Lecture 1 Fundamentals of grammar

6. The category of aspect
The category of aspect is a linguistic representation of the objective category
of manner of action. It is realized through the opposition Continuous::Non-
Continuous (Progressive::Non-Progressive). The opposition is privative both in the
plane of content and in the plane of expression. It is easily neutralized, i. e. noncontinuous forms substitute continuous forms when the notion of duration is
expressed by other means (eg. lexical).
The realization of the category of aspect is closely connected with the lexical
meaning of verbs. There are some verbs in English that do not normally occur with
progressive aspect, even in those contexts in which the majority of verbs
necessarily take the progressive form. Among the so-called ‘non-progressive’
verbs are think, understand, know, hate, love, see, taste, feel, possess, own, etc. The most striking characteristic that they have in common is the fact that they are ‘stative’ - they refer to a state of affairs, rather than to an action, event or process.
It should be observed, however, that all the ‘non-progressive' verbs take the
progressive aspect under particular circumstances. As the result of internal
transposition verbs of non-progressive nature can be found in the Continuous form:
Now I'm knowing you. Generally speaking the Continuous form has at least two
semantic features - duration (the action is always in progress) and definiteness (the
action is always limited to a definite point or period of time). In other words, the
purpose of the Continuous form is to serve as a frame which makes the process of
the action more concrete and isolated.
A distinction should be made between grammatical aspect and semantic
aspectuality. English has an aspect system marked by the presence or absence of
the auxiliary be contrasting progressive and non-progressive. The major
aspectuality contrast is between perfective and imperfective. With perfective
aspectuality the situation described in a clause is presented in its totality, as a
whole, viewed, as it were, from the outside. With imperfective aspectuality the
situation is not presented in its totality, but viewed from within, with focus on the
internal temporal structure or on some subinterval of time within the whole. The
main use of progressive forms is to express a particular subtype of imperfective
aspectuality.
As for the Russian verb, it has two aspects, the perfective and the
imperfective. It is obvious at once that there is no direct correspondence between
English and Russian aspects; for instance, the English continuous aspect is not
identical with the Russian imperfective. The relation between the two systems is
not so simple as all that. On the one hand, the English common aspect may
correspond not only to the Russian perfective but also to the Russian imperfective
aspect; thus, he wrote may correspond both to написал and to писал. On the other
hand, the Russian imperfective aspect may correspond not only to the continuous
but also to the common aspect in English; thus, писал may correspond both to was
writing and to wrote.