achieved certain popularity.

Greenberg does not employ the term drift or make reference to Sapir. Yet

the phenomena he investigates are closely related to drift, and the work he

has done has contributed so much to the explanation of drift as a universal

phenomenon. In his work Greenberg developing ideas of R. Jakobson [39,

256] postulated a set of implicational universals based on predominant

130

surface word order patterns. On the basis of his implications, there emerged

a notion of a typologically consistent language. Thus a consistent SOV

language would have post-positions, the orders V-Aux, Adj-N, Genitive-N,

Det-N, IO-DO and it will tend to be heavily inflected. A consistent SVO

language would have prepositions and the reverse order, namely Aux-V, N-

Adj, N-Gen, N-Det, DO-IO, and it will tend not to be heavily inflected.

Therefore, if a consistent SOV language were to develop into a consistent

SVO type, it would undergo a large number of harmonic changes. In a

powerful critique, Hawkins R. [39, 255] has identified further problems

with the "typological approach" and the diachronic theory based on it.

Hawkins identifies three shortcomings in the thirty implicational universals

of J. Greenberg [39, 255]: first, the correlations across syntactic domains

are not very good and the order of verb and object seems to bear no relation

to the order of noun and adjective; second, some language types have no

exemplifications; and third, no distinction is drawn between language types

which have very many exponents and those which have a mere handful.

Being taken as theories, Hawkins calls them trigger-chain theories: some

property changes and sets off a chain reaction, which is defined by

Greenberg as type implications. Hawkins R. considers that this trigger may

be grammatical, pragmatic or perceptual. Theo Vennemann [39, 255] offers

a grammatical trigger: phonological changes reduce morphological

distinctions and the order shifts from SOV to SVO to prevent widespread

ambiguity whereby NP NPV might be interpreted as SOV or OSV.

Hyman's after - thought is an example of a pragmatic trigger, provoking

various elements to occur post-verbally by analogy to the after-thought

constructions and thereby getting the chain started. Antinucci, Duranti and

Gebart. provide a perceptual trigger: they claim that in a SOV language the

first relation to change is that of a noun and its relative clause. The

prenominal relatives of SOV languages are alleged to pose perceptual

problems and therefore shift to postnominal position and this triggers off a

chain reaction. Hawkins goes on to show that trigger-chain theories as

proposed make false predictions about the hierarchy of changes in a general

typological shift. In order to shed light on the correct theory of grammar the

simultaneous changes should be related where possible. Koch W. [39, 257]

took a similar approach to parallel changes in several Indo-European

languages, claiming that they can be viewed as the symptoms of a more

general SOV to SVO typological change. He argued that it is the rising

predominance of SVO order in OE that makes the breakdown of the

inflectional system possible; this was based on the assumption, derived

131

from Greenberg's work, that SVO languages characteristically do not have

rich post-positional inflectional systems. Koch views the Germanic,

Romance and Slavic languages, Greek and Lithuanian as evolving

gradually from SOV to typologically consistent SVO languages. Koch

argues that they are evolving at different rates, but they are all on the same

slope, steadily acquiring more and more properties, which are characteristic

of the SVO type. She also states, for example, that Proto-Germanic was in

transition from SOV to SVO and that its daughter languages have steadily

acquired more SVO properties. One should therefore be attentive about

attempts to develop theories of change on the basis of such

"generalisations". There is no reason to suppose that in this respect the

changes affecting Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Chinese, and the few

other languages with a long documented history, represent the total range

of possibilities. However, if the claims are to be made about the underlying

order of elements in the initial structure in a language, the order of these

changes is often difficult to establish. Linguists have tried to establish the

order of some basic changes for English but without much success.

Furthermore, this is done for a wide range of languages and there are no

grounds to suppose that there is a universally determined hierarchy of

changes, a prescribed rule, which all languages must slide down at varying

rates. From the stated explanations in the study of diachronic change the

essential problem is that languages vary in their structure to a great extent

and this variation makes it difficult if not impossible to use structural

criteria, to identify grammatical categories across languages. It seems to us

that in this respect word order has a privilege over other grammatical

categories. Word order changes appear to be one of the easiest for cross-

linguistic comparability, since they are clearly based on a physical property

of the clause, the sequence of units, which can be directly observed. Having

dealt with such considerations about changes in general, it has been seen

that in developing from SOV to SVO syntax, languages seem to follow

similar pathways. For instance, Modern German, which developed from the

same Germanic SOV source as English, shares two of Old English's

distinguishing characteristics. First, the verb is typically placed in the

second position of the sentence in main clauses, preceded by the subject or

some other element (such as an adverb). Secondly the SOV order is

employed for embedded clauses. Since linguists are still not sure why

languages change from one syntactic type to another, the causes of word

order change will undoubtedly remain an important area of investigation,

especially since the relative order of Verb and Object has been closely

132

linked with other word order patterns. A second kind of extra-grammatical

cause of syntactic change is what one might term expressivity. This would

include the introduction of novel forms for stylistic effect, such as the

«topicalized» clauses, which are common in certain English dialects, where

a NP occurs in a marked position and with heavy stress: Pete, she heard,

but not Mike. Pete, 1 heard him and he played football, Mike. These forms

are still regarded as novel in English and as having distinct stylistic force;

they are met and considered common in Yorkshire dialects and with British

football commentators. In spite of the fact that English is a subject-

prominent language, in which all clauses must have a subject even if there

is nothing to refer to as in It is raining, it accepted such novel clauses. This

process, in which instead of the subject you may make another element

more important, by moving it to the front of the sentence, gives the element

a kind of psychological prominence. The speaker says the most important

thing in his mind first: Rîch, I may be, but this doesn't mean I'm happy.

J.London

Let us take some examples of cases of stylistic inversion after

conjunction, adverbs, etc. in English and Romanian: Never before have I

been in this forest. Nici odată până acum n-am fost eu în această pădure.

Not only does water function as a catalyst, but it also may be a significant

rock-building constituent. Nu numai că apa are funcţia de catalizator, ci ea

poate fi un constituent important în formarea stâncelor. Nowhere can we

see such rapid progress as in computing technique. Nicăieri nu putem noi

vedea aşa un progres rapid ca în domeniul tehnologiilor informaţionale. So

bright is Venus that even in the daytime it is sometimes visible. Aşa de

luminoasă este planeta Venus că chiar în timpul zilei ea este uneori

vizibilă. Not only do the tides advance and retreat in their eternal rhythms,

but the level of the sea itself is never at rest. If we take the first sentence

and compare it with its direct order variant we find out a considerable

metasemiotic difference between them: I have never been in this forest

before. Eu nici odată până acum n-am fost în această pădure. Eu n-am fost

în această pădure nici odată până acum. The stylistically inverted variants

in both languages make stylistically prominent the adverbs, the auxiliary in

English, and even the whole predicate in Romanian. The prominence of the

inverted words can be further intensified by means of prosody: slowed

down tempo, widened range of the voice, increased loudness, high note,

etc. The traditional word order developed a specific intonation pattern and

Galperin I. mentions the fact that there is a clash between semantically less

important syntactic elements and the prominent ones and prosody can

133

considerably intensify or diminish the metasemiotic connotation of the

sentence. Thus, in the sentence: Talent Mr. Micawber has; capital Mr.

Micawber has not. Here the first and the last positions being prominent,

the verb has and the negative not get a fuller volume of stress than they

would in direct word order. In this example, the effect of the inverted word

order is backed up by two other stylistic devices: antithesis and parallel

construction. Unlike grammatical inversion stylistic inversion does not

change the structural meaning of the sentence, that is, the change in the

juxtaposition of the members of the sentence does not indicate structural

meaning but has some superstructural function. Stylistic inversion aims at

attaching logical stress or additional emotional colouring to the surface

meaning of the utterance. Having analysed a large number of examples we

can conclude that in a topicalized structure, the fronted element often

evokes a presuppositional set recoverable from the earlier portion of the

text. The final element is strongly rhematic, carrying new information and

often linking up with something coming later in the text, and, thus, in

syntax, new constructions are introduced, which by their unusual shape

have a novelty value and are used for metasemiotic purposes. The special

stylistic effect slowly becomes bleached out and the constructions lose their

marked force becoming hackneyed, speakers regularly reproduce such

ready made metasemiotic structures to achieve a certain stylistic effect. At

the same time other metasemiotic structures are regularly being produced in

speech to produce a genuine metasemiotic effect. We consider this process

an important kind of historical change in syntax, which has been given very

little attention in the literature, perhaps as a consequence of the lack of a

real analogue in phonological change.

Intensified Stylistic Syntactic Structures. Another kind of extra-

grammatical cause of syntactic change, considered as a special case of

expressivity, is called by Hyman after-thought. We could name it by using

the term intensified stylistic inversion. This plays a role in the development

of SOV word order to SVO. This means that in addition to the usual SOV

patterns one would get intensified stylistic structures SOVO, for instance:

Ann biscuits liked ... and chocolate. (Would you like biscuits or chocolate?

– Biscuits I like, …and chocolate, …and cake, too.) Thus in a OV language,

intensified stylistic inversion permits certain surface occurrences of VO.

Stockwell and McKnight G. sustain this position and develop such an

account of the word order change in English. McKnight had attributed the

rise of post-verbal complementation in large measure intensified stylistic

structures, where to the apparently finished sentence a number of

134

explanatory details are added, afterthoughts; or some element by reason of

close connection with the following clause, may be put after the verb. To

motives like these the analytic order probably owes its origin». Stockwell is

less concerned with such psychological motivation, but notes that «there

are a number of structural motivations within the syntax of OE that

considerably strengthen the tendency «to exbraciate», where «exbraciation»

is the rightward movement eliminating nominal and adverbial elements.

Stockwell proceeds to identify various processes which gave rise to surface

sequences SV(O), so that eventually a language learner had sufficient basis

to generalize that sentences end with complements, not with verbs.

Nowadays this psychological motivation causes some problems [39, 260].

Since consistent OV languages such as Japanese make very sparing use of

intensified stylistic syntactic structures, how may it be explained that in

some OV languages intensified stylistic syntactic structures become so

important that it changes the type of the language to VO? Some linguists,

among them Sapir, attribute this change to the familiar tendency to level the

distinction between case marking. Sapir had in my opinion the correct view

of such a situation when he said that throughout the history of English «the

case system... has been steadily weakening in psychological respects [39,

260]. Surely learners and speakers of a language do not wait until the last

trace of a case marking is lost before they realize that something is going

wrong in their language. Perhaps they will avoid constructions most or all

of the time if they run them into difficulties some of the time, and rely on

constructions that guarantee success. Therefore, insofar as the intensified

stylistic syntactic structure phenomenon is a psychological motivation for

VO sequences, it contributes to the opacity of the underlying OV order and

therefore may be said to play a causal role in the development of a new VO

order. Much work has been done by language typologists on diachronic

change, following up the work of Greenberg's set of implicational

universals, Hawkins' extensive investigation of universals [39, 261].

Translating these universals into claims about diachrony, analysts have

sought to develop hierarchies of change specifying that if a certain change

takes place, something else will follow, which in turn will cause a further

change, and, so on. This turns out to be related to Sapir's notion of drift.

Sapir explains certain past and present morphological, syntactic, and lexical

changes of English by revealing that they are consequences of certain major

psychological tendencies of speakers of this language - which he calls

drifts. Since such tendencies remain alive over long periods of time, he

predicts certain further, similar changes for the future of English and points

135

out that these predictions are already in part becoming true in the English of

lower-class speakers. He shows, furthermore, that the three major drifts -

cases of marking, stabilization of word order, and the drift toward the

invariable word - are, at least to a large extent, related to each other and are,

ultimately, consequences of yet another drift of English, the phonetic drift

of the Germanic languages toward reduction and loss of final syllables,

itself a consequence of the word-initial stress accent of these languages.

This seems to us a considerable achievement in the development of a

theory of grammar change because it is generally stated that every

morphological system is destroyed by phonological change. In our case, as

a substantive Subject-Object marking system is eroded by phonological

change, English word order syntax must react to compensate for the

ambiguities and perceptual complexities [39, 261]. In spite of these

explanations, one should also note how much Sapir has either not seen or

kept for himself. From our present viewpoint more than half a century later,

the omissions look large and surprising. Sapir limits his discussion to

English. Yet similar changes occur in many other languages. He also does

not note that the stabilized word is a particular one, the SVO order, while

the dominant word order of older period of the language, some five

thousand years ago, had been SOV, as Sapir must have known from the

writings of earlier authors. What is more important is the fact that English

has been subject to another major drift, the gradual change from an SOV to

an SVO language and the question arises whether this drift is language

specific or somehow universal. So that Sapir's picture of the major

tendencies in the development of English syntax remains incomplete in a

rather conspicuous way, Lakoff continues the investigation of drift by

relating it to comparative and typological linguistic studies. Lakoff begins

by presenting "a list of some changes... that occur in many or all of the

Indo-European languages, clearly not as a result of one being influenced by

another [39, 262]. The common feature of Lakoff's six drifts is that they

"go from synthetic to analytic". This trend is also called by Lakoff a "meta-

condition on the way the grammar of a language as a whole can change"

(idem). Lakoff's paper is valuable and goes beyond Sapir's discussion in

that it points out that certain drifts may be shared by several languages at

least of a given family. This is a great step towards the development of

word order change from a universalist point of view. In recent years

Greenberg's word order typologies have achieved a certain popularity.

Greenberg does not employ the term drift or make reference to Sapir. Yet

the phenomena he investigates are closely related to drift, and the work he

136

has done has contributed so much to the explanation of drift as a universal

phenomenon. In his work Greenberg developing ideas of R. Jakobson

postulated a set of implicational universals based on predominant surface

word order patterns. On the basis of his implications, there emerged a

notion of a typologically consistent language. Thus a consistent SOV

language would have post-positions, the orders V-Aux, Adj-N, Genitive-N,

Det-N, IO-DO and it will tend to be heavily inflected. A consistent SVO

language would have prepositions and the reverse order, namely Aux-V, N-

Adj, N-Gen, N-Det, DO-IO, and it will tend not to be heavily inflected.

Therefore, if a consistent SOV language were to develop into a consistent

SVO type, it would undergo a large number of harmonic changes [39, 262].

In a powerful critique, Hawkins has identified further problems with the

"typological approach" and the diachronic theory based on it . Hawkins

identifies three shortcomings in the thirty implicational universals of

Greenberg [39, 262]: first, the correlations across syntactic domains are not

very good and the order of verb and object seems to bear no relation to the

order of noun and adjective; second, some language types have no

exemplifications; and third, no distinction is drawn between language types

which have very many exponents and those which have a mere handful.

Being taken as theories, Hawkins calls them trigger-chain theories: some

property changes and sets off a chain reaction, which is defined by

Greenberg as type implications. Hawkins considers that this trigger may be

grammatical, pragmatic or perceptual. Theo Vennemann [39, 263] offers a

grammatical trigger: phonological changes reduce morphological

distinctions and the order shifts from SOV to SVO to prevent widespread

ambiguity whereby NP NPV might be interpreted as SOV or OSV.

Hyman's after - thought is an example of a pragmatic trigger, provoking

various elements to occur post-verbally by analogy to the after-thought

constructions and thereby getting the chain started. Antinucci, Duranti and

Gebart [39, 263] provide a perceptual trigger: they claim that in a SOV

language the first relation to change is that of a noun and its relative clause.

The prenominal relatives of SOV languages are alleged to pose perceptual

problems and therefore shift to post-nominal position and this triggers off a

chain reaction. Hawkins goes on to show that trigger-chain theories as

proposed make false predictions about the hierarchy of changes in a general

typological shift. In order to shed light on the correct theory of grammar the

simultaneous changes should be related where possible. Koch [39, 262]

took a similar approach to parallel changes in several Indo-European

languages, claiming that they can be viewed as the symptoms of a more

137

general SOV to SVO typological change. He argued that it is the rising

predominance of SVO order in OE that makes the breakdown of the

inflectional system possible; this was based on the assumption, derived

from Greenberg's work, that SVO languages characteristically do not have

rich post-positional inflectional systems. Koch views the Germanic,

Romance and Slavic languages, Greek and Lithuanian as evolving

gradually from SOV to typologically consistent SVO languages. Koch

argues that they are evolving at different rates, but they are all on the same

slope, steadily acquiring more and more properties, which are characteristic

of the SVO type. She also states, for example, that Proto-Germanic was in

transition from SOV to SVO and that its daughter languages have steadily

acquired more SVO properties. I think that one should therefore be

attentive about attempts to develop theories of change on the basis of such

"generalisations". There is no reason to suppose that in this respect the

changes affecting Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Chinese, and the few

other languages with a long documented history, represent the total range

of possibilities. However, if the claims are to be made about the underlying

order of elements in the initial structure in a language, the order of these

changes is often difficult to establish. Linguists have tried to establish the

order of some basic changes for English but without much success.

Furthermore, this is done for a wide range of languages and there are no

grounds to suppose that there is a universally determined hierarchy of

changes, a prescribed rule, which all languages must slide down at varying

rates. From the stated explanations in the study of diachronic change the

essential problem is that languages vary in their structure to a great extent

and this variation makes it difficult if not impossible to use structural

criteria, to identify grammatical categories across languages. It seems to us

that in this respect word order has a privilege over other grammatical

categories. Word order changes appear to be one of the easiest for cross-

linguistic comparability, since they are clearly based on a physical property

ofthe clause, the sequence of units, which can be directly observed. Having

dealt with such considerations about changes in general, it has been seen

that in developing from SOV to SVO syntax, languages seem to follow

similar pathways. For instance, Modern German, which developed from the

same Germanic SOV source as English, shares two of Old English's

distinguishing characteristics. First, the verb is typically placed in the

second position of the sentence in main clauses, preceded by the subject or

some other element (such as an adverb). Secondly the SOV order is

employed for embedded clauses. Since linguists are still not sure why

138

languages change from one syntactic type to another, the causes of word

order change will undoubtedly remain an important area of investigation,

especially since the relative order of Verb and Object has been closely

linked with other word order patterns [39, 255-264].

Word Order and Other Metasemiotic Syntactic Means and

Devices. In order to prove the fact that syntactic units are in constant state

of flux prof. Galperin I. quotes prof. G. Vinokur who maintains that in

syntax it is no new material that is coined, but new relations, because the

syntactical aspect of speech is nothing more than a definite combination of

grammatical forms, and in this sense the actual words used are essentially

immaterial. Therefore syntactical relations, particularly in poetic language,

are that aspect of speech in which everything presents itself as actualization

of the potential and not merely the repetition of the ready-made. It follows

therefore, that in order to establish the permissible fluctuations of the

syntactical norm, it is necessary to ascertain what is meant by the

syntactical norm itself. In English syntax the concept of norm is rather

loose. In fact any change in the relative positions of the members of the

sentence may be regarded as a variant of the received standard, provided

that the relation between them will not hinder the understanding of the

utterance [39, 264]. According to Galperin I. word order is a crucial

syntactical problem in many languages and in English it has peculiarities

caused by the concrete and specific sociolinguistic feature of the language

developed by the given speaking community. He quotes O.Jespersen who

said that the English language "... has developed tolerably fixed word

orders which in the great majority of cases shows without fail what is the

Subject of the sentence."This "tolerably fixed word order" is Subject-Verb

(Predicate) - Object (S - P - O). Jespersen also mentions a statistical

investigation of word order made on the basis of a series of representative

19th century writers demonstrating that 82%-97% of all the analyzed

sentences contained all three members (S - P - O), while the percentage for

Beowulf was only 16 and for King Alfred's prose 40 [39, 265]. Any change

of the word order structure of the sentence changes the prosodic pattern and

metasemiotic structure of the given syntactic unit. If the syntactic unit is

brought forward in the sentence, it is made prominent both by the changed

structure and by the specific prosody. The one moved to the end of the

sentence may be intensified most of all prosodically. There are several

kinds of stylistic inversion, most frequently used in both English prose and

English poetry: the object is placed at the beginning of the sentence; the

attribute is placed in postposition, especially when there is more than one

139

attribute [39, 265]. A good man he was. Un om bun el era (un om bun el a

fost; un om bun era el); With his face beaming he came up to me. Cu faţa

radiindă el s-a apropiat de mine. The nominal part of the predicate may be

used in front of the subject: A hard working student she was. O foarte

sârguincioasă studentă a fost ea. The predicative stands before the link

verb and both are placed before the subject as in Rude am I in my speech...

Grosolan sunt eu în vorbirea mea… [39, 265]. The adverbial modifier (in

some cases combined with the auxiliary verb of the predicate) is placed

before the subject group, creating a strong metasemiotic connotation:

Hardly ever is light observed directly from its source. Puţin probabil ca

lumina să fie vre-o dată observată direct din sursa ei. Never before has

there been any device so efficient. Nici odată până acum n-a existat un

aparat atât de efficient. Not only does water function as a catalyst, but it

also may be a significant rock-building constituent. Nu numai că apa

funcţionează ca un catalizator, dar ea poate de asemeni fi o parte

componentă importantă în formarea stâncilor. Only gradually, in recent

years, has the chemistry of polymers become separated and become an

independent branch of science. Numai treptat, în anii recenţi, a devenit

industria polimerilor o ramură independentă a ştiinţei. Nowhere can we

see such rapid progress as in computing technique. Nicăieri nu putem

vedea noi aşa un progres rapid ca în tehnologiile informaţionale.

Unfortunately records of evaporation are not very numerous. Din

nefericire, cazuri înregistrate de evaporare nu sunt numeroase. In most of

the examples given above the adverbial modifier is made prominent its

expressivity is considerably intensified by the change of usual word order.

At the same time, in each case, a prosodic pattern specific to emotionally

charged text is detected even in scientific technical texts. In some

examples, the metasemiotic connotation is further increased by the use of

the auxiliary verbs before the subject of the sentence: Hardly ever is; Puţin

probabil - in the Romanian translation the auxiliary is used after the

subject, because traditionally in such cases it is not accepted in this

position. But in the next example there is a complete coincidence in both

languages: Never before has there been - Nici odată până acum n-a existat.

Of course, there are many other cases of syntactic stylistic change. Thus,

both modifier and predicate stand before the subject, as in "In went Mr.

Pickwick." (În odaie a intrat dl Pickwick); Down dropped the breeze... S-a

atenuat vântul lin…); [39, 266]. Out went the customer… (Afară a ieşit

clientul…). As we see from the examples given above the same degree of

stylistic inversion is used in both languages. In the following examples the

140

nominal part of the predicate is used in front of the subject making it

stylistically prominent, intensifying the expressivity of the dislocated

lexeme. Important as his discoveries were in themselves their significance

is further magnified by the impetus they gave to the development of the

comparative and evolutionary trend in physiology. Importante fiind

descoperirile lui în sine, semnificaţia lor creşte mai departe prin imboldul ,

care l-au dat ele dezvoltării tendinţei comparative şi evoluţioniste în

fiziologie. Strange as it may seem, the theory of numbers, being the purest

kind of mathematics, can be called, from a certain aspect, an empirical or

even an experimental science. Straniu cum se pare, teoria numerelor, fiind

cea mai pură matematică, poate fi numită, dintr-un anumit aspect, o ştiinţă

empirică sau chiar experimentală. However useful the ore may be, it

cannot be employed to advantage unless it can be obtained in adequate

quantities and at an acceptable price. Oricât de folositor poate fi minereul,

el nu poate fi folosit cu avantaj dacă nu poate fi obţinut în cantităţi

adecvate şi la un preţ acceptabil. It is important to observe the fact that in

both languages we a complete affinity concerning the structures and their

metasemiotic charge, Besides, we should add that the grammatical

metasemiosis here gets a powerful support by being combined with the

lexical inherent stylistic connotation (in sentences 1 and 2: “strange” and

“important” – “importante”, “straniu”) and the prosodic emotional pattern

imposed on them, too. In sentence three the lexeme “however” – “oricât”

intensifies the general stylistic connotation.

As prof. Galperin I. says, practically any change in the direct order

results in a change or intensification of metasemiosis: “, the English

affirmative sentence is regarded as neutral if it maintains the regular word

order, i.e., subject - predicate - object (or other secondary members of the

sentence, as they are called). Any other order of the parts of the sentence

may also carry the necessary information, but the impact on the reader will

be different. Even a slight change in the word order of a sentence or in the

order of the sentences in a more complicated syntactical unit will inevitably

cause a definite modification of the meaning of the whole. An almost

imperceptible rhythmical design introduced into a prose sentence, or a

sudden break in the sequence of the parts of the sentence, or any other

change will add something to the volume of information contained in the

original sentence. It follows that the very concept of inversion has appeared

as a counterpart to the regular word order, the latter being a relatively

unemotional, unemphatic, neutral mode of expression” [39, 267]. Thus, in

the following examples the constructions themselves possess a strong

141

degree of expressivity and by placing them in front of the sentence we get it

further intensified. It goes without saying that if a spark should fall into

containers with inflammable liquids, quick and dangerous fires would

result. Should there be no rain crops will be spoiled. Nici nu poate fi vorbă,

că dacă o scânteie ar cădea într-un container cu lichid inflamabil, un

incendiu momentan şi primejdios ar urma. Should the lubricant supply

stop, even momentarily, serious damage might result. Să se oprească

furnizarea lubrifiantului, chiar pentru un moment, pagube serioase ar

putea rezulta. It is but natural that collisions between atoms should be

frequent. E şi natural că coliziunea dintre atomi trebuie să fie frecventă.

Since water contains hydrogen and is too abundant and inexpensive, it is

but natural that we should try to obtain an element from this source. Aşa

cum apa conţine hidrogen şi el este foarte abundent şi ieftin, e şi natural ca

noi să încercăm de a obţine un element din această sursă. The

constructions “ It goes without saying”- “Nici nu poate fi vorbă” get here

an additional expressive-emotional overtone being placed first in the

sentence. The next construction it is but natural is combined with the

syntactic structure that we should try to obtain, in which the emotional

should is used and it contributes to the intensification of the metasemiotic

content. The emphatic constructions with It is (was)... that (which, who) are

also actively ised in the stylistic syntactic change, where an emphatic

pronoun is used, the auxiliary is usually brought in front of the subject like

in the examples: It is the gravitation that makes the satellites move round

the earth. Anume gravitaţia (este aceea care) face ca sateliţii să se mişte în

jurul pământului. It is among the naturally occuring minerals that we find

the most beautiful examples of crystals. It was from the detection of

otherwise unexplained lines in the solar spectrum that helium was

discovered. It was not until the industrial revolution that metals began to

assume the importance they now possess. Only recently has a theory which

accounts reasonably well for all the experimental evidence been proposed.

Constructions like “no sooner… than”, “not only does… but (than)”, etc.,

usually used in an emphatic position can also be included in the class of

syntactic stylistic intensifiers. Thus, for example: No sooner had electronic

computers become available for non-military uses, after the end of world

war II, than astronomers began to use this new tool. Cum numai (încurând

după) calculatoarele electronice au devenit disponibile pentru scopuri

militare, după al doilea război mondial, atunci astronomii îndată au

început să folosească acest aparat nou. Not only do men fly in the upper

layers of the atmosphere, but the time is not too far off when they will leave

142

the Earth and explore other planets. Nu numai că oamenii zboară în

straturile de mare altitudine ale atmosferei, dar timpul se apropie când ei

vor părăsi Pământul şi vor explora alte planete. In spite of the fact that the

English emphatic constructions do not exactly correspond to the ones

available in the Romanian Language, the metasemiotic syntactic

connotation created is practically identical. The initial part of the structure

is made prominent by position, by prosodic and lexico-grammatical means.

The second part of the structure, used at beginning of the next clause

creates a sustained stylistic connotation.

The models given above comprise the well-known patterns of

stylistic syntactic change. Prof. Galperin I. Writes that the position of a

word in the sentence may be changed within the recognized variants and

the above models are the materialization of these variants. Inversion as a

stylistic device is always sense-motivated, and there is a tendency to

account for inversion in poetry by rhythmical considerations. In the

majority of cases inversion in poetry is called forth by considerations of

metasemiotic content rather than rhythm. Inversion is one of the forms of

what are known as emphatic constructions. The traditional word order is a

non-emphatic construction. Emphatic constructions are usually considered

as violations of the regular word order in the sentence. In practice these

structures are as common as the fixed word order structures. Therefore

inversion must be regarded as a strong syntactic stylistic means of the

language [39, 268]. All the variants of stylistic syntactic change structures

are used to create metasemiotic expressive-evaluative overtones, which are

further intensified by morphological, lexical, lexico-grammatical, and

especially by prosodic emphatic patterns.

143

Conclusions

In the present work we have undertaken a confrontation of some

morphological grammatical categories, both on the emic and etic levels.

Our previous knowledge of the confronted languages helps us to secure a

firm stand, a reliable basis for our investigation not only in case of

comparing related languages, but also in case of comparing one or two

cognate languages with unrelated languages. In case of synchrony in

contrastive linguistics the object of our research is usually different. We no

longer think of the genetic identities. We concentrate on the differences and

try to understand why it is that the functions of the forms should have

diverged so widely? What we have been trying to explain all along is

scientific confrontation. In our case we are bound to discuss the possibility

of applying methods of scientific research, which imply explaining the

difference between synchronic systems and their diachronic development,

the systems at work in living texts - the different methods of analysis, the

confrontation both on the level of text and on the level of system.

Subsequent research has shown that confrontation must involve a profound

study of the systems. Synchronic confrontation of any two language

systems cannot be really scientific, unless account is carefully taken of their

previous development. Linguistic systems are not uniform. The hierarchy

of different elements in the systems, the relation between centre and

periphery, has also to be taken into account. The last stage is returning to

the etic level. We should always start with identities and similarities and

gradually work our way to contrasts and non-coincidences. In case of

unrelated languages we would have to join the quest for universals, which

are supposed to be easy to be discovered. As a result of systematic

confrontational analysis of the categorial forms of taxis, tense, aspect,

mood, deixis, comparison, etc. we have come to the some general

conclusions:

The category of taxis in English, French and Romanian, related

languages, is embracing the entire grammatical system of the verb. The

English system is relatively “young” (created on the basis of the Latin

model), while in Romanian and French it is an old system going back to

Latin. But in all the confronted languages we observe a similar trend:

categorial transition from purely grammatical categories into lexical-

grammatical and even purely lexical. The analysis demonstrated that this

process is found in other languages, both related and unrelated, where in

spoken languages simpler forms are used and grammatical forms being

144

substituted by purely lexical ones. The term perfect denotes not only

anteriority, it also may be used to express a perfective or finished action.

That is the meaning used by some linguists to put forward a category of

aspect in English (the opposition of Perfect vs. Continuous forms), which is

characteristic to some European languages. Compare for example with the

Russian perfective and imperfective aspect (совершенный и

несовершенный вид). It is quite natural for a number of languages to have

the oppositions of Continuous vs. Non-continuous and Perfective vs.

Imperfective (in the meaning of Finished vs. Unfinished). In English most

of the verbal forms can be subdivided into an opposition of perfective-

imperfective aspect, but the existing Continuous vs. non-continuous aspect

is prevailing. The category of aspect in English is in a state of transition

from a purely grammatical category into a grammatical-stylistic and

sometimes even purely stylistic one. Confronting the non-finite forms in

English and Romanian we discover identical systems on the emic level,

with some slight differences, especially in the formal expression: The

English forms to have written, to have been written, having written

correspond in Romanian to structures formed by means of the auxiliary to

be and not to have. That results in homonymy of grammatical forms. There

is also a difference in usage: the perfect nominal forms in Romanian are

rarely used and are usually substituted by finite perfect forms: mai mult ca

perfectul, perfectul simplu and especially perfectul compus. The English

present participle is regularly translated into Romanian by means of

gerunziul, which historically took over the meaning of participiul prezent,

which was ousted from the language. The English perfect nominal forms

have also been displaying a tendency to gradually get out of usage. Thus,

perfect gerund, perfect participle and, to a certain extent perfect infinitive,

are practically used in formal bookish language. In the colloquial speech

the finite perfect forms are usually preferred.

At the first sight we can conclude that the finite system in English is

much richer in forms than in Romanian. Thus, when we compare the

English, French and Romanian systems we find very much in common with

occasional natural differences connected with the development of the

language in different speaking communities of the given related languages.

It occurs that in Romanian and French there are no corresponding forms to

the English past indefinite, its function being carried out by perfectul

compus and passé composé, both coinciding in form and partially in

function with the English present perfect. In the confronted languages

under consideration we find cases of grammatical homonymy. Examples of

145

homonymy in English could be exemplified by the forms of gerund and

participle I (in case of nominal forms), should plus infinitive (as modal

verb plus infinitive, conditional mood, suppositional mood, future in the

past), would plus infinitive (as modal verb plus infinitive, conditional,

future in the past), the form of past perfect ( as expressing an anteriority in

the past, anteriority in the future from a moment in the past in sentences of

time and condition expressing future from a moment in the past, and

expressing an unreal condition, desire or wish in the past in the Subjunctive

II (in this case it does not always express anteriority), present perfect

(anteriority expressed to an action or moment in the present by an action or

a period of time including an action; anteriority in the future, where it

substitutes the future perfect in the clauses of time and condition expressing

a future action from a present moment. In spite of the fact that the systems

of categorial, grammatical and lexical-grammatical forms are different in

the given language, the categorial meaning of the category of taxis, as well

as those of tense and aspect, could be easily expressed in each of the

confronted languages using all possible linguistic means: grammatical,

lexical-grammatical, lexical, contextual. A common tendency has been

observed in all the confronted languages that the category of taxis is

gradually undergoing a change. It is in a process of transition from a mainly

grammatical category into a lexical-grammatical or even lexical one. In

Russian, a similar process of transition is practically over. Examples of

finite perfect forms can be found only in dialectal speech. Examples of

nominal perfect forms are still in usage: past gerund and past participle.

The lexical category of taxis is dominant now in this language. In English

(as in many other European languages) the same process is rapidly

advancing. The grammatical categorial form of the future anteriority is

practically not used in the spoken language and is successfully substituted

by simple forms, anteriority being expressed in such cases by lexical means

and context. Past perfect is practically in the same position, especially in

the American variant of English where it is often substituted by simple

forms in the spoken language. As far as Romanian is concerned, the future

perfect here (viitorul anterior) is rarely used even in the bookish and formal

language. The analytical past perfect is out of usage and the synthetic one is

also in a process of change (in the informal spoken language very often it is

substituted by perfectul compus in its second simple past meaning, past

anteriority being expressed lexically or contextually).

146

Hypergrammaticality or abuse of grammar should be paid attention

to while confronting grammatical systems of different languages. Abuse of

grammar may be of two kinds:

a) The speaker turns to some very complex and artificial complex

structures, because he thinks that they are more literary and will enable him

to appear as a highly educated man. This is a kind of hypergrammaticality,

which we meet especially frequently in documents and in some varieties of

journalese, etc.

b) The formation of complex artificial grammatical forms and

structures may depend on metasemiotic factors, on a desire to achieve a

specific stylistic effect. The results of scientific abstraction must be verified

by the actual functioning of the system, the researcher always bearing in

mind that language is in a state of constant change. This is especially

important when we confront related and unrelated languages. The study of

grammar, the attempts to normalize grammatical usage, the study of the

new tendencies and systematic confrontation of these with those falling into

disuse, requires a much more serious scientific generalization on the subject

than has been done so far. We should keep in mind that categories come

first as primary entities. Talking about categories we always have to take

into consideration the fact that the reality of human communication is

primary, the most important element. We can speak of a lexical category

only if we find identity of stem and the utter impossibility of a

simultaneous realization of all categorial forms of the given opposition. In

actual enunciations or utterances only one of the two or more categorial

forms can be realized. Morphological studies should be initiated with the

marked member of any opposition. In case of the category of taxis we

should start with the perfect forms. The morphological-grammatical forms

can be studied on two levels 1) the semantic level, where, for example, the

present tense forms express actions which include the moment of speaking,

and 2) the metasemiotic level, where present tense forms are used to denote

an action which clearly does not include the moment of speaking. The

process of transition of some grammatical categories into lexical ones is

being observed in the confronted languages. Thus, the grammatical

category of gender has practically become a lexical category in Modern

English. The same phenomenon could be seen in the case of other

grammatical categories. Thus, the category of taxis in Russian has

practically become a lexical category. The same categories in English,

Romanian and French (and other languages) are in a process of transition,

where the lexical element is gaining ground. A very important factor in

147

analytical comparison is the choice of an etalon language. Thus, comparing

the category of anteriority in English and Romanian we can choose English

or French as an etalon language, because this category has been widely

scientifically described in these languages and it can serve as an excellent

starting point for a contrastive analysis. The general principle of linguistic

confrontation should be reconsidered, as any contrastive studies should be

divided into two parts: we have cognate languages (closely and distantly

related languages) and unrelated ones.

In Romanian there are not clear-cut affixes to indicate the

grammatical category of aspect. We have mentioned above that there

existed and still exist some forms similar to the English aspectual ones (and

such forms exist in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese.), but they are rarely used.

Analyzing the categories of aspect in English, and Romanian we can

conclude that in English the grammatical aspect is prevailing, while in

Romanian the lexical means are prominent.

It has been found out that one of the main difficulties in grammatical

categorization is the lack of a firmly established relationship between the

actual phenomenon and their names. The metalanguage of morphological

grammatical categories cannot be taken for granted and metalinguistic work

cannot be regarded as merely taking an inventory of terms. It is mainly a

question of discovering whether it is a purely metalinguistic difference,

mere convention on the metalinguistic level. Often the approach to

categorization may be untenable in the sense that the researcher fails to

keep clearly apart the object of analysis, the facts of the language in

question, and the metalanguage - the words and expressions used when

people talk about the object language. Very often there is a discrepancy not

only in the metalinguistic expression used to denote certain more specific

or particular categories, but also in the naming or description of the most

general concepts themselves or it is a question of approach or attitude to

categorization.

148

Bibliography

1. Akhmanova O. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. - Moscow, 1966.

2. Akhmanova O., L.Delieva, R.Nepesova, N.Slonimskaya.

Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics. - Moscow, MSU, 1972.

3. Akhmanova O. and Melenciuc D. The Principles of Linguistic

Confrontation. - Moscow, MSU, 1977.

4. Benveniste E. Problèmes de linguistique générale. - Paris, 1966.

5. Benveniste E. Problems in General Linguistics. University of

Miami Press, Florida. – Miami, 1971.

6. Blokh M. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - Moscow,

1983.

7. Carrol J.B Contrastive Linguistics and Interference Theory.

Georgetown Monograph, No 21, 1968.

8. Chiţoran D. Contrastive Studies in the Syntax and Semantics of

English and Romanian. Bucharest University Press. – Bucharest,

1974.

9. Chiţoran D. Further Developments in Contrastive Studies.

Bucharest University Press, 1974.

10. Cohen M. Histoire d’une langue: le français. - Paris, 1967.

11. Coseriu E. Uber Leistung und Grenzen der kontrastiven

Grammatik. - Düsseldorf, 1970.

12. Delinschi (Şaganean) G. Word Order in English and Romanian

(Doctorate thesis), - Iaşi, 1998.

13. Graur Al.Gramatica limbii române, V.i-II. - Bucureşti, 1966.

14. Hadlich R. Lexical Contrastive Analysis. Modern Language.

Journal XLIX,7., 1965.

15. Halle M. Morphology in a Contrastive Grammar. - Bologna, 1972.

16. Jakobson R. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb.

Harvard University. - Harvard, 1957.

17. James C. Deieper Contrastive Study. IRAL VII, 2., 1969.

18. Jespersen O. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles.

- Hedelberg, 1927.

19. Jespersen O. Essentials of English Grammar. - London, 1933.

20. Karulin Iu., Cerdantseva T.A Course of the Italian Language. –

Moscow, 1981.

21. Lado R. Contrastive Linguistics in a Mentalistic Theory of Language

Learning // Georgetown Monograph. – No21. – Georgetown, 1968.

149

22. Lado R. Meine Perspective der kontrastiven Linguistik (in “Reader

zur kontrastiven Linguistik”, Gerald Nickel, Herausgegeben von. -

Frankfurt am Main, 1972.

23. Lee W. Thoughts on Contrastive Linguistics in the Context of

Language Teaching. Georgetown Monograph, No 21., 1968.

24. Marin V.Z. Gramatica istorică a limbii moldoveneşti. Lumina. -

Chişinău, 1970.

25. Melenciuc D. Comparative Grammar. CEP USM, Chişinău, 2008;

26. Melenciuc D.The Metalanguage of Morphological Categorization

(in: “The Morphology of the English Verb”, edited by

O.Akhmanova and V.Belenkaya, MSU. - Moscow, 1975);

27. Melenciuc D. Principles of Linguistic Confrontation. CEP USM. -

Chişinău, 2008;

28. Melenciuc D. A Contrastive Study of Tense and Taxis in English,

French and Romanian (in: “The Morphology of the English Verb”,

edited by O.Akhmanova and V.Belenkaya, MSU. - Moscow,

1975);

29. Melenciuc D. The Contrastive Analysis of Languages in its

Relation with Comparative Philology (in: “The Morphology of the

English Verb”, MSU. - Moscow, 1975);

30. Melenciuc D. and O.Akhmanova The Comparative-Historic

Background of Linguistic Confrontation (II-th International

Conference on English Polish Contrastive Linguistics. Bialoveza.

Dec.16-18. 1976).

31. Melenciuc D. Linguistic Confrontation of Distantly Related

Languages (in: The Collected papers of the Niagara Colloquium on

Linguistics and Language Teaching”, New York SU. - Buffalo,

1979).

32. Melenciuc D. A Contrastive Study of Distantly Related Languages.

Part 1. Chişinău State University. – Chisinau, 1984.

33. Melenciuc D. A Contrastive Study of Distantly Related languages.

Part II, Chişinău State University. - Chisinau, 1984.

34. Melenciuc D. A Confrontation of Some Verbal Categories in

English and Romanian (in: The 9th Biennial Conference on Balkan

and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature, and Folklore. Indiana

University. - Bloomington. 1994).

35. Melenciuc and R. Feldstein. The Category of Taxis in English and

Romanian. (in: The 9th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South

150

Slavic Linguistics, Literature, and Folklore. Indiana University. -

Bloomington. 1994).

36. Melenciuc D. and R.Feldstein The State of Transition of some

Verbal Categorial forms in English and Romanian. (in: The 9th

Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics,

Literature, and Folklore. Indiana University. - Bloomington. 1994).

37. Melenciuc D., E.Onofreiciuc and R.Sulaiman. The Category of

Anteriority in English, Romanian and Arabic. East West Nr3, -

Chişinău,1996.

38. Melenciuc D., E.Onofreiciuc and R.Sulaiman. A Confrontational

Analysis of Taxis in English, Romanian and Arabic on the Etic

Level. East West, Nr 3. - Chişinău, 1996.

39. Melenciuc D., R.Sulaiman. Aspectual Means in English and

Arabic. East West, Nr 1, 1997.

40. Melenciuc D. Comparativistics. CE USM. - Chişinău, 2003.

41. Melenciuc Dumitru. A Reader in English Theoretical Phonetics.

Chişinău:CEP USM, 2005.

42. Minaieva Ludmila, Davydov Mihail, Egorov Grigorii, Jakovleva

Evghenia, Magidova Irina, Mindrul Olga, Nifontova Evdokia,

Shishkina Tatiana, Vardanean Svetlana. An Autline of English

Phonetics. Moscow: MSU, 1973, p.163 - 166.

43. Nickel G. and Wagner K. Contrastive Linguistics and Language

Learning. IRAL VI, No 3, 6, 18., 1968.

44. Nida E. Analysis of Meaning and Dictionary Making. IJAL,

vol.42., No 4., 1958.

45. Nida E. Language Structure and Translation. Essays. Stanford

University Press, - Stanford, 1975.

46. Rodriges Danilevscaia E., Patrushev A., Stepanina I. The Spanish

Language. - Moscow, 1988.

47. Rossetti AL. Istoria limbii române. Vol. I. - Bucureşti, 1965.

48. Rossetti AL. Istoria limbii române. Vol II. - Bucureşti, 1969.

49. Saussure F. Course de linguistique générale. - Lausanne-Paris,

1916.

50. Smirnisky A. Essentials of Russian Grammar. - Moscow, 1970.

51. Snook R. A Stratificational Approach to Contrastive Analysis (in

“Papers in Contrastive Linguistics”, edited by Nickel Gerald).

Cambridge University Press, – Cambridge, 1971.

52. Sapir.E. Language. London: Harcourt, Brace and Wald, Inc. 1921.

151

53. Savin E. Gramatica limbii germane. Editura Maşina de scris. –

Bucureşti, 1996.

54. Velicopoliscaia N., Rodriges Danilevscaia E. The Spanish

Language. – Moscow, 1963

55. Vinogradov V.S. A Practical Course of the Spanish Grammar. -

Moscow 1990.

56. Ахманова О. Словарь лингвистических терминов. - Moscow,

1966.

57. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка.

Москва: ”Просвещение”, 1990.

58. Балин А. К методике сопоставительного изучения двух

языков. Ученые записки Ивановского государственного

педагогического института, т. ХХУШ. – Иваново, 1961.

59. Баскаков H. К теоретическим основам разработки

сравнительно-сопоставительного метода." Русский язык в

национальной школе." No 6, - Москва,1962.

60. Бенвенист Э. Общая лингвистика. - Москва, 1974.

61. Будагов P. Некоторые проблемы сравнительно-иcторического

синтаксиса романских языков. ВЯ, No 3, - Москва, 1565.

62. Будагов P. Система языка в связи с разграничением его

истории и современного состояния. ВЯ. No. 4, - Москва,1958.

63. Будагов P. Сравнительно-семасиологические исследования.

MSU. - Москва, 1963.

64. Будагов P. Язык, история и современность. MSU. - Москва,

1971.

65. Будагов P. Человек и его язык. MSU. - Москва, 1976.

66. Гурычева М. К вопросу о сравнительно-сопоставительном

изучении романских языков, (в кн."Методы сравнительно-

сопоставительного изучения современных романских

языков"). - Москва, 1966.

67. Гурычева М. Сравнительно-сопоставительная грамматика

романских языков. Румынский язык. - Москва, 1970.

Сравнительно-сопоставительная грамматика романских

языков. Проблема структурной общности. - Москва, 1972.

68. Гранеде Б. Курс Арабской грамматики в сравнительно-

историческом освещении. - Москва, 1963.

69. Жебит А., Кузнецова Г. Португальский язык. - Москва: Высшая

школа, 1984.

152

70. Макаев Э. Сравнительно-сопоставительная и типологическая

грамматика. М., ВЯ, Nr 1, - Москва, 1972.

71. Смирницкий А. Морфология английского языка. - Москва,

1959.

72. Щерба Л. Языковые универсалии и лингвистическая

психология. - Москва, 1969.

73. Якобсон Р. Типологические исследования и их вклад в

сравнительно- историческое языкознание. (В сборнике "Новое

в лингвистике” вып. 3, - Москва, 1969.

74. Ярцева В. О сопоставительном методе изучения языков.

Филологические науки, 1, - Москва, 1960.

75. Ярцева В. Принципы типологического исследования

родственных и неродственных языков. Проблемы

языкознания. "Наука" , - Москва, 1969.

* * *

Additional Sources:

76. Lingaphone Course "Curso de Español”. (Materialele laboratorului

fonetic USM).

* * *

Fiction Sources:

77. Aldington R. Death of a Hero. - Moscow, 1958.

78. Aldridge J. The Hunter. - Moscow, 1958.

79. Austen J. Pride and Prejudice. - Moscow, 1961.

80. Bronte, Ch. Jane Eyre. - Moscow, 1952.

81. Bronte, Ch. Jane Eyre. - Bucureşti, 1970.

82. Bronte E. Wuthering Heights. - Moscow, 1963.

83. Bronte E. La răscruce de vânturi. - Bucureşti., 1969.

84. Dumas, A. Le collier de la reine, v.I-III, Gallimard, - Paris, 1969.

85. Dumas A. Colierul reginei. - Bucureşti, 1974.

86. Galsworthy J. A Modern Comedy, v.I-III. - Moscow, 1956.

87. Galsworthy J. End of the Chapter, v.1-111. - Moscow, 1960.

88. Galsworthy J. Comedia modernă. v.I-III. - Bucureşti, 1971.

89. Galsworthy J. Sfârşit de capitol, v. I-III. - Bucureşti, 1972.

90. Galsworthy J.The Forsyte Saga. v. I-III. - Moscow, 1975.

91. Twain M. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. The Adventures of

Huckleberry Finn. - Moscow, 1956.