4 or 2 aspects in English

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

Are there two or four aspects in English? I read on a website, I was looking for it but coudn't find it, that there are 4 aspects in English but when I did a google search I found out that there are only two: ''perfect'' and ''progressive''.

On the website which I cannot find I read there are four aspects in English they are simple, (speak/spoke) progressive,(is/was speaking) perfect, (has spoken) perfect progressive(has been speaking).

I found the article which says there are 4 aspects. https://www.lawlessenglish.com/learn-english/grammar/tense-aspect/

 

[Yankee]

Suggest you "re-google" 'english aspects'. Here's a sample of what I found: There are four main aspects: simple, progressive, perfect, and perfect progressive. Since all verbs have both tense and aspect, all combinations of tenses and aspects, such as past progressive and future perfect, are possible.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Suggest you "re-google" 'english aspects'. Here's a sample of what I found: There are four main aspects: simple, progressive, perfect, and perfect progressive. Since all verbs have both tense and aspect, all combinations of tenses and aspects, such as past progressive and future perfect, are possible.

Oxford Modern English grammar mentions only two. And there was another book I don't remember which one that also said there were only two. Most of the time I trust books not different websites on the internet. That's why I was confused.

 

[jutfrank]

I prefer to think of there being only two: progressive and perfect.

What you call 'simple' is not strictly an aspect. I think of it as meaning 'no aspect'. Also, 'perfect progressive' is not an aspect in its own right. Present perfect progressive sentences are really just a combination of perfect and progressive aspects. That's why books say there are only two.

However, many teachers think it's more useful to think of there being four, because it helps learners distinguish between the four sentence types as shown on the webpage you linked. That's quite reasonable, don't you think?

Some teachers also think of there being two more—prospective (be going to) and habitual (used to). That's also a very good way of understanding aspect.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I prefer to think of there being only two: progressive and perfect.

What you call 'simple' is not strictly an aspect. I think of it as meaning 'no aspect'. Also, 'perfect progressive' is not an aspect in its own right. Present perfect progressive sentences are really just a combination of perfect and progressive aspects. That's why books say there are only two.

However, many teachers think it's more useful to think of there being four, because it helps learners distinguish between the four sentence types as shown on the webpage you linked. That's quite reasonable, don't you think?

Some teachers also think of there being two more—prospective (be going to) and habitual (used to). That's also a very good way of understanding aspect.

''I was working'' and ''I am working'' form a certain combination too just like ''perfect progressive''. A combination of a progressive aspect and an aspectual auxiliary. But unlike ''perfect progressive'', teachers call them(I am/was working) aspect. :shock:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/verbs/tense.htm

 

[Rachel Adams]

They are a combination of aspect, progressive, and tense, present/past.

''I am working'' and ''I was working''. ''is'' is progressive auxiliary, ''working'' is progressive aspect and tense is simple/past. ''I have been working'' has progressive aspect ''working'' and perfective auxiliary. It's still not clear to me why it's not an aspect in its own right...

 

[Rachel Adams]

Progressive aspect:

Present: I am working
Past: I was working:
Present Perfect: I have been working
Past Perfect: I had been working


Perfect aspect:

Present: I have worked
Past: I had worked
Present Progressive: I have been working
Past Perfect I had been working


The two forms in blue are not separate aspects. They are combinations of two existing aspects.

Could you please tell me which are the two exisiting aspects in your examples? In ''I have been working'' and '' I had been working.''

 

[jutfrank]

Could you please tell me which are the two exisiting aspects in your examples? In ''I have been working'' and '' I had been working.''

Progressive and perfect. In post #11, Piscean tried to make that as clear as possible for you.

I am working. [progressive aspect]
I have worked. [perfect aspect]
I have been working. [progressive and perfect aspects together]

 

[Rachel Adams]

One slip,I'm afraid. The last line of the perfect aspect
should read:

Past Progressive: I had been working

Sorry.

But isn't verb +ing form also called present participle? When does it function as a present participle and when as a progressive aspect?

 

[Glizdka]

Not a teacher
------

Hello, Rachel!

Over the years, I've learned one thing about learning the English language - there are about as many ways of thinking about the language as there are people thinking about it. I've seen books that straight up contradict one another, and teachers of English wholeheartly advocating certain ways of thinking about the language that others firmly advise against.

Language is something natural. We, humans, only try to categorize it and make a science out of it. I'd say go with whatever works for you, and betters your understanding of the language, really.

My personal approach is that there are two tenses (past, present) and modal verbs (which don't use tenses), and two aspects (perfect, continuous). You choose one tense/modal verb (you can't choose more than one, so there are only three possibilities), and either, both, or neither aspect (so there are four possibilities: simple = no aspect, perfect, continuous, and perfect+continuous).

In my country, in nearly all textbooks, all these structures are taught as separate entities, and will is treated as future tense, which produces 12 "tenses" (past simple, past perfect, past continuous, past perfect contiunuous, present simple, present perfect, present continuous, present perfect continuous, future simple, future perfect, future continuous, and future perfect continuous).

Some even label would as a separate, future-in-the-past tense, bringing the number of tenses to 16 (adding future simple in the past, future perfect in the past, future continuous in the past, and future perfect continuous in the past). Honestly, I think it only adds more confusion, but that approach may be better for you.

As for the -ing suffix, the way I was taught and like to think of it as is that the continuous aspect uses the present participile (e.g., doing), just as the perfect aspect uses the past participle (e.g., done). Be careful with gerunds and words that only happen to end in -ing, though.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Not a teacher
------

Hello, Rachel!

Over the years, I've learned one thing about learning the English language - there are about as many ways of thinking about the language as there are people thinking about it. I've seen books that straight up contradict one another, and teachers of English wholeheartly advocating certain ways of thinking about the language that others firmly advise against.

Language is something natural. We, humans, only try to categorize it and make a science out of it. I'd say go with whatever works for you, and betters your understanding of the language, really.

My personal approach is that there are two tenses (past, present) and modal verbs (which don't use tenses), and two aspects (perfect, continuous). You choose one tense/modal verb (you can't choose more than one), and either, both, or neither aspect (simple = no aspect, perfect, continuous, and perfect+continuous).

In my country, in nearly all textbooks, all these structures are taught as separate entities, and will is treated as future tense, which produces 12 "tenses" (past simple, past perfect, past continuous, past perfect contiunuous, present simple, present perfect, present continuous, present perfect continuous, future simple, future perfect, future continuous, and future perfect continuous).

Some even label would as a separate, future-in-the-past tense, bringing the number of tenses to 16 (adding future simple in the past, future perfect in the past, future continuous in the past, and future perfect continuous in the past). Honestly, I think it only adds more confusion, but that approach may be better for you.

As for the -ing suffix, the way I was taught and like to think of it as is that the continuous aspect uses the present participile (e.g., doing), just as the perfect aspect uses the past participle (e.g., done). Be careful with gerunds and words that only happen to end in -ing, though.

Hi! You are 100% right. I studied German at the university and I remember how concise German grammar was. Could you recommend a grammar book? Case is English seems to be a gray area...

 

[Glizdka]

Hi! You are 100% right. I studied German at the university and I remember how concise German grammar was. Could you recommend a grammar book? Case is English seems to be a gray area...

Practical English Usage is my bible. Not an easy bible to read, though.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Practical English Usage is my bible. Not an easy bible to read, though.

Oh, the holy scriptures, I know, I know. I use it all the time. But I am looking for a book with a more detailed information on aspect, mood and case.

 

[Glizdka]

Oh, the holy scriptures, I know, I know. I use it all the time. But I am looking for a book with a more detailed information on aspect, mood and case.

Grammar for Teachers is a nice book if that's what you're looking for. Especially the appendix is gold.

 

[Tdol]

How about Leech's Meaning and the English Verb. That got me interested many years ago.

 

[Rachel Adams]

One problem here, as Glizdka suggested, is that there is no agreement among grammarians on how many tenses/aspects there are in English, or what the tenses and aspects are. Any book you read will give you the opinion(s) of the writers and, sometimes, a dismissal of other opinions, but none will give you an easy summary of the true picture - because there isn't a true picture.

If your main interest is communicating in English, then Swan's Practical English Usage (3rd edition - I haven't got round to the 4th edition yet) is as useful a guide as I've found in over fifty years of involvement with TEFL/TESOL. Swan tells you clearly and usually accurately and helpfully how the various forms of the verb are used by native speakers today without going into the theoretical jungle of labelling the forms.

If you are seriously interested in more detailed ideas of the English tense/aspect system, then you'll have to set aside a lot of time and read a lot of books. Sound starting points are the relevant chapters in Quirk et al's Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985) and Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002). They probably won't help you communicate any better in English, but you should have a better idea of how academic grammarians treat the tenses and aspects. For a less conventional approach, try Michael Lewis,The English Verb (1986).You can worry about mood and case later

For what it's worth, I've given a very brief summary of my own ideas on tense and aspect below. Some of them are moderately mainstream; others not so much.

Tenses

1. Unmarked (traditionally known as the present simple). The form always used unless there is a reason to use another tense or aspect.
2. Marked (traditionally known as the past simple). Used when we wish to distance the situation in time, directness or reality.

Aspects

1. Retrospective (the traditional perfect). Used when we look back from one point in time at a situation that began at an earlier point in time.
2. Prospective (the traditional Be going to future). Used when we look forward from one point in time at a situation that will begin.
3. Durative (the traditional progressive/continuous). Used when we emphasise the duration of a situation and the fact that that duration is limited in time.
4. Habitual (used to). Used when we look back at a habitual past-time situation that no longer takes place.

Thank you so much for your answer!!! Could you please answer my question about case? Do you agree that English nouns and pronouns have 3 cases? Nominative case, genitive case and accusative case. For example, Rachel is an artist. Who Rachel=the subjective/nominative case. Rachel's sister is also an artist. Whose? Genitive. I asked Rachel where she worked. Asked whom? Rachel. Accusative case. And pronouns. She works. She. Nominative case. I asked her. ''Her'' accusative case. Her painting is beautiful. Whose? possesive/genetive case.

 

[Rachel Adams]

That is too far off topic for this thread.

I could start a new one, if you answer it.

 

[Rachel Adams]

That is one of the books that sparked my interest in tense when I first bought it back in the early 1970s. However, even in his 3rd edition, he still seems to see time as the basis of tense analysis. I don't see this.

However,
he explains his ideas clearly, and Rachel would benefit from read his views.

Saved all the suggested books. Many thanks!