It is but natural that the verb should take up as much, or indeed, more space than all the other parts of speech we have so far considered, put together. It is the only part of speech in present-day English that has a morphological system based on a series of categories. It is the only part of speech that has analytical forms, and again the only one that has forms (the infinitive, the gerund and the participle) which occupy a peculiar position in its system and do not share some of the characteristic features of the part of speech as a whole.

In analysing the morphological structure of the English verb it is essential to distinguish between the morphological categories of the verb as such, and the syntactic features of the sentence (or clause) in which a form of the verb may happen to be used. This applies especially to the category of voice and, to a certain extent, to the categories of aspect and tense as well.

The order in which we shall consider the categories of the verb may to a certain extent be arbitrary. However, we should bear in mind that certain categories are more closely linked together than others. Thus, it stands to reason that the categories of aspect and tense are linked more closely than either of them is with the category of voice. It is also plain that there is a close connection between the categories of tense and mood. These relations will have to be borne in mind as we start to analyse the categories of the verb.

One last preliminary remark may be necessary here. It is always tempting, but it may prove dangerous, to approach the morphological system of the verb in one language from the point of view of another language, for example, the student's mother tongue, or a widely known language such as Latin. Of course the system of each language should be analysed on its own, and only after this has been done should we proceed to compare it with another. Anyway the assessment of the system of a given language ought not to be influenced by the student's knowledge of another language. Neglect of this principle has often brought about differences in the treatment of the same language, depending on the student's mother tongue.

We will begin the analysis of each verbal category by examining two forms or two sets of forms differing from each other according to that category only.

There are two sets of forms in the Modern English verb which are contrasted with each other on the principle of use or non-use of the pattern "be + first participle":

writes - is writing wrote - was writing

' will write - will be writing has written - has been writing

etc.

These two sets of forms clearly belong to the same verb write and there is some grammatical difference between them. We will not here consider the question whether the relation between writes and is writing is exactly the same as that between wrote and was writing, etc. We will assume that it is the same relation.

What, then, is the basic difference between writes and is writing, or between wrote and was writing? If we consult the definitions of the meaning of is writing given in various grammar books, we shall find, with some variations of detail, that the basic characteristic of is writing is this: it denotes an action proceeding continuously at a definite period of time, within certain time limits. On the other hand, writes denotes an action not thus limited but either occurring repeatedly or everlasting, without any notion of lasting duration at a given moment. It should be noted here that many variations of this essential meaning may be due to the lexical meaning of the verb and of other words in the sentence; thus there is some difference in this respect between the sentence the earth turns round the sun and the sentence the sun rises in the East: the action mentioned in the former sentence goes on without interruption, whereas that mentioned in the latter sentence is repeated every morning and does not take place at all in the evening, etc. But this is irrelevant for the meaning of the grammatical form as such and merely serves to illustrate its possible applications.

The basic difference between the two sets of forms, then, appears to be this: an action going on continuously during a given period of time, and an action not thus limited and not described by the very form of the verb as proceeding in such a manner.

Now, the question must be answered, how should this essential difference in meaning between the two sets of forms be described. The best way to describe it would seem to be this: it is a difference in the way the action is shown to proceed. Now this is the grammatical notion described as the category of aspect with reference to the Slavonic languages (Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, etc.), and also to ancient Greek, in which this category is clearly expressed.

As is well known, not every verb is commonly used in the form "be + first participle". Verbs denoting abstract relations, such as belong, and those denoting sense perception or emotion, e. g. see, hear, hope, love, seldom appear in this form. It should be noted, however, that the impossibility of these verbs appearing in this form is sometimes exaggerated. Such categoric statement give the reader a wrong idea of the facts as they are not verified by actual modern usage. Thus, the verbs see, hope, like, fear and others, though denoting perception or feelings (emotions), may be found in this form, e. g. It was as if she were seeing herself for the first time in a year. The form "be + first participle" is very appropriate here, as it does not admit of the action being interpreted as momentaneous (corresponding to the perfective aspect in Ukrainian) and makes it absolutely clear that what is meant is a sense perception going on (involuntarily) for some time.

This use of the form is also well illustrated by the following bit of dialogue from a modern short story: "Miss Courtright - I want to see you," he said, quickly averting his eyes. "Will you let me - Miss Courtright - will you?" "Of course, Merle," she said, smiling a little. "You're seeing me right now. ") It might probably have been possible to use here the present indefinite: "You see me right now," but the use of the continuous gives additional emphasis to the idea that the action, that is, the perception denoted by the verb see, is already taking place. Thus the descriptive possibilities of the continuous form are as effective here with the verb of perception as they are with any other verb.

A rather typical example of the use of the verb see in the continuous aspect is the following sentence: Her breath came more evenly now, and she gave a smile so wide and open, her great eyes taking in the entire room and a part of the mountains towards which she had half turned, that it was as though she were seeing the world for the first time and might clap her hands to see it dance about her.

Here are some more examples of continuous forms of verbs which are generally believed not to favour these forms: Both were visibly hearing every word of the conversation and ignoring it, at the same time. The shade of meaning provided by the continuous will be best seen by comparing the sentence as it stands with the following variant, in which both forms of the continuous have been replaced by the corresponding indefinite forms: Both visibly heard every word of the conversation and ignored it, at the same time. The descriptive character of the original text has disappeared after the substitution: instead of following, as it were, the gradual unfolding of the hearing process and the gradual accumulation of "ignoring", the speaker now merely states the fact that the two things happened. So the shades of meaning differentiating the two aspect forms are strong enough to overcome what one might conventionally term the "disclination" of verbs of perception towards the continuous aspect.

We also find the verb look used in a continuous form where it means 'have the air', not 'cast a look': Mr March was looking absent and sombre again. This is appropriate here, as it expresses a temporary state of things coming after an interruption (this is seen from the adverb again) and lasting for some time at least.compare also the verb hope: You're rather hoping he does know, aren't you? If we compare this sentence and a possible variant with the present indefinite: You rather hope he does know, don't you? we shall see that the original text serves to make the idea of hope more emphatic and so the form of the continuous aspect does here serve a useful purpose. But I'm hoping she'll come round soon. Let us again compare the text with a variant: But I hope she'll come round soon. The difference in this case is certainly much less marked than in the preceding example: there is no process going on anyway, and it is clear from the context (especially the adverbial modifier soon) that the feeling spoken of only refers to a very limited space of time. So the extra shade of meaning brought by the continuous form appears to be only that of emphasis.

Our next example is of the link verb be in the continuous aspect form: There were a few laughs which showed however that the sale, on the whole, was being a success. With the non-continuous form substituted: There were a few laughs which showed however that the sale, on the whole, was a success. In this instance, once more, the difference would appear to be essential. In the text as it stands, it is certain that the laughs mentioned were heard while the sale was still going on, whereas in the second variant this is left to conjecture: they might as well have been heard after the sale was concluded, when some people were discussing its results. So the continuous form of the link verb has an important function in the sentence.compare also the following: You are being presumptuous in a way you wouldn't be with anyone else, and I don't like it.compare also: "I think you are being just," Charles said. Here the continuous is perhaps more necessary still, as it clearly means that the person's behaviour in a certain concrete situation is meant, not his general characteristic, which would be expressed by saying, "I think you are just." Compare also: Perhaps I'm being selfish. The link verb be is also used in the continuous aspect in the following passage: What I think is, you're supposed to leave somebody alone if he's at least being interesting and he's getting all excited about something. He is being interesting obviously means here, 'he is behaving in an interesting way', or 'he is trying to be interesting', and it implies a certain amount of conscious effort, whereas he is interesting would merely mean that he has this quality as a permanent characteristic, without reference to any effort of will and without limitation to any period of time.compare also: Now you are being rude.

Each of the two aspects must be given some name which should of course be as adequate as possible to the basic meaning of the aspect. It seems easier to find a name for the type is writing than for the type writes. The term continuous aspect has now been in use for some time already and indeed it seems very appropriate to the phenomenon which it is used to describe. As to the type writes, a term is rather more difficult to find, as the uses of this form are much more varied and its intrinsic meaning, accordingly, less definite. This state of things may be best of all described by the term common aspect, which is indefinite enough to allow room for the various uses. It also has the merit of being parallel with the term common case, which has been discussed above and which seems the best to denote the phenomenon if a case system in English nouns is recognised at all. Thus we will use the terms continuous aspect and common aspect to denote the two aspects of the Modern English verb.

However, the problem of aspects and their uses is by no means exhausted. First of all we must now mention the uses of the continuous aspect which do not easily fit into the definition given above. Forms of this aspect are occasionally used with the adverbs always, continually, etc., when the action is meant to be unlimited by time. Here are some typical examples of this use: He was constantly experimenting with new seed. Rose is always wanting James to retire. The adverbial modifier always shows that Rose's wish is thought of as something constant, not restricted to any particular moment. So the difference between the sentence as it stands and the possible variant, Rose always wants James to retire does not lie in the character of the action. Obviously the peculiar shade of meaning in the original sentence is emphatic; the action is represented as never ceasing and this gives the sentence a stronger emotional colouring than it would have with the form of the common aspect: the lexical meaning of always is reinforced by the emphatic colouring of the continuous aspect. It is quite clear that these are exaggerated statements, where the form of the continuous aspect is used emotionally, to present an action as going on and on without interruption, whereas that, in the nature of things, is not possible. Such a use is consistent with the basic meaning of the form and illustrates its possible stylistic applications. We shall have to refer to it to elucidate some moot questions concerning these forms. It is the descriptive value of the continuous aspect forms which makes such a use possible at all.

The interpretation of the opposition writes - is writing given above is not the only one to be found in works dealing with the English language. We will now consider some different interpretations proposed by various scholars.

O. Jespersen [37] treated the type is writing as a means of expressing limited duration, that is, in his own words, expressing an action serving as frame to another which is performed within the frame set by that first action. A somewhat similar view has been propounded by Prof. N. Irtenyeva, [17] who thinks that the basic meaning of the type is writing is that of simultaneity of an action with another action. In assessing these views it must be said that they are plausible for some cases, especially for a complex sentence, in which the type writes is used in the main clause, while the type is writing is used in the subordinate clause, or vice versa. This can only be found when the narration refers to the past time, as in the following example: Bat once she was in the car and Andre was bending over her, tucking her rug about her, her sense of freedom left her. This use is of course very common. The view propounded by these authors does not fit in with the use of the present is writing, which is never, for aught we know, used in a complex sentence of that structure. In sentences such as What is he doing? He is reading, there is no other action with which the action expressed by the type is writing could be simultaneous or to which it might be a "time frame". N. Irtenyeva [17, с.82] answers this possible objection by saying that in such cases the action expressed by the is writing type is simultaneous with the act of speech [17, с.83].

However, that completely changes the situation. The act of speech is not mentioned in the speech. Moreover, simultaneity with the act of speech is the definition of the present tense, and not of the type is writing as such. Besides (and this appears to be very essential) if we take simultaneity with another action to be the basic meaning of the type is writing we cannot account for that descriptive power which this type obviously has in the cases when it is used in connection with such adverbs as always. Thus a view which does not take into account the category of aspect in this matter does not appear to be convincing.

Another view is held by Prof. I. Ivanova [14, с.57] She recognises the existence of the aspect category in English, but treats it in a peculiar way. According to Prof. Ivanova, is writing is an aspect form, namely that of the continuous aspect, but writes is not an aspect form at all, because its meaning is vague and cannot be clearly defined. So the author reaches the conclusion that some finite forms of the Modern English verb have the category of aspect, and are in so far "aspect-tense forms", while others have no aspect and are therefore "purely tense forms". Concerning this view it must be said that on the basic point it agrees with the view put forward above: the distinction between the type writes and the type is writing is a distinction of aspect. But Prof. Ivanova denies the existence of the common aspect. This seems rather a difference of wording than one of essence. "No aspect" seems something like another version of "common aspect". And it must be said that the idea of "common aspect" answers the facts better than does the idea of "no aspect". The difficulty of formulating the meaning of the common aspect need not worry us. That is one more case of distinction between a marked and a non-marked member of an opposition. The continuous aspect is marked both in meaning and in form (be + first participle), whereas the common aspect is non-marked both in meaning and in form; no formal characteristic of the common aspect can be given except the negative one: in contradistinction from the continuous aspect, it is not expressed by "be + first participle". Thus the theory of common and continuous aspect may be upheld.

Besides the various theories put forward with reference to the opposition writes - is writing, we must mention various terms that have been proposed to denote its members. H. Sweet used the term "definite tenses" for what we call the continuous aspect [52]. This term cannot be said to be a happy one, as the word "tense" disguises the fact that we find here a peculiar grammatical category different from that of tense.

Another term which has been used is, "expanded form", or "progressive form". The term "form" cannot be described as satisfactory since it leaves the basic grammatical question open: we might as well speak of the past form, or of the passive form, etc. As to the adjectives modifying the word form, it must be said that expanded merely gives a characteristic of the analytical structure of the form, without indicating its meaning. As to progressive, it does indicate the meaning, but is hardly preferable to the adjective continuous. So we will stick to the term "continuous aspect".

The problem of aspect is intimately connected with a lexicological problem, which we shall therefore have to touch upon here. It may be well illustrated by the following series of examples. If we have, for example, the sentence, A young man sat in the corner of the room, we can say, instead, A young man was sitting in the corner of the room, without affecting the basic meaning of the sentence. The same situation may be described in both ways, the only difference between them being that of stylistic colouring: the variant with the common aspect form is more matter-of-fact and "dry", whereas the one with the continuous aspect form is more descriptive.

The absence of any actual difference in meaning in such a case is brought out in the following passage from a modern novel: Mr Bodiham was sitting in his study at the Rectory. The nineteenth-century Gothic windows, narrow and pointed, admitted the light grudgingly; in spite of the brilliant July weather, the room was sombre. Brown varnished bookshelves lined the walls, filled with row upon row of those thick, heavy theological works which the second-hand booksellers generally sell by weight. The mantelpiece, the overmantel, a towering structure of spindly pillars and little shelves, were brown and varnished. The writing-desk was brown and varnished. So were the chairs, so was the door. A dark red-brown carpet with patterns covered the floor. Everything was brown in the room, and there was a curious brownish smell. In the midst of this brown gloom Mr Bodiham sat at his desk.

By comparing the first and the last sentence of this passage it will be seen that they tell of the same situation, but in different ways. The first sentence is clearly descriptive, and it opens a rather lengthy description of Mr Bodiham's room, its furniture, books, etc. The last sentence of the passage, on the other hand, confirms the fact that Mr Bodiham sat in his study, as if summing up the situation. So the same fact is told a second time and the difference in the stylistic qualities of the continuous and the common aspect is well brought out.

On the other hand, if we have the sentence He brought her some flowers and if we substitute was bringing for brought and say, He was bringing her some flowers, the meaning will be affected and the two facts will be different. With the common aspect form brought the sentence means that the flowers actually reached her, whereas the continuous aspect form means that he had the flowers with him but something prevented him from giving them to her. We might then say that he sat = he was sitting, whereas he brought ? he was bringing. What is the cause of this difference? Here we shall have to touch on a lexicological problem, without which the treatment of the continuous aspect cannot be complete. The verb sit differs from the verb bring in an important way: the verb sit denotes an action which can go on indefinitely without necessarily reaching a point where it has to stop, whereas the verb bring denotes an action which must come to an end owing to its very nature. It has now been customary for some time to call verbs of the sit type cursive, or durative, and verbs of the bring type terminative. We may then say that with cursive, or durative verbs, the difference between the common and the continuous aspect may be neutralised whereas with terminative verbs it cannot be neutralised, so that the form of the common aspect cannot be substituted for the form of the continuous aspect, and vice versa, without materially changing the meaning of the sentence [7].

A final note is necessary here on the relation between the aspects of the English verb and those of the Ukrainian verb. Without going into details, we may assume that the Ukrainian verb has two aspects, the perfective and the imperfective. All other varieties of aspectual meanings are to be considered within the framework of the two basic aspects. It is obvious at once that there is no direct correspondence between English and Ukrainian aspects; for instance, the English continuous aspect is not identical with the Ukrainian 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 Ukrainian perfective but also to the Ukrainian imperfective aspect; thus, he wrote may correspond both to написав and to писав. On the other hand, the Ukrainian imperfective aspect may correspond not only to the continuous but also to the common aspect in English; thus, писав may correspond both to was writing and to wrote. It follows from this that the relation between the English and the Ukrainian aspects may be represented by the following diagram:

2.4 The category of voice