Tense #4: 不是要「一致」嗎?

 


在發表本系列的 #1- #3 後,立刻有幾名學生,向我問到有關 tense 字形的「一致性」的問題,尤其當一個句子是由不同子句一起組成時。


他們會有這樣的疑問,因為他們曾聽說過,在同一句子中,所有被連接的子句中的限定動詞字形(finite verb)的 tense 都「應該要一致」的。


這種對 tense 的思考方式,也是一個對學習沒有幫助的方向,所以要弄清楚。


正如我之前解釋,我們用甚麼 tense 字形來表達現實,是依據要表達的意思去思考的。


每種tense(和aspect)字形,都能讓我們表達有關現實情況的某個或某些意思。例如,「簡單現在式」其中一個可表達的意思是,強調那動作是「事實」。


限定動詞要用哪種 tense 字形,應取決於我們想透過該子句來表達怎樣的意思。


每個子句都會有自己要表達或強調的意思,那麼,每個子句都自然會用到最適合表達該含意的那個限定動詞字形。


就算是連接成同一句子中的不同子句,又或者是同一故事/敘述中的不同子句,也各自有自己要表達的意思,所以,它們各自的限定動詞字形並不是互相連繫的。它們各自的字形都只是反映所屬那子句需要表達的意思。


例如:

I saw him yesterday, and I will see him again tomorrow. 

(我昨天見到他,然後明天會再見到他)


這是一個連接兩組子句的簡單例句。


第一組子句中的限定動詞是「saw」,用簡單過去式的字形,因為它要表達的是該行動是在過去發生並完成的。


第二子句中,「will see」是簡單未來式的字形,表達的是該行動將會發生在未來。


這些不同的限定動詞字形,分別讓我們表達每個子句各自想要表達的意思,僅此而已。


假如真有這種對限定動詞字形「一致性」的「規定」,也就等如不「允許」我們在一個句子中先表達「我昨天看見他」然後表達「我明天會再看見他」 – 這在語言哲學上,明顯是不合理的。


不過我也嘗試解釋一下,為何你可能曾聽過一些教學,是說在同一句子或論述中,所有限定動詞都應套用同一種 tense 的字形。


這其實只是個簡化了的說法(雖然我從我的教學角度看,它是個會誤導學生用錯誤方式去想tense這英文文法特徵的說法。)


如果我們要敘述一個現實事件,需要靠多組句子(甚至是段落,或一整本書)才能說完,而該現實事件又發生在同一時空,那麼當中所有子句的 tense 也真很可能是一致的。


例如:


I saw him yesterday. He seemed happy. I only talked to him for two minutes, though, because he was busy and had to leave. 


以上每個子句都在敍述一件關於「我昨天看到他並跟他談話」的事件,那是發生在同一時空的,因此所有限定動詞都使用了同一種tense的字形。

 

重點是,錯誤的想法是:

所有相鄰的子句,或同一個句子中的所有子句,都要使用同一種 tense。

正確的思考方式應該是:

「每個子句中的限定動詞都會有最適合它要表達的那意思的 tense 字形。但有些時候,如果所敍述的事件是發生在同一時空的,而當中又涉及多個子句,各句中的限定動詞也因為表達的事情的『時空一致』而自然也傾向出現同一種 tense 的字形。」


這也是到目前為止,我希望在本系列為大家釐清的重點。日後我會繼續分享更多關於tense的其他主題!


___________

Tense #4: What about “consistency”?

After I sent out #1 - #3 of this newsletter series on tense, several students asked me about “consistency” in tense forms, especially for the different finite verbs in the clauses that make up the “same sentence.”


What they mean about “consistency” is that they were taught that the “tense forms in all the clauses making up a sentence have to be ‘consistent’,” as in, the same.

This, again, is thinking in a direction that is not helpful to really understanding what tense is, and is in keeping with what I explained earlier, that tense forms allow us to express meaning about reality. Our intended meaning is always the starting point.

Each tense (and aspect) form allows us to express a certain meaning (or meanings) about reality – for example, “simple present” allows us to express the meaning that the thing we are talking about is “generally true” in reality and is not a specific action.

In other words, fundamentally, what the tense form of the finite verb in each clause is depends on what the intended meaning is for that clause. 


Each clause expresses its own meaning about reality, and so, each clause would have the most appropriate finite verb form for that meaning.

The finite verb form in each clause is not “connected” to the finite verb forms in other clauses in the same sentence or narrative in some fundamental way – because what each respective form is depends on what meaning is intended for that particular clause.

For example: 

I saw him yesterday, and I will see him again tomorrow. 

(我昨天見到他,然後明天會再見到他)


This is a simple example sentence with two connected clauses.

In the first clause, the finite verb is “saw,” a past tense (and simple aspect) form. This is because the intended meaning is that this action took place and finished in the past.

In the second clause, “will see” has future tense (and simple aspect). This is because the intended meaning is that the action will take place in the future.

This is really all there is to it. The respective finite verb forms in these clauses respectively allow us to express the intended meanings in these clauses. 

If there were a fundamental constraint that says that the finite verb forms in connected clauses must be “consistent,” then it would mean that, in this instance, we would not be “allowed” to express the meaning “I saw him yesterday” and then “I will see him again tomorrow” – which of course makes no sense in a philosophical way.


But still, let me try to explain why you might have learnt before that the tense forms across different clauses in a sentence or narrative have to be “consistent.” 

This is actually just a simplistic way of saying, in a narrative about an event that requires multiple sentences (or even paragraphs, or entire books!) to tell, the tense forms of all the clauses would probably, in all likelihood, be quite “consistent,” if the entire narrative is about an event happening in the same time and space.

For example:

I saw him yesterday. He seemed happy. I only talked to him for two minutes, though, because he was busy and had to leave. 

All these clauses with finite verbs tell the “story” of “me seeing and talking to him yesterday.” They are all part of a narrative about the same event in time and space, so, naturally, they all have the same tense forms.

So, the main point is that, the correct way of thinking about this is not that “all the clauses next to each other or in the same sentence have to be ‘consistent’!” 

 

Rather, the correct way of thinking about it is:

Each clause should have the most appropriate tense form for its finite verb to express its intended meaning, whatever this form is. Sometimes, however, when many different clauses narrate the same event in time and space in conjunction with each other, the forms of their finite verbs naturally tend to be ‘consistent.’” 

This is the main point that this series on tense has tried to explain so far. I will write more about other topics related to tense going forward!


Comments

Popular Posts

及物與不及物動詞對:「Lay」vs.「Lie」(+其他例子)

有被動語態的動名詞組(Gerund Phrases): 「Being Chosen for a Flight Mission」 ✈️

比利時巧克力 - 「Belgian」Chocolate 🍫

2025 New Year's Resolutions?

你有「完善的計劃」(“Robust” Plan)來學習英文嗎?

No Doubt… 不容置疑(?)